tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4004381248378157742.post7228212891973899601..comments2012-01-29T11:29:42.036ZAlastairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15152292130415788120noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4004381248378157742.post-75310108285755078732010-10-04T19:39:23.956+01:002010-10-04T19:39:23.956+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4004381248378157742.post-84414994140765380392009-03-10T11:58:00.000Z2009-03-10T11:58:00.000ZAlastair: You don't seem to have gotten my point very well at all. The main line is:<BR/><I>Inside science we have things where people are trying to understand the natural universe, using sharable methods and data, and is subject to further testing.</I><BR/><BR/>If there's no evidence, it isn't science. If one ignores most of the evidence (as Chrichton did), it also isn't science. If one lies about what is there (as Will did), it, again, isn't science.<BR/><BR/>The matter of unknowns, and unknown unknowns, etc., is managed in my clause about 'subject to further testing'.<BR/><BR/>Chrichton's book (which I've read) is quite easy to summarize: "Climate change is a liberal conspiracy and they're out to control you." That's also Senator Inhofe's line (almost a quote) and it was Inhofe who invited Chrichton to pretend that he was an expert on climate and testify to the Senate on the topic. Chrichton also seemed to think that he was indeed such an expert.Penguindreamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4004381248378157742.post-46748221074437941262009-03-09T17:33:00.000Z2009-03-09T17:33:00.000ZHi Alastair,<BR/><BR/>Speaking of mathematicians, I remember an old saying that has always stuck with me: A mathematician is a person who will assume anything except responsibility. :-)<BR/><BR/>On your main point, IMHO, the key to science is not the evidence, but the method. The scientific method is an experiment-based, iteratively self-correcting process for accumulating knowledge (data + theory) about nature. Armed with such a method, there is no need to worry about the various forms of confirmation bias that can plague even otherwise critical thinkers. <BR/><BR/>The problem of ignoring the unknown unknowns is just the sort of confirmation bias that the scientific method is able to handle. Over time, the unknown unknowns eventually become known knowns.<BR/><BR/>But I agree that labeling something pseudoscience should rightly be considered highly derogatory because it means it is something that claims to follow the scientific method, but actually does not. Thus, pseudoscience <B>is</B> susceptible to confirmation bias in all its forms. (Among other things.)gmcrewshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795380097849494251noreply@blogger.com