Philosophical Vegan Forum

Pseudoscience, false science- a general category of beliefs that looks and feels like science to the lay reader, but in fact is a perversion of science, stealing the terminology without the methodology, and with a few minor grains of truth inserted into speculation and fabrication to give itself a deceptive sense of credibility in the eyes of the general public.

People know what to expect from religion. For the most part, it's about magic - the supernatural - and the most honest theists will make no claims to any scientific expertise or basis. The most honest theists will simply say they feel it, and have faith, but don't know and can't convince anybody else because it's based on subjective personal experience.

While Gould's original concept of Non-overlapping Magisteria may be flawed (particularly where it misses the importance of philosophy), and not respected in practice by many religious trends, a person could be forgiven for accepting it, and mentally partitioning objective knowledge about the world, and subjective feelings about religious or metaphysical personal 'truths' that don't reflect a shared reality.

Modern people are beginning to understand that religion is a matter of faith, not fact, and that making assertions about their religious beliefs in the public sphere will land them in hot water on maters they can't substantiate.

They understand no such thing about pseudoscience, and its prevalence is like a cancer on human knowledge, growing and eating away at public confidence in science with its pervasive myths of human ignorance, and growing body of misinformation.
It's infecting healthcare (homeopathy, anti-vaccination), ethics (plant rights), and even politics.
And because it pretends to be science, and people don't have enough knowledge of actual science to tell the difference, it's increasingly difficult to fight against it. And even more so, because of journalistic bias, where two "sides" of an issue are given equal time (even if one side has no credibility at all -- free publicity all the same), and the capitalistic drive to grab headlines with the sensational claims pseudoscience provides in spades.

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”

This is no more true than in the case of pseudoscience vs. science. Science is handicapped in the media by rigorous methodology and conservative claims. There are rarely any great sensational advances in science to the public's eye. Real surprises in science are phenomenally rare. But Pseudoscience breaks all the rules, and delivers whatever the public is clamoring for with the biggest and loudest sensational claims, without the inconvenience of rigor or professional ethics.


So, you may ask me, "Why are you so friendly to religious people, but so hostile to people who believe in science that you just don't agree with?"

Because it's not science. It's pseudoscience. And it's less honest, more ignorant, more arrogant, and more dangerous to the state of human knowledge than religion is today.

"But how can it be arrogant? Unlike religion, they admit that they don't know!"

Ignorance is no crime, and if it were but them saying THEY don't know, that could be fine. But they don't stop there.
They go further to assert that I don't know, because of their own ignorance.
And further still, and more arrogantly, they assert that science doesn't know, out of their own ignorance.

Which is made ever more insulting because of the severity of their scientific ignorance. They don't know what science knows and doesn't know, and they have no place to claim to.

In response they parrot the same tired myth of how science is always changing, and tomorrow everything could be different, which is the fundamental dogma of pseudoscience; call everything else into question, and undermine the whole of centuries of scientific knowledge and achievement, and then maybe your own lack of rigor can slip by unnoticed.

It's a view that is fundamentally hostile to real knowledge of any kind, except the kind they want you to accept, which is the height of both arrogance and closed-mindedness.

Will you give me some examples of pseudoscience?
What are your feeling's on the HPV vaccine?

PrincessPeach wrote:Will you give me some examples of pseudoscience?

RationalWiki has a partial list:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_pseudosciences

Those are things that have been pseudoscientific at points; although some of the things on that list may have more legitimate application as well (less-scientific application, normally)

E.g. Meditation is perfectly valid for relaxation. Less so for curing cancer or gaining super powers

That list doesn't mention:

Plant Psychology/Plant Intelligence, which is at the extreme end of pseudoscience. Skepdic goes into it, but they don't have an easy to read list that I can find.
It may be too fringe to have ended up on most radars (As vegans, we heard that one all of the time, but most people probably never notice it)

Along with:

Electric Sun
Hollow Earth
Flat Earth
Climate change denial
And many others.

The list on Wikipedia is a little longer, but maybe more controversial in some respects:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_to ... udoscience

Again, some of those things have legit uses, but they're taken to extremes to become pseudosciences.

It mentions flat and hollow Earth, but not Electric Sun or Plant Psychology.

They all mention Homeopathy/water memory.

Electric sun might be less popular than I thought it was.

PrincessPeach wrote:What are your feeling's on the HPV vaccine?

I don't advocate unsafe sex (Protection!), but if you're going to have unsafe sex, it could save your life.

I think the HPV vaccine is more controversial politically, because fundamentalists worry it will encourage their children to have sex. Kids are kids, they're going to have sex either way, no matter how dangerous it is. Would they rather their daughters get cervical cancer?

I'm generally pro eradicating diseases, but if somebody is really going to be celibate, then there's probably no reason to get the vaccine.

The hpv virus is contracted through skin to skin contact, although sexual contact is probably the best way of contracting the virus...
There are over 100 different strands of the HPV virus, many will show up as a false positive on paps..
Is it really something to be worried about?

PrincessPeach wrote:The hpv virus is contracted through skin to skin contact, although sexual contact is probably the best way of contracting the virus...

Well, with viruses like these, contraction can actually be quite local (like Herpes as well). You can have it on one part of your body where it takes over, and nowhere else. Some also specialize for a particular part of the body or cell type.

The genital and anal regions are the most sensitive to contracting cancer from these viruses (and particular types are the most carcinogenic). The cervix is the most prone to contracting cancer from these viruses, and a couple viruses in particular account for most of these cancers.

It's those couple strains that the HPV vaccine is effective against, and it prevents you from contracting them, and thus prevents the cancer they cause.

PrincessPeach wrote:There are over 100 different strands of the HPV virus, many will show up as a false positive on paps..

Some of which are prone to cause cancer, others not so much. It's because there are so many strains, and it's so hard to detect if somebody has the dangerous ones, that it's so important to protect against them. If we had better detection - like we do now for AIDS - it may be easier to control the virus by other means. At it stands now, it's a stealthy killer.

PrincessPeach wrote:Is it really something to be worried about?

I think so. The cost of a shot is a relatively small price to pay in the war against HPV.

That said, even if we eliminate it, new forms will evolve to take their place. You can never really beat viruses for good; all you can do is keep them suppressed, and limit their damage.

The only lasting and sure solution is safer sexual practices- which, by preventing ANY viruses from easily spreading in such sensitive regions, can limit their ability to spread and evolve.

Do you know what atypical squamous cells are?
Could a pap test positive for these cells from another form of the hpv infection not the one that causes cancer?
Does the HPV test, test for all the different types of hpv?
& If one is +positive for hpv is there a need to get vaccinated ?


Oh and about the plant psychology thing, IMO it must be a delusional moral defense that some people use make them feel better in comparison when they kill/buy dead sentient beings... Even if that were to be so (killing non sentient beings worse than sentient) shouldn't that make one have more respect for all living beings regardless of sentience ? I've heard that one too many times, I can cut a head of a chicken but pulling those beets out of the ground, man they didn't want to come out they were screaming for help! ....? A chicken running around with blood squirting out of where it's head once was, that is less traumatizing than pulling vegetables out of the ground, & ohh fruit is okay...? That is what I don't get vegetables have feelings but fruit's do not? Have you ever heard that one?!

PrincessPeach wrote: Could a pap test positive for these cells from another form of the hpv infection not the one that causes cancer?
Does the HPV test, test for all the different types of hpv?

Tests are made to try to narrow down the types, and only return a positive for the cancer causing strains where possible.
A false positive is unlikely.

You'd have to get the details on the test to look up what it tests for exactly, but if it's positive, it probably means a high risk strain.

Combined with anything but a normal pap result, that requires intervention.
If pap result is normal, then it's possible to wait and see if it will go away (sometimes your immune system can take care of it, but this usually only occurs under 30). With abnormal or inconclusive pap results, that means the HPV has already persisted for a long time to cause the growths.

PrincessPeach wrote: & If one is +positive for hpv is there a need to get vaccinated ?

Yes, because there are many strains, and it could protect against additional infection. The vaccines work for a few strains.

Although it's unlikely to help with any strains one currently has.

For that, medical intervention is necessary. Prognosis is very good with regular intervention to remove precancerous growths. Although it's a terrible chore, it's important.

PrincessPeach wrote: Oh and about the plant psychology thing, IMO it must be a delusional moral defense that some people use make them feel better in comparison when they kill/buy dead sentient beings...

Yes, it seems so. All pseudosciences are ultimately delusions, and it's usually pretty easy to trace the motivation for the delusion- e.g. proving a religion, justifying immoral behavior, making money, providing false hope in untreatable illness.

PrincessPeach wrote:That is what I don't get vegetables have feelings but fruit's do not? Have you ever heard that one?!

Fruitarians consider fruits as "given" by the plant. Since they are fruiting bodies that would naturally fall off, as opposed to a part of the plant that has to be cut off.

Pseudoscience may be bad but is it worse than religion? Religion is not just a theoretical debate. It is an organized set of people who condemn others who believe otherwise. Pseudoscience can be a personal opinion and people do not inherit it as the religious ones do. It is not necessary that the child of a Pseudoscience believer should follow the same path. While in the case of religions, people force their ideology on their children more often. Also, much of the Pseudoscience has emerged due to religious reasons. For example, the creation science. But I do agree with you that they can be a pain in the arse. There is hardly any political impact of Pseudoscience. For example, the 2012 apocalypse had a wide range of believers from all over the world. But we did not find people building ships did we? The one area where Pseudoscience may be having an effect can be medicine. People in my country pay an awesome lot to homeopathy.

Sam Arcot wrote:It is an organized set of people who condemn others who believe otherwise.

It may be true for the religious organization, and for fundamentalists aswell, but certainly not for all religious people.

Sam Arcot wrote:Pseudoscience can be a personal opinion and people do not inherit it as the religious ones do.

Pseudoscience is considered science by those who accept it, and therefore it's not considered an opinion, but a fact. The same argument could be made for religion.
And the same thing could be said for religion about the fact that people do not necessarily inherit.
It requires more effort to come out from a religion than realising that the pseudoscience you're considering science is just delusion, but both can be inherited, and in both cases one could realise the delusion behind it or not.

Sam Arcot wrote:It is not necessary that the child of a Pseudoscience believer should follow the same path.

It depends. Some people remain ignorant for their whole lives after they've been taught when they were kids, but it's true that with pseudoscience there's not a duty/moral obligation to teach to kids (like religion).
But it's also true that when you believe in pseudoscience, you may never be confronted with scientifically based facts, and remain ignorant.

Sam Arcot wrote:While in the case of religions, people force their ideology on their children more often. Also, much of the Pseudoscience has emerged due to religious reasons. For example, the creation science. But I do agree with you that they can be a pain in the arse.

Yes, part of pseudoscience has emerged due to religions.
But being religious you don't necessarily directly harm; it really depends how open-minded you are about it.
Instead, pseudoscience is really harmful. An example is anti-vaccination; it's affecting health care (like brimstoneSalad said) and is really dangerous.

Sam Arcot wrote:There is hardly any political impact of Pseudoscience.

That's not true. Pseudoscience does also affect politics. And healthcare, and education, and environmental policies.
Just take a look at climate change deniers. In this case, pseudoscience is often used to negate global warming and its consequences; climate change denying is vastly supported by conservatives in the U.S.
And an absurd amount of people do not think that climate change is proven (also thanks to media being ignorant about science); the fact that this is still considered a debatable matter, it's really scary.
Pseudoscience is used recurrently in political, policy-making discourse in allegations of distortion or fabrication of scientific findings to support a political position.

On top of all this, pseudoscience is slowing down real science enormously. But brimstoneSalad already explained it well.

thebestofenergy wrote: On top of all this, pseudoscience is slowing down real science enormously. But brimstoneSalad already explained it well.

You are right, brimstoneSalad is very good at explaining things well!