 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007Pseudoscience?
I was just wondering if "pseudoscience" could aptly be applied to Ptolemaic Astronomy? Thanks Jeff > I was just wondering if "pseudoscience" could aptly be applied to > Ptolemaic Astronomy? Not by me. To me, a pseudoscience pretends to be science. But science didn't exist in those days, and Ptolemy was doing his honest best with the methods and according to the standards of his time (doing quite well, in fact). If you need a phrase for Ptolemaic astronomy, maybe "pre-scientific theory" would work, or "non-scientific" if the time is irrelevant.  SignatureJerry Friedman jerry friedman wrote: >> I was just wondering if "pseudoscience" could aptly be applied to >> Ptolemaic Astronomy? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >"pre-scientific theory" would work, or "non-scientific" if the time is >irrelevant. This is a bit severe. A pseudoscience according to the AHD is "a theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation." At the time of the ancients, the observable physical phenomena were explained by a theory. The fact that the theory fell apart when more data was available merely says that the theory was falsifiable. That sure sounds like science to me. Using that ancient theory in its day was science; using it today is pseudoscience. The answer is in the calendar. > jerry friedman wrote: > >> I was just wondering if "pseudoscience" could aptly be applied to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > This is a bit severe. Severe? I was saying that he wasn't scientific but not blaming him for failing to invent science over a thousand years early (as I understand it). > A pseudoscience according to the AHD is "a theory, > methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > like science to me. Using that ancient theory in its day was science; using it > today is pseudoscience. The answer is in the calendar. Though it was falsifiable, I'd say it was not scientific for two reasons. One is that Ptolemy based his theory on an /a priori/ statement made by Plato with what we would now consider purely esthetic justification, namely that the heavenly bodies should move uniformly in perfect circles. The other is that he wasn't concerned with Occam's Razor or minimizing free parameters: as earlier systems didn't match observations, he simply added a new feature, the equant. (According to Wikipedia, which I used to get the specifics of these two arguments, "By using an equant, Ptolemy claimed to keep motion which was uniform and circular, but many people did not like it because they did not think it was true to Plato's dictum of 'uniform circular motion.'" <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_system>) SignatureJerry Friedman >> jerry friedman wrote: >> >> I was just wondering if "pseudoscience" could aptly be applied to [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > justification, namely that the heavenly bodies should move uniformly in > perfect circles. On this criterion, Galileo wasn't a scientist. By the way, lacking a theory of Newtonian dynamics, what would you consider adequate justification for a theory of the motion of heavenly bodies? Oh, and the branch of philosophy called "esthetics" either didn't exist or at least lacked a name in Plato's time -- and for over 2000 years thereafter. Surely the theory of heavenly motion came about from a reasoned examination of the differnce between sublunary and superlunary observed phenomena, and a consideration of the nature of perfection. And of course, the predictions of Ptolemy's theory were extensively tested by observation. > The other is that he wasn't concerned with Occam's > Razor or minimizing free parameters: On this criterion, Copernicus wasn't a scientist. In general, it's very hard to draw a consistent line between science and non-science. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > >> jerry friedman wrote: > >> >> I was just wondering if "pseudoscience" could aptly be applied to [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > On this criterion, Galileo wasn't a scientist. How about a pioneer of science who didn't consistently follow what we now see as its methods? The Wikipedia article mentioned by Jeffrey Turner, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Philosophy>, says that science began with the writing of Robert Boyle's book /A Free Enquiry into the Vulgarly Received Notion of Nature/ in 1686, 42 years after Galileo's death. On the other hand, as if to illustrate Don Phillipson's criticism of "Wikipedia says", <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science> starts with pre-history. > By the way, lacking a theory of Newtonian dynamics, what would you consider > adequate justification for a theory of the motion of heavenly bodies? Agreement with observations, of course, which it had. But it would take more than that to make the theory scientific. It would have taken a consideration of what the assumptions were, what the empirical justification for each was, and what theories could compete if one used different assumptions, preferably with differing predictions that could test the theories. The last might have been pointless before the invention of the telescope (though a close study of the planets' changes in brightness might have been possible). Furthermore, the whole thing is a lot to ask of an individual researcher--scientists often support their own theories rather than look for a balanced view. But it wasn't science before that sort of thing was done or even desired. > Oh, and the branch of philosophy called "esthetics" either didn't exist or > at least lacked a name in Plato's time -- and for over 2000 years > thereafter. You noticed that I wrote "what we would now consider purely esthetic justification", right? I think you're supporting my point, which is that science didn't exist (it didn't just lack a name) until certain modern distinctions were made. > Surely the theory of heavenly motion came about from a > reasoned examination of the differnce between sublunary and superlunary > observed phenomena, and a consideration of the nature of perfection. Partly reasoned, or maybe apparently reasoned. It is by no means reasonable by modern standards to say that the circle is the only perfect shape and that constant speed is more perfect than regular oscillations of speed. Furthermore, Plato's conclusions ignored the obvious imperfections of the heavens by the kind of standards that prefer circles, such as the random positions, brightnesses, and colors of the stars and planets. Indeed it recognized that certain kinds of imperfections, namely the moon's markings and phases (supposedly due to corruption from the earth), were compatible with endless motion, a recognition that in science would have raised the question of what other imperfections were compatible with endless motion. Finally, Ptolemy's mechanism or kluge of trying to keep the perfection of constant speed by saying that the speed was arranged to /look/ constant from the equant--that should have been a sign that something was wrong. > And of course, the predictions of Ptolemy's theory were extensively tested > by observation. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > On this criterion, Copernicus wasn't a scientist. I'd certainly agree that he wasn't. He took an important step toward making astronomy a science, though, and (maybe just by luck) he found a good assumption to change. > In general, it's very hard to draw a consistent line between science and > non-science. I won't argue, but I think you can often say which side something was on, and I'd put ancient and medieval astronomy on the non-scientific side. SignatureJerry Friedman > > >> jerry friedman wrote: ... > The Wikipedia article mentioned by Jeffrey Turner, ... Sorry, Jeff Rose. SignatureJerry Friedman [ ... ] > Sorry, Jeff Rose. And Norman Fell. So? > [ ... ] > >> Sorry, Jeff Rose. > > And Norman Fell. So? My dad fell in the war and suffered a nasty bruise. SignatureSkitt Jes' fine The Skitt entity posted thusly: >> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >My dad fell in the war and suffered a nasty bruise. I knew a fellow named Hall, who fell into a spring in the fall. 'twould have been a sad thing if he'd died in the spring, but he didn't. He died in the fall. jerry friedman wrote: >> jerry friedman wrote: >> >> I was just wondering if "pseudoscience" could aptly be applied to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >failing to invent science over a thousand years early (as I understand >it). I thought it severe because you used "pre-scientific-theory" and "non-scientific." As I said later, the theories of the time could be called science. >> A pseudoscience according to the AHD is "a theory, >> methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >think it was true to Plato's dictum of 'uniform circular motion.'" ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_system>) Ok, we now know that the science was wrong; it may have even been bad; but wrong science and bad science is still science. It only becomes pseudoscience after it is known that it is wrong but still practiced. > I was just wondering if "pseudoscience" could aptly be applied to > Ptolemaic Astronomy? As Jerry and Murray have said, no if you mean astronomy as developed by Ptolemy. However, I would say yes if you mean the musings of present-day people who continue to base their ideas of astronomy on what Ptolemy said. I don't know if such people exist, but probably they do, as they would still be reasonably sane compared with some of the kooks out there. Now I come to think of it, there are indeed people (even people with PhD's and teaching in higher education: see http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/copernicanism.html) who say things like "Historians readily acknowledge that the Copernican Revolution [i.e., the idea that 'the earth moves and turns'] spawned the bloody French and Bolshevic revolutions... set the stage for the ancient Greek dogma of evolution...led to Marxism and Communism...", so maybe I should withdraw the bit about "reasonably sane". athel > I was just wondering if "pseudoscience" could aptly be applied to > Ptolemaic Astronomy? No. We sometimes need to differentiate mistakes in science (e.g. heliocentrism, phlogiston theory, inheritance of acquired characteristics) from bogus sciences (e.g. phrenology, creationism.) A common difference in history is that erroneous science (e.g. Ptolemaic astronomy) can be made to work reasonably well for centuries, while bogus sciences are promoted in order to serve some social purpose aside from the advance of knowledge (as phrenology was applied to social classes, criminals etc., and as creationism is used to promote Christian fundamentalism.) Phlogiston theory explained the chemical process of fire plausibly, and was developed strictly as a scientific explanation (of no relevance to politics or society): and phlogiston theory was generally abandoned as soon as the element oxygen was discovered (because oxidation provides a simpler and better explanation than phlogiston theory.) So phlogiston theory is erroneous chemistry but not pseudoscience: but Lombroso's physiognomy (that you can tell criminals from the look of their faces) was a bogus or pseudoscience. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) Thanks for the interesting discussion, which raises the distinction Wikipedia makes between Science and the Natural Philosophy that preceded it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy Based on this, my guess is that Ptolemaic Astronomy would be better called "protoscientific" than "pseudoscientific." Jeff >> I was just wondering if "pseudoscience" could aptly be applied to >> Ptolemaic Astronomy? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >(that you can tell criminals from the look of their faces) >was a bogus or pseudoscience. > Thanks for the interesting discussion, which raises the distinction > Wikipedia makes... This sentence embodies a misconception that one sees more and more often. "Wikipedia" as such does not make any distinctions, because it has no consistent editorial policy and no editor-in-chief worthy of the name. Stuff you read at Wikipedia is just stuff that one particular contributor has written. It makes no more sense to say "Wikipedia distinguishes ..." than it would to say "alt.usage.english distinguishes ...". athel The athel...@yahoo entity posted thusly: >> Thanks for the interesting discussion, which raises the distinction >> Wikipedia makes... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >distinguishes ..." than it would to say "alt.usage.english >distinguishes ...". Both Wiki and aue are, in effect, builders of consensus, with input from many folks. A recent study (no, I can't cite where I read it), showed Wiki to be surprisingly accurate in matters scientific. Comparisons were made on articles in Wiki and the Encyclopedia Britannica, and in articles of similar depth, Wiki had an average of 4 factual (verifiable) errors per article, while EB had an average of 4. Yes, there are serious concerns about Wiki entries that are matters of opinion, and some horrendous battles have been waged, but I suppose that's why the founder of Wikipedia is setting up a new (and separate) version with different editorial acceptance rules. >Yes, there are serious concerns about Wiki entries that are matters of >opinion, and some horrendous battles have been waged, but I suppose >that's why the founder of Wikipedia is setting up a new (and separate) >version with different editorial acceptance rules. For a profile of the type of person contributing to Wikipedia (in this case, WikiHow), see http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/seminole/orl-wiki0307jan03,0,1713318.story Altamonte Springs is right down the street, so to speak, from me. I'd never heard of WikiHow, but it can be found at: http://www.wikihow.com/Main-Page Someone more familiar with the concoction might see how accurate http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-New-York-Egg-Cream is. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > I'd never heard of WikiHow, but it can be found at: > http://www.wikihow.com/Main-Page That is *great*! Sara, have you seen this? http://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-Pirate-Girl Wikiversity is an interesting development, too. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >Someone more familiar with the >concoction might see how accurate >http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-New-York-Egg-Cream is. It is indeed accurate, even down to the brand of chocolate syrup that NY candy stores used to make egg-creams; i.e, if you didn't use Fox's U-Bet it just wasn't a real egg cream. http://www.foxs-syrups.com/egg_cream.html Jeff > The athel...@yahoo entity posted thusly: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Both Wiki and aue are, in effect, builders of consensus, with input > from many folks. With the important difference that a.u.e. comprises individual opinions, whereas Wikipedia articles have often been read and not violently objected to by somebody, and sometimes reflect thorough attempts to build consensus or show differences of opinion fairly. It's fairer to say "Wikipedia distinguishes..." than to say "a.u.e. distinguishes", though it's still a figure of speech (which I too used in this thread). > A recent study (no, I can't cite where I read it), showed Wiki to be > surprisingly accurate in matters scientific. Comparisons were made on > articles in Wiki and the Encyclopedia Britannica, and in articles of > similar depth, Wiki had an average of 4 factual (verifiable) errors > per article, while EB had an average of 4. 4 for Wikipedia to 3 to EB. The study was in /Nature/. You can read a news story about it at <http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf>, with a link to Brittanica's angry rebuttal at <http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2152666/britannica-snaps-wikipedia>. (They said most of the errors were on the part of /Nature/'s reviewers.) > Yes, there are serious concerns about Wiki entries that are matters of > opinion, and some horrendous battles have been waged, but I suppose > that's why the founder of Wikipedia is setting up a new (and separate) > version with different editorial acceptance rules. One of the founders. I predict the Citizendium <http://www.citizendium.org/>, due to launch soon, is not going to get anywhere. SignatureJerry Friedman >> Thanks for the interesting discussion, which raises the distinction >> Wikipedia makes... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >athel Based on the drivel you wrote here, i'd have to say that you were projecting the very misconception you distinguished. Jeff >> I was just wondering if "pseudoscience" could aptly be applied to >> Ptolemaic Astronomy? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > was applied to social classes, criminals etc., and as > creationism is used to promote Christian fundamentalism.) What about falsification of evidence to fit the theory? Ptolemaic model required many adjustments and modifications even for simple observations, and it was claimed many times (ibn Yunis, 1008; Delambre, 1817, 1819; R.R.Newton, 2000) that Ptolemy fabricated or "fixed" at least those observations that he claimed to perform himself, to better fit his theory. In some cases the errors are glaring, like "observing" the Moon in one part of the sky when it was in completely other place, or even not visible at all. In my opinion, when author "fixes" or "selects" or boldfacedly fabricates his results to fit his pet theory instead of trying to find a way to adapt the theory to the facts, it's a full-fledged pseudoscience. SignatureAlec St.Petersburg, Russia [30E18 59N56] > In my opinion, when author "fixes" or "selects" or boldfacedly > fabricates his results to fit his pet theory instead of trying to find > a way to adapt the theory to the facts, it's a full-fledged > pseudoscience. Sounds like politics to me. SignatureRob Bannister >I was just wondering if "pseudoscience" could aptly be applied to >Ptolemaic Astronomy? Probably not. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >I was just wondering if "pseudoscience" could aptly be applied to >Ptolemaic Astronomy? Probably not. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.