How To Spot Pseudoscience | Massimo Pigliucci

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

What do you think of this talk? Leave a comment below You can watch this talk, How to Spot Pseudoscience, in full at iai.tv/video/how-to-spot-pseudoscience?KZbin&

[@johnnyb6049]

String "Theory"? Without any Empirical Evidence it is NOT a Theory, it is an Hypothesis.

[@alphalunamare]

It's a load of shyte anyway :-)

[@neolam9208]

Actually it has evidence against string theory, no SUSY is found at LHC. So, it’s kind of a “failed” theory. Of course string theorists refuse to accept the failure and hope larger LHC (maybe eventually as large as a galaxy) can find the SUSY.

[@bcddd214]

Science is useful and reproducible. Pseudoscience is not. Newton simplified the issue 350 years ago. "Test it yourself" ~ Sir Issac Newton

[@degrelleholt6314]

I appreciate his original point, but as soon as he showed his chart of science/pseudoscience and said, essentially, in his view or opinion, I got turned off. He wants his audience to adopt his thinking. He said as much in the beginning when he stated that his intetests were good enough reason for tax funding.

[@jex-the-notebook-guy1002]

Degrelle Holt yep. he made fun of God. Not sure how you convince people to test science in religion. You can't. What you can do is see if said religion has truth. take for instance prophecy's it's blatently obvious that fuffilled prophecies were written before they happen. But what's the science approach of predicting the future with 100% results? "coincidence" that's an excuse. See God is abstract and science is concrete.

[@blaisecompton5636]

How do wr spot pseudo-philosophy, then?

[@WestOfEarth]

Two scientists of differing areas of expertise can nonetheless validate another's work as long as there is trust that the scientific method was followed. Conversely it is sometimes possible for scientists of differing expertise to point out mistakes in methodology even if the science is foreign. Economics for example is often rife with testing biases.

[@kooros100]

Prediction is the job of fortune tellers, responsibility of scientists is to explain the phenomena. Quantum physics is not explaining anything, only making predictions. Experiment without explanation is miter reading not science.

[@asimpleenigma]

This man is a pseudo-philosopher! The lecture is supposedly about epistemology, yet he confidently makes broad claims about a variety of fields of inquiry. He admits that the problem of experts as been a problem for thousands of years, but then ignores the deep philosophical nature of the problem and acts like he's solved it. He says nothing novel or thoughtful on these topics; he repeats the same things institutions have told us our whole lives: "Trust institutions."

[@strangeworld5773]

What a fine example of pseudoscience Mr. Pigliucci is!

[@sciencetroll6304]

If it says ' Big bang ' or quantum or it comes from an ' Institute. ' There, that's my day's Trolling all done.

[@timothystanley7822]

Wonderful, funny and informative. Should be force fed to all pseudscientists

[@robertberger8981]

Very good

[@giuseppevianello9288]

Very interesting presentation. Thanks

[@gk2677]

Disappointing. Started with astrology,promised something interesting in the middle and ended up with attacking some crazy celeb. And Intelligent Design specifically doesn't say " God did it", he confused it with creationism. The diagram of empirical knowledge vs theoretical understanding might be useful though

[@bat2293]

I consider the 30 minutes watching this well spent. For those of you pressed for time... skip to 20:10.

[@indio007]

I looked for the word trust in the scientific method. I couldn't find it. I also looked up appeal to credentials. I didn't find that either. I found out it was a logical fallacy. Who would have though there are modern philosophers openly using logical fallacies? Unbelievable.

[@TheMIKA900]

Good comedian. Poorly informed on many of the issues in his presentation. Unless it lasted longer than the 30 minutes of this video don't waste your time watching. You'll learn nothing and laugh a little.

[@johnnowakowski4062]

Luckily there are no standards for inferring that one is a "philosopher". All ID states is that empirical evidence tells us that the physical world demonstrates "intelligent" processes, where if this were not so, then science being an "intelligent" process itself would not exist...

[@brendanh8193]

So what about the case of cold fusion? It is considered by many to be the classic case of pseudoscience, and yet it ticks every box in your test.

[@venugopalmuthiyal]

Excellent lecture

[@LFC303606ACID]

This is great stuff. Only one complaint, the talk was too short!

[@tinkmarshino]

I love these people that say that a GOD based idea is not scientific.. when they obviously have never read the bible. If these these folk whom they believe themselves super smart would look they might find a bit of a surprise, for instance science say everything came from ooze in the ocean? well if you look at the bible in Genesis 1:20 God said let the waters bring forth the creatures that have life (it says more about it but you can look it up) Also science say that in the beginning there was one land mass and if you look in the bible again in Genesis chapter 1 verses 9 & 10 You see the same thing God call all the water into one place and all the land into one place.. Now I my self believe in God but I am not trying to convince you there is one.. that is your business. What I am doing is wondering aloud is why these scientist have not even read the very first chapter in the bible but just reject it out of had.. We trust these fellas to tell us the truth and whether or not you believe the bible it say the same thing that science has found out years before there even was science.. That has to count for something don't you think? Written by man or GOD it tells us about the ooze from the ocean and the single land mass centuries before our science told us.

[@dreamdiction]

12:35 Wow this guy is so full of it

[@sciencetroll6304]

Oops . . . 1st ?