NOTE: The following message was returned to me. I am assuming that none
of you received it, so I am sending it out again. Many apologies if I am
wrong in my inference.
Michael Kane wrote:
**I was really making a subtley different point about falsifiability
**and pseudoscience. I wasn't claiming specifically that
**pseudoscientists often ignore or try to explain away
**counter-evidence (although they typically do), but rather they
**formulate theories
**or claims that CANNOT BE FALSIFIED
**AT ALL, by any conceivable data. That is, pseudoscientific
**claims are not testable.
Yes, I see. My quick response would be this: it seems to me that not all
theories that we might consider to be pseudoscientific contain
unfalsifiable claims such as these. The first thing that comes to my
mind is astrology. From what I have read (especially in periodicals such
as Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer), these claims can be falsified and
have been; but astrologers have simply explained away these results or
ignored them completely. Thus, I would say that, if someone makes an
unfalsifiable claim, and especially if this claim is a central one for
their approach, then this would definitely characterize the approach as
pseudoscientific. I suspect, however, that not everything we might label
as pseudoscientific could be identified in this way.
Jeff
--
Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D. Office Phone: (480) 423-6213
9000 E. Chaparral Rd. FAX Number: (480) 423-6298
Psychology Department [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626
"The truth is rare and never simple."
Oscar Wilde
"Science must begin with myths and with the criticism of myths"
Karl Popper
