You don't learn from scientists merely because they exist. You need to study the science to learn it.
Scientists and the rest of the academic community are in consensus regarding what science and pseudoscience are. And yes, you are free hitch your wagon to their stars or to anybody else competing with them for your attention and allegiance, but that's not a good freedom. That's more like the freedom to drive off a mountain pass for lack of a guard rail.
You first. Every sentence in that post of mine was a question for you that you didn't answer.
I answered your question(s).
Since you disagreed, then it's your obligation to show that what I have said is not true.
It's not possible to tell you the difference between two things which experts are saying are hard to tell apart... depending on who's doing it.
A nerd fight has broken out over whether cosmic inflation—one of the most widely accepted theories in physics—breaks the rules of testability.
www.wired.com
Recently, a trio of mainstream physicists accused hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other mainstream physicists of Not Doing Science in a very public forum. Their article, published in February’s
Scientific American 2,
targets the inflationary universe theory, which, during the past 35 years, has come to be what most physicists use to explain the origin (and present state) of the cosmos. By publishing in
SciAm, these authors aren’t just asking the vicariously scientific public—you and I—to accept their theory as correct. They are asking us to decide what it means to Do Science.
Distinguishing between science and pseudoscience is problematic
www.scientificamerican.com
Climate deniers are accused of practicing pseudoscience, as are intelligent design creationists, astrologers, UFOlogists, parapsychologists, practitioners of alternative medicine, and often anyone who strays far from the scientific mainstream. The boundary problem between science and pseudoscience, in fact, is notoriously fraught with definitional disagreements because the categories are too broad and fuzzy on the edges, and the term “pseudoscience” is subject to adjectival abuse against any claim one happens to dislike for any reason.
The problem is that many sciences are nonfalsifiable, such as string theory, the neuroscience surrounding consciousness, grand economic models and the extraterrestrial hypothesis. On the last, short of searching every planet around every star in every galaxy in the cosmos, can we ever say with certainty that E.T.s do not exist?
There are reasons this is happening.
Do Scientists Abuse Science?
www.huffpost.com
A recent hot topic is the marked increase in scientific problems, as seen in the Oct. 19 issue of
The Economist. The problems staring the scientific community in the face are considerable: shoddy scientific practices, results that cannot be replicated, rushing to publish, plagiarism and violations of the rules of scientific conduct. Clearly, many scientists engage in practices that are unethical, wrongful, mistaken and even abusive.
The problems have been exacerbated by money becoming such a huge factor in fields such as biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and genetics. When big money and awards are involved, the temptation to rush to publish or skimp on due diligence can become overpowering. In many cases, otherwise competent and moral scientists yield to fraudulent practices.
If scientists do agree on what is, and isn't science, in practice, then I think I might be able to give you the answer you are looking for.
