posted
Tukuler alledges ethnocentric pseudoscience is being published on Egyptology, by posters on the Deshret site.When researchers first claimed the earth was round, the believers in this truth were said to believe in pseudoscience.
quote: Pseudoscience includes beliefs, theories, or practices that have been or are considered scientific, but have no basis in scientific fact. This could mean they were disproved scientifically, can’t be tested or lack evidence to support them. Read more at http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-pseudoscience.html#2Wtxgp4PrH2zJSqt.99
This definition makes it clear that pseudoscience is/are theories that were disproved scientifically, can’t be tested or lack evidence to support them.
.
.
As a result, if a person post a topic that can be tested and has evidence to support it, the topic is scientific, not pseudoscience.
As a result, my questions are:
1. What is ethnocentric pseudoscience ?
2.Who decides this or that phenomena is ethnocentric pseudoscience?
3.How do you determine what subjects are ethnocentric pseudoscience ?
4. Why do you consider a topic is ethnocentric pseudoscience ?
5. When is a topic ethnocentric pseudoscience ?
6. What criteria or criterion are used to differentiate ethnocentric pseudoscience from science?
Thereal Member # 22452
posted
Obviously the issue is not so much pseudoscience but whether some are willing to except ideas or evidence that buck how humans especially some of the melanated types have been described by white scientists.
Clyde Winters Member # 10129
posted
quote:Originally posted by capra: Basically intellectual dishonesty and confirmation bias.
- Picking and choosing evidence based on whether it agrees with you, e.g. trumpeting one result of a method and discarding others of the same method, dismissing an author as biased or deceitful in one instance and accepting the same author in another, using obsolete works and ignoring up-to-date scholarship. - Selecting evidence that supports your hypothesis, without making a serious attempt to find evidence that contradicts it. In other words, failing to be critical of yourself. - Making or criticizing technical arguments without understanding the subject matter. As opposed to concentrating on your own field and, if you are certain of your conclusions, saying "I think the other guys must be wrong, though I'm not sure why." Or suggesting general arguments with due humility. - Citing works which contradict your conclusions as if they supported you (rather than explicitly citing them as a source of data which you are interpreting in your own way). - Quoting out of context, giving a misleading impression of the author's argument.
Not exhaustive.
Lets discuss your comments capra. Your statements are in plain text. my answers to your comments are in bold type.
You wrote: Basically intellectual dishonesty and confirmation bias.
1. Picking and choosing evidence based on whether it agrees with you, e.g. trumpeting one result of a method and discarding others of the same method, dismissing an author as biased or deceitful in one instance and accepting the same author in another, using obsolete works and ignoring up-to-date scholarship.
Ans. The researcher decides what evidence they will use in a study.In science researchers have opposing ideas about a phenomena. In support of their propositions they present data supporting their claim. In any debate the researcher will present evidence supporting their proposition. Abundance of evidence in support of a proposition suffices in confirming a claim.
There is no such thing as an obsolate claim, unless the claim has been falsified. For example, Albert Einstein's special-relativity equation E = mc 2, was made decades ago--it remains valid today. In other words up-to-date scholarship that does not falsify an earlier claim or proposition is meaningless.
2. Selecting evidence that supports your hypothesis, without making a serious attempt to find evidence that contradicts it. In other words, failing to be critical of yourself.
This is an idiotic statement. It is the person making a claim job to find support for their theory. It is the job of the person disputing a claim to find evidence that contradicts a claim or proposition. no researcher would make a claim he doesn't believe is supported by the evidence.
3. Making or criticizing technical arguments without understanding the subject matter. As opposed to concentrating on your own field and, if you are certain of your conclusions, saying "I think the other guys must be wrong, though I'm not sure why." Or suggesting general arguments with due humility.
This statement is obtuse no one would argue a proposition without understanding the subject matter. I think what you means is no one should argue a point that disagrees with the status quo.
4. Citing works which contradict your conclusions as if they supported you (rather than explicitly citing them as a source of data which you are interpreting in your own way).
Data is data. All data can be reinterpreted.
5. Quoting out of context, giving a misleading impression of the author's argument.
It is obvious you do not know anything about being an intelligent consumer of research literature. To intelligently read a research article you have to do a review of the article. In making this review you have to look at the elements of research article:
Problem Statement Literature Review Design Population Results Conclusion Personal Opinion
I taught research for 11 years. My job was to make my students ask a series of questions about the research they were reading to make sure the research is valid and reliable.
These questions include the following:
1.Who were the participants in the study?
2.Is there a question about the interpretation?
3.Is any other interpretation of the motive plausible?
4.What was the general procedures?
5.What is the baseline?
6.Is the conclusion justified?
7.What were the major conclusions reached by the author(s)?
8.What was the procedure? What is lacking?
9.What are the good features of the study?
10.What are the bad features of the design?
11.What were the main results?
12.According to the author, how successful was the treatment?
13.Are these conclusions justified? Why.
14.Was observer bias likely to play a role?
15.Does the narrative analysis fulfill its purpose?
16.What was the rationale for the study, that is what led to it?
If a reviewer of a research article ask these questions about the article they read they may discover that the article lacks validity.
It is obvious from this comment capra, you accept articles as valid only because you agree with the comments of the author, when the data presented by the author my contradict his conclusion(s).
posted 