[-empyre-] psuedoscience

["sdv@krokodile.co.uk" <sdv@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