Pseudoscience... Why I Hate the Term

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I'd define science as theoretical knowledge and understanding, either in it's own right or, when combined with another word, the theoretical knowledge and understanding behind that topic.

As a math major, I was required to take two computer science courses. In the first one, I was taught that computer science is a strange amalgam of mathematics, science and engineering but it wasn't really any of them. I like to analogize it to subatomic particles. They have properties of both waves and particles but they're neither waves nor particles...

I'd differentiate Computer Science and Computer Engineering as theoretical knowledge and understanding behind computers versus practical applications of such science.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

I'd define science as theoretical knowledge and understanding, either in it's own right or, when combined with another word, the theoretical knowledge and understanding behind that topic.

Again, isn't Christian Science theoretical knowledge and understanding? I guess that makes it science too! ...or your definition is too vague...

As a math major, I was required to take two computer science courses. In the first one, I was taught that computer science is a strange amalgam of mathematics, science and engineering but it wasn't really any of them. I like to analogize it to subatomic particles. They have properties of both waves and particles but they're neither waves nor particles...

I'd differentiate Computer Science and Computer Engineering as theoretical knowledge and understanding behind computers versus practical applications of such science.

Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.

While I can agree that computer engineering is about building computers, computer science is about computation. To put this all into perspective, computers used to be people who did computation since, at the time, nothing else could. However, with the advent of the digital computer, proper computers quickly became obsolete. Because no one ever employs computers anymore, it made little sense to keep referring to "digital computers" and now we simply call them "computers..." just like how the word "torch" now refers to what Americans call a "flashlight." Ever since the invention of the electric torch, no one ever uses proper torches anymore so we now only ever refer to electric torches as "torches..."

The real point is that computer science existed before the digital computer since we've had computers long before that...

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

My very last post tonight (or this morning)!

I'd define science as theoretical knowledge and understanding, either in it's own right or, when combined with another word, the theoretical knowledge and understanding behind that topic.

Again, isn't Christian Science theoretical knowledge and understanding? I guess that makes it science too! ...or your definition is too vague...

I took it for granted that we'd not count such things as "science", in it's proper context - otherwise, "pseudo-science" is ... !!

Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.

While I can agree that computer engineering is about building computers, computer science is about computation. To put this all into perspective, computers used to be people who did computation since, at the time, nothing else could. However, with the advent of the digital computer, proper computers quickly became obsolete. Because no one ever employs computers anymore, it made little sense to keep referring to "digital computers" and now we simply call them "computers..." just like how the word "torch" now refers to what Americans call a "flashlight." Ever since the invention of the electric torch, no one ever uses proper torches anymore so we now only ever refer to electric torches as "torches..."

The real point is that computer science existed before the digital computer since we've had computers long before that...

Of course, if one takes it literally - people indeed have been called such. My use of the term is strictly in the modern sense.

Computer science also includes aspects of design - not just computation.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Unwardil]

Quick snarky reply but, the reason things like Intelligent design refered to as Psudoscience is because creationists get offended when you call it 'Bullshit'.

 

[stratos]

You know.
You know what I do when I want to know what a word means, I look in a fucking dictionary*, that's what. **

sciâ‹…ence
  -noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Gee, I guess it can be used in quite a few contexts, certainly not specifically referring to the scientific method.

I really don't see why people keep bickering (not only here) about certain disciplines being referred to as science just because the person bickering doesn't deem them scientific. It's silly, non-constructive and shows a certain lack of reality; A reality in which the meaning of words might not just contain one meaning or one precise meaning.


* although I got this quote from dictionary.com which is sometimes perceived as a piece of crap dictionary because (as far as I know) it is based on outdated data, but I think it will suffice for this.

** interestingly enough this first bit could also be a reply to the original poster. However, that is not the case in this instance.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

You know.
You know what I do when I want to know what a word means, I look in a fucking dictionary*, that's what. **

sciâ‹…ence
  -noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Gee, I guess it can be used in quite a few contexts, certainly not specifically referring to the scientific method.

I really don't see why people keep bickering (not only here) about certain disciplines being referred to as science just because the person bickering doesn't deem them scientific. It's silly, non-constructive and shows a certain lack of reality; A reality in which the meaning of words might not just contain one meaning or one precise meaning.


* although I got this quote from dictionary.com which is sometimes perceived as a piece of crap dictionary because (as far as I know) it is based on outdated data, but I think it will suffice for this.

** interestingly enough this first bit could also be a reply to the original poster. However, that is not the case in this instance.

Without intent to insult, this is a rather juvenile argument. There are two main problems with it:

Firstly, English dicitonaries are descriptive and not prescriptive. That means that they are not necessarily correct, updated or comprehensive although they, of course, try hard to be all these things...

Secondly and more relevently, they cover colloquial meanings rather than specific jargon or lexicon. So they will list how general people will understand the word but not specific expert meanings of said word. They are meant for a general rather than specific audience. You can see this from your dictionaries' use of "systematic knowledge." What system is that? Any system?

So, it comes down to which meaning of science you prefer to use; the colloquial meaning or the scientific one...

Finally, the reason why people "bicker" over such things is probably because they find it fun to do so. Another reason why people might bicker over what constitutes science is because calling certain things science gives them an unwarranted claim over reality. For instance, would you like to see young earth creationism taught in schools? If it's science then why wouldn't it? ...or astrology? ...or homeopathy? None of these things are science yet there are people who would love nothing more than to get them recognized as such.

I find having a way to distinguish science from pseudoscience constructive. I'm sorry that you don't...

 

[stratos]

Without intent to insult, this is a rather juvenile argument. There are two main problems with it:

Firstly, English dicitonaries are descriptive and not prescriptive. That means that they are not necessarily correct, updated or comprehensive although they, of course, try hard to be all these things...

I've never seen a dictionary that claimed they were the source of what words meant. People who create dictionaries are pretty well aware about what they are doing. They are, as you point out, recording the usage of a word and the meaning that people give that word.
I however find it puzzling that you say that the meaning of a word in a dictionary can be incorrect. afaik, people who create dictionaries don't add words or add definitions willy nilly, there has to be proof, and ample proof of usage, both in literature and/or in popular media.

I'm pretty sure if I would look up the word "hacker" it would list a meaning of a computer criminal or something to that extent. Which from historical usage is incorrect. But because of modern usage in literature and the media this has become yet another definition for the word. Quite possibly even the predominant definition.

Secondly and more relevently, they cover colloquial meanings rather than specific jargon or lexicon. So they will list how general people will understand the word but not specific expert meanings of said word. They are meant for a general rather than specific audience. You can see this from your dictionaries' use of "systematic knowledge." What system is that? Any system?

So, it comes down to which meaning of science you prefer to use; the colloquial meaning or the scientific one...

That's the entire point. There is no single meaning for the word, You could argue about what it originally meant or how it is most used today, but both are equally valid. There is no one defining definition. Yes in a appropriate jargon it might have a very specific meaning, but stating that since it has a very specific meaning in jargon other people should not be allowed to use it otherwise is just fool hearty. In an more extreme case it would be like saying people should stop using the term "gay" for homo's because that's not what the term originally meant. Well pity the people who got named gaylord, but that's just not the way language works.

Finally, the reason why people "bicker" over such things is probably because they find it fun to do so. Another reason why people might bicker over what constitutes science is because calling certain things science gives them an unwarranted claim over reality. For instance, would you like to see young earth creationism taught in schools? If it's science then why wouldn't it? ...or astrology? ...or homeopathy? None of these things are science yet there are people who would love nothing more than to get them recognized as such.

I find having a way to distinguish science from pseudoscience constructive. I'm sorry that you don't...

The bad thing in that example would be that people who don't understand the difference between young earth creationism's science and real science are making that decision. Address the problem I say, not the symptom. Again in an overdrawn example, if people start putting their money in their living room bank because they don't understand that it's different from a financial bank, the problem isn't that we have one word with multiple meanings.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

I've never seen a dictionary that claimed they were the source of what words meant. People who create dictionaries are pretty well aware about what they are doing. They are, as you point out, recording the usage of a word and the meaning that people give that word.
I however find it puzzling that you say that the meaning of a word in a dictionary can be incorrect. afaik, people who create dictionaries don't add words or add definitions willy nilly, there has to be proof, and ample proof of usage, both in literature and/or in popular media.

Perhaps "incorrect" is overstating it. I was thinking of cases where modern usage out paces some edition of a dictionary...

That's the entire point. There is no single meaning for the word, You could argue about what it originally meant or how it is most used today, but both are equally valid. There is no one defining definition. Yes in a appropriate jargon it might have a very specific meaning, but stating that since it has a very specific meaning in jargon other people should not be allowed to use it otherwise is just fool hearty. In an more extreme case it would be like saying people should stop using the term "gay" for homo's because that's not what the term originally meant. Well pity the people who got named gaylord, but that's just not the way language works.

A word may have more than one definition but it (generally) only has one meaning when used in a sentence in context. When we say that physics is a science, do we mean the same thing by "science" as the people who say that young earth creationism is a science? I would say yes and so would young earth creationists. However, I would also say that that statement is wrong and that creationism is really pseudoscience.

Of course, to show the creationists that what they believe is not science, we need a rather stringent definition of the word to distinguish it from... pseudoscience...

Finally, the reason why people "bicker" over such things is probably because they find it fun to do so. Another reason why people might bicker over what constitutes science is because calling certain things science gives them an unwarranted claim over reality. For instance, would you like to see young earth creationism taught in schools? If it's science then why wouldn't it? ...or astrology? ...or homeopathy? None of these things are science yet there are people who would love nothing more than to get them recognized as such.

I find having a way to distinguish science from pseudoscience constructive. I'm sorry that you don't...

The bad thing in that example would be that people who don't understand the difference between young earth creationism's science and real science are making that decision. Address the problem I say, not the symptom. Again in an overdrawn example, if people start putting their money in their living room bank because they don't understand that it's different from a financial bank, the problem isn't that we have one word with multiple meanings.

I agree that the problem in your example is not that one word can have multiple meanings. That's not what we're discussing. A better example is if people were throwing their money in their furnaces thinking that it was a bank. A bank is not just some place that you can throw your money in!

 

[stratos]

The bank thing is actually a mayor mayor fail on my part. In dutch "Bank" is a word that means both the financial kind as well as a sofa. For some reason the fact that bank doesn't mean sofa in english did not occur to me while writing that reply. I plea sleep deprivation as a cause.

But anyway, I don't claim that creationists calling young earth creationism a science is correct. I am simply claiming that the word science is not limited in meaning to exact science.

 

[Jotto999]

So...the objection to the word is the risk of people skewing it because it has "science" in it, thus implying credibility to anything called seudoscience? That some people could use manipulative arguments or imply things that the word does not? That seems silly to me.

How is it different from "happy" and "unhappy"? Or "atrophy" and "hypertrophy", or any other combined words?

I don't see what's wrong with the term.