[-empyre-] psuedoscience

roof12 at comcast.net roof12 at comcast.net
Sun Oct 21 01:01:03 EST 2007


Pseudoscience in the sense that in the cases I mention, causality of any kind has been evacuated in favor of immediacy and magic.  As for definitions of science.  i would suggest that there are several plausible and operational ones.


 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "sdv at krokodile.co.uk" <sdv at krokodile.co.uk>
> Judith/all
> In the reading of the text one of the issues which constructs a strange 
> difference, a redefinition of an established concept is the use of the 
> term 'psuedoscience'. One of the clearer redefinitions is close to the 
> end "...the psuedoscientific erasure of this systematic complexity..." 
> What is psuedoscience ?
> The point is that Judith's book has an unsatisfactory definition of 
> science, the scientific method is defined through Foucault whose 
> understanding is constructed to enable an attack on human 'sciences' 
> (quotes are Foucaults). Perhaps this is because of the refusal of 
> evidence and empiricism which does prevent the reading of the concept in 
> the normal sense of scientists such as Dawkins whilst at the same time 
> trying to occupy similar spaces through the references to cultural 
> phantasies like magic.
> An understanding closer to Nancy Cartwright who argues "I am in favour 
> of causes and opposed to laws" which places the emphasis on causal 
> claims rather than explanatory laws. Which would have removed the 
> necessity to construct a difference between science and psuedoscience in 
> terms of metaphor etc... So why psuedoscience - when science as 
> Cartwright explains, can accept that fundmental explanatory laws, which 
> are the most remarkable successes of modern science do not in fact 
> describe the real.
> why psuedoscience ?
> best
> steve
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre

More information about the empyre mailing list