User:Ssscienccce/miscell

Skeptics and pseudoscience

 * I sometimes think there's not much difference between skeptics and people believing fringe theories. Both are selective in the facts they report, omitting information that could be used by their opponents.
 * Being a skeptic is easy when it comes to pseudoscience and crazy beliefs; it doesn't take a genius to recognise crap. To recognise bad science on the other hand, you have to read the actual studies, evaluate the methodology, the appropriateness of the statistical model used, and most importantly: not accept claims based on authority alone.


 * The "skeptic reflex" toward anything sounding like pseudoscience makes some skeptics mere believers in the truth, only difference with fringe elements is that their belief has more followers. The uncritical repeating of "arguments", even when these arguments are logically false; one example: "mobile phones can't cause cancer because the radiation they give out is non-ionising!". I'm not saying mobile phones cause cancer, or mobile phones emit ionising radiation, or even that electromagnetic emissions from phones are dangerous in any way. The problem with the blanket statement above is the logical implication: that ionising radiation is the only cause of cancer. It's the kind of generalisation that gets labelled unscientific when made by pseudoscience proponents. In my view it's much worse when people defending science make such statements. Yet it happens all the time: pro-science claims are often accepted without scrutiny.
 * When dealing with politically correct topics, the double standards are sometimes obvious:
 * Formaldehyde is identified as one of the carcinogens in tobacco smoke. Mentioned in Tobacco packaging warning messages, List of cigarette smoke carcinogens, Tobacco: The harmful effects of tobacco derive from the thousands of different compounds generated in the smoke, including .. formaldehyde,, Sidestream smoke..
 * When it comes to aspartame, an artificial sweetener, we learn that it breaks down into "natural residual components", among others methanol, which is metabolised to formaldehyde. No mention of it being carcinogenic (although one of the references has the word in the title of the document), instead we get comparisons with fruit: "In some fruit juices, higher concentrations of methanol can be found than the amount produced from aspartame in beverages." You won't find that comparison in tobacco articles.


 * The past cannot be changed, history is what it is, you're not writing wikipedia to educate the ancient Greeks and Romans, there's no need to trivialise the role astrology played in the lives of many scientists and in the development of astronomy. If it wasn't for their mistaken believes, we would not have the wealth of data from astronomical observations. It's imo doubtful that skeptics will convince anyone who believes in astrology, ghosts, UFOs, levitation, fortune telling etc. Mostly, skeptics are preaching to the choir, being heard mainly by those who already were "skeptic-minded". And apparently heroes of science can not have flaws.
 * The only sentence about astrology in the Galileo article is: "His multiple interests included the study of astrology, which at the time was a discipline tied to the studies of mathematics and astronomy." No mention of the astrological charts he made for himself and for his daughter, despite the fact that these seem to be the only source for his date of birth. Thankfully some scientists don't mind the tainted source: SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
 * Creationists don't want to be descended from apes. Do skeptics feel the same about astrologists?


 * Mythbusters is not science. Investigating rare events by doing a few experiments is a flawed methodology. Negative results prove nothing, if it would be easy to replicate such an event, it would not be rare. Every "busted" conclusion is merely an indication, not scientific proof. Imagine them testing the theory that a piece of foam had caused the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, or a frozen o-ring causing the Challenger disaster.


 * One of the good things about pseudoscience is: you can learn a lot from their papers and publications. Examples of logical errors, misunderstanding scientific theories and basic laws of physics, or deliberately avoiding and ignoring obvious alternatives. The paper about nano-thermite and 9/11 was a great example of bad science. First deciding, based on a few experiments with paint chips, that the properties of the "nano-thermite" differed from paint, and only then analysing the composition. By performing the tests in that order, instead of looking for paints based upon the composition found, they avoid having to consider the most widely used primers and coatings for construction steel: red oxide primers and aluminum finish.