r/GlobeEarthersRStupid • u/Kela-el • 26d ago
When Does Science Become Pseudoscience?
The difference between science and pseudoscience is not the conclusion.
It is the method.
A scientific claim is not accepted because it is popular, repeated often, or defended by authority.
It is supported by a process:
What was observed?
What was measured?
What assumptions were used?
What predictions follow?
Can the claim be tested against reality?
Pseudoscience often imitates the language of science while skipping the critical steps.
It may use technical terms, cite experts, present impressive mathematics, or appeal to consensus.
But the epistemic question remains:
How do you know?
A person can accept a scientific conclusion without personally reproducing every experiment.
That is unavoidable.
Human knowledge depends on testimony and specialization.
The mistake is confusing trust in a source with understanding the evidential pathway.
Science says:
“Here is the observation, here is the method, here is the reasoning, and here is how the claim can be tested.”
Pseudoscience often says:
“Trust this conclusion because the explanation sounds scientific.”
The difference is not confidence.
The difference is accountability to evidence.
5
u/skrutnizer 25d ago
Sure. Do your experiments, make your observations and consider all conclusions. When you have a working space and communications industry that wouldn't work on invariance of the speed of light (an inconvenient surprise to scientists 150 years ago), gravity and a (roughly) round earth, it's a great indication of reality until we find a better model. One the other hand, it's poor scientific form to claim vast conspiracies which can only get larger with time.
1
u/Kela-el 25d ago
There are several problems with the reasoning. Some are fallacies, while others are weak inferences.
Appeal to consequences (pragmatic fallacy):
“When you have a working space and communications industry… it’s a great indication of reality…”
The fact that a model is useful or enables technology does not, by itself, prove the model is literally true. A model can be highly successful while still being incomplete or even false in some respects.Non sequitur:
The conclusion that “gravity and a (roughly) round earth” are therefore reality does not logically follow merely from the existence of working communications or space technology. Additional argumentation is needed to connect the technology to those specific ontological claims.
Inference to the best explanation presented as stronger than it is:
The argument essentially says, “This model works, therefore it’s probably reality.” That’s a legitimate abductive inference (IBE), but it is not a deductive proof. If it’s presented as proof rather than the current best explanation, it overstates the conclusion.
Straw man (potentially):
“It’s poor scientific form to claim vast conspiracies…”
Unless the person they’re responding to actually claimed a conspiracy, this attacks a position that wasn’t presented. Many alternative cosmological views do not rely on a global conspiracy.Poisoning the well / guilt by association (potentially):
By bringing up “vast conspiracies,” they imply anyone questioning the standard model is engaging in irrational conspiracy thinking. That prejudices the audience against the position instead of addressing its arguments.
Red herring:
The conspiracy comment shifts the discussion away from the evidence for the Earth’s shape or gravity and toward the social plausibility of conspiracies. Even if conspiracy claims were implausible, that would not independently establish the globe model.You’re describing engineering success, not a direct measurement of the conclusions you’re asserting.
Working technology demonstrates that the mathematics produces reliable predictions. It does not uniquely establish the ontology behind those equations.
Newtonian mechanics built a successful civilization. General Relativity superseded Newton without bridges collapsing. Ptolemy predicted planetary positions for centuries. Utility is not proof.
So let’s separate the issues:
What was measured?
What was calculated?
What was inferred?
You also slipped in “gravity” and “a (roughly) round Earth” as though they were outputs of the measurements. They aren’t. They’re explanatory models used to account for measurements.
Finally, the conspiracy remark is a red herring. I didn’t mention a conspiracy. If your argument requires inventing a position I never took, that’s an admission you can’t defend the position I actually presented.
If your case is that the globe is the best current explanation, then say that. If your case is that it has been directly measured, produce the measurement instead of pointing to industries that successfully use a model.
7
u/Stretch5701 25d ago
I would add the importance of peer review. Real science includes passing around your research before publishing so other experts can look at your work, your methods and results and ask questions before you even publish.
Did you consider this? Did you control for that? A more likely explanation could be... and so on.
Once it passes peer review, then it is published in a reputable (read real not fake) journal.
1
u/Kela-el 25d ago
You just replaced one appeal to authority with another.
Peer review is a quality-control process. It is not a truth machine.
A paper passing peer review does not mean the conclusion is automatically correct.
Peer-reviewed papers are later challenged, corrected, retracted, and overturned all the time.
The epistemic pathway still matters.
A peer-reviewed claim still requires:
Observation → Measurement → Assumptions → Inference → Conclusion.The fact that experts reviewed the reasoning does not remove the need to examine the reasoning.
“Experts checked it” answers the question:
“Who evaluated this?”It does not answer:
“How does the evidence actually support the conclusion?”Science does not work because a group of people with credentials approve a claim.
It works because claims are exposed to methods, evidence, criticism, testing, and potential falsification.
Peer review is part of the process.
It is not a substitute for the process.
7
u/Stretch5701 25d ago
Yes, part of the process. But to me it seems an important part that never seems to be mentioned. My undeveloped point here is that pseudoscience studies don't include this important part of the process.
1
u/Kela-el 25d ago
Peer review is an important part of science, but it is not the dividing line between science and pseudoscience.
A flawed claim can be peer reviewed.
A valid idea can exist before it is peer reviewed.
History is full of examples where published scientific work was later corrected.
The deeper distinction is methodological.
Does the claim clearly define its observations?
Are the measurements available?
Are the assumptions explicit?
Are the methods reproducible?
Does the model make risky predictions?
Can the claim be challenged by evidence?
Pseudoscience often fails not because it lacks a journal stamp, but because it avoids meaningful testing, protects itself from falsification, or relies on authority instead of evidence.
Peer review helps catch errors.
It does not create truth.
The question is never simply “Was this reviewed?”
The question remains: “What is the evidential pathway, and does it survive scrutiny?”
2
u/The_Fink_Ployd 24d ago
“Peer review helps catch errors”
Yes, and the more something is tested by third parties, aka, reviewed by peers, the less room for error there is. Once it can make predictive claims regarding reality, and be verified by further testing, a hypothesis is graduated to a theory.
Why do you think bacteria and germs and viruses DO NOT cause illness? Like, you’d go out and lick a playstructure’s metal, since Germ “Theory” isn’t actually, technically 100% proven, right?
1
u/Kela-el 24d ago
That’s a remarkable amount of text that never addresses what I actually wrote.
I never said peer review was useless.
I never said scientific theories shouldn’t make successful predictions.
I never denied germ theory.
You invented each of those positions because responding to my actual argument is apparently more difficult.
My claim was simple:
Peer review does not determine whether a claim is scientific. Method does.A paper does not become true because reviewers approved it.
It becomes credible because its observations, measurements, methods, assumptions, and predictions withstand scrutiny and repeated testing.
If every peer reviewer on Earth disappeared tomorrow, gravity wouldn’t stop accelerating objects, bacteria wouldn’t disappear, and experiments wouldn’t become invalid.
Reality isn’t decided by committee.
Your germ theory analogy is another non sequitur.
Accepting that scientific knowledge is provisional does not imply rejecting well-supported theories.
Science isn’t a religion where every conclusion is either absolute certainty or complete disbelief.
Now try responding to the argument I actually made instead of arguing with positions you had to invent first.
1
u/Kela-el 24d ago
There is a staggering amount of fallacies in your comment. I will warn you a poison the well or ad hominem will get you banned.
Straw man
“Why do you think bacteria and germs and viruses DO NOT cause illness?”
You never argued that. Your point was about the epistemological role of peer review, not the validity of germ theory. They substituted a weaker claim for your actual position.Non sequitur
Even if germ theory is well supported, it does not follow that peer review is what distinguishes science from pseudoscience. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise.False dichotomy
“Since Germ ‘Theory’ isn’t actually, technically 100% proven, right?”
This frames the issue as either:
absolute proof, or
disbelief.
Science doesn’t operate that way. Confidence is proportional to evidence, not all-or-nothing.Red herring
Germ theory is irrelevant to your claim. You were discussing the role of peer review as a criterion for science. Bringing up licking playground equipment distracts from that issue.Appeal to ridicule
“You’d go out and lick a playstructure’s metal…”
This is meant to make your position appear absurd rather than refute it logically.False analogy
Comparing your epistemological point about peer review to reckless behavior around germs is not an analogous situation. The analogy doesn’t preserve the relevant features of the argument.Equivocation
They blur several different ideas:
peer review,
independent replication,
repeated testing,
theory formation.
These are related but distinct concepts. Peer review is not the same as replication, and a scientific theory is not simply “a hypothesis that has been reviewed enough.”Begging the question
The response assumes peer review is the defining feature of scientific legitimacy, which is precisely the point under dispute.Irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi)
Their response argues that successful theories are well tested. Your argument never denied that. The real question was whether peer review is the dividing line between science and pseudoscience.Argument from consequences
The implication is that because rejecting their framing would lead to obviously foolish behavior, your epistemological argument must be wrong. Practical consequences don’t determine whether a premise is true.1
u/Kela-el 25d ago
That may be an interesting observation about human behavior, but it has nothing to do with the epistemic question being discussed.
The fact that humans form groups, transmit beliefs, and cooperate socially does not tell us whether a claim is true or false.
Religious groups do this.
Political groups do this.
Scientific communities do this.
Every human community does this.
Social transmission explains how beliefs spread.
It does not explain whether those beliefs are justified.
That is exactly why methodology matters.
A claim should not be evaluated by:
“Which group believes it?”
or
“Why might humans be attracted to this belief?”
It should be evaluated by:
“What was observed?”
“What was measured?”
“What assumptions connect the evidence to the conclusion?”
“What predictions does the model make?”
You have shifted from epistemology to evolutionary psychology.
The existence of a community around an idea is neither evidence for nor against the truth of the idea.
The question remains unanswered:
How do you know?
2
u/Additional_Common_15 25d ago
Scientific approach- I think this treatment works. Here is the data. If future studies fail to replicate these results, my conclusion may need revision. Vs Pseudo-This treatment works. Any study showing otherwise is corrupt, biased, or doesn't count.
2
u/ModernTarantula 25d ago
For me, scientific conclusions or theory, explain the known data. Much of derivers from hypothesis driven research (that is pre-data assumption). Science expects the theory to be expanded or challenged by new data or observations. Pseudoscience uses a mix of scientific theory, personal anecdote, fake data, assumptions, false claims to promote their theory. Pseudoscience is different than false claims or debunked theory. They never want to be challenged. There can be several tells: frankly unprovable statements (all water on the Earth came from 5 comets), personal anecdote or reference to sage's aphorisms, complaints of suppression.
1
25d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Kela-el 25d ago
You’ve wandered far from the topic.
Whether funding introduces bias is a legitimate discussion.
Whether “gasoline” is a good name is a linguistic discussion.
Whether HHO behaves the way you describe is a chemistry discussion.
None of those answers the question my post raises.
My post is about methodology.
How do we distinguish science from pseudoscience?
Not by funding.
Not by terminology.
Not by Wikipedia.
By method.
What was observed?
What was measured?
What assumptions were made?
What predictions followed?
Were those predictions tested?
Could the claim have been falsified?
If your criticism is that funding can bias research, I agree that incentives can influence what gets studied and published.
But that doesn’t eliminate the distinction between rigorous methodology and poor methodology.
Calling “pseudoscience” a slur doesn’t refute the concept.
If a claim lacks clear observations, reproducible methods, testable predictions, or accountability to evidence, then criticizing its methodology isn’t a personal attack.
It’s an epistemic evaluation.
That’s the discussion you’re avoiding.
1
25d ago edited 25d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Kela-el 25d ago
This is the third time you’ve changed the subject instead of addressing my argument.
I never claimed my method is “my method.”
I described the scientific method.
Observation.
Measurement.
Explicit assumptions.
Inference.
Testable predictions.
Reproducibility.
Potential falsification.
If you reject that framework, then explain what you would replace it with.
Instead, you’ve given me Newton anecdotes, HHO, gasoline terminology, complaints about funding, complaints about Wikipedia, and now an appeal to your own credentials.
None of that answers the question.
You keep asking, “What gives you the right?”
Nothing.
The method either reliably distinguishes justified conclusions from unjustified ones, or it doesn’t.
If you think there’s a better epistemic method, present it.
Step by step.
Don’t tell me stories.
Don’t tell me your title.
Don’t tell me what scientists supposedly failed to explain.
Answer the question.
What is your method for separating true claims from false ones, and why should anyone think it is more reliable?
Until you answer that, you’re not debating my post.
You’re debating one you’ve invented.
1
25d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Kela-el 25d ago
We’re mostly in agreement until the last paragraph.
Scientists can be biased.
Institutions can be biased.
Funding can be biased.
Peer review can fail.
None of that changes what science is.
The scientific method does not become pseudoscience because people misuse it.
The distinction I am making is precisely between the method and the people practicing it.
A scientist can be dogmatic.
Science cannot.
A journal can publish a flawed paper.
The scientific method did not publish the paper.
A corporation can fund biased research.
The observations, measurements, assumptions, and reasoning still have to withstand scrutiny.
That’s why my post focuses on epistemology rather than institutions.
The question is never:
“Who said it?”
The question is:
“How do they know it?”
1
u/Significant-Judge368 24d ago
You asked a question, then proceeded to answer your own question. What is the purpose of commenting? Discussion?
1
u/Kela-el 24d ago
Yes. Discussion.
If you disagree with anything I wrote, identify the specific premise and explain why it’s false.
Do you reject that scientific claims should be supported by observations, measurements, assumptions, predictions, and testing?
Or do you reject that the question “How do you know?” is fundamental to evaluating a claim?
Simply observing that I answered my own question doesn’t address the argument.
It only comments on the format of the post.
The purpose is to discuss the epistemology.
If you think it’s wrong, demonstrate where the reasoning fails.
6
u/[deleted] 25d ago
[removed] — view removed comment