[Home]History of Pseudoscience/Talk

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences

Revision 31 . . December 15, 2001 7:14 am by Lee Daniel Crocker
Revision 30 . . (edit) December 15, 2001 7:11 am by Sodium
Revision 29 . . December 15, 2001 7:09 am by Sodium
Revision 28 . . December 15, 2001 6:58 am by Ed Poor [LDC, sodium]
Revision 27 . . December 15, 2001 6:50 am by Sodium
Revision 26 . . December 15, 2001 6:47 am by Lee Daniel Crocker
Revision 25 . . (edit) December 12, 2001 6:33 am by (logged).64.58.xxx
Revision 24 . . (edit) November 3, 2001 8:55 pm by (logged).191.188.xxx
  

Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Added: 65a66,68



You're right, though, that it's hard to distinguish sometimes. And that's for good reason: there isn't much to distinguish them except intent. "Protoscience" is often conjecture that can't be tested yet because of lack of technology or resources, or things currently undergoing testing, but that its proponents fully admit is speculative and intend to reject if those tests fail. Pseudoscience generally avoids testing, or uses bad tests, or uses techniques of rhetoric to support its contention with no intention to ever discard the theories for any reason. An experimental drug, for example, is a protoscience if its makers are currently undergoing good double-blind studies to determine if it works. An herbal remedy that is sold with testimonials (which are known to be invalid evidence) and which its sellers avoid doing good controlled studies on is pseudoscience. --LDC

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences
Search: