What Pseudoscience do you Believe?
-
Came across a list of pseudosciences and was fun seeing where im woo woo.
Lunar effect – the belief that the full Moon influences human and animal behavior.
Ley Lines
Accupressure/puncture
Ayurveda
Body Memory
Faith healing
Anyway, list too long to read. I guess Im quite the nonscientific woowoomancer. How about you? What pseudoscience do you believe? Also I believe nearly every stone i find was an ancient indian stone. Also manifesting and or prayer to manipulate via subconscious aligning the future.
Love is a physical force, not just a human emotion.
Did I get that from Interstellar? Yes. Do I care? No.
Human life has meaning because we decide it does. That decision and that meaning are influenced by love, and the ensuing actions we take affect our physical environment.
Love takes energy and invokes acceleration of matter one way or the other. It’s a force.
-
The USB law.
When you try to plug in a USB-A connector, there's a 70% probability it won't go in. Mathematically it should be 50%, but I don't believe that.
You switch it around, and there's a 30% probability it won't go in. This is not something they taught at school.
You switch it around the third time, and there's a 5% chance it still won't go in. Your mind begins to melt down, you switch and insert repeatedly until it finally works sooner or later.
USB Superposition
-
All electrical components contain magic smoke that was put into them at the time of manufacture. If that smoke is released, it doesn’t work anymore.
I love this.
Not original to me. Totally stole it.
-
USB Superposition
The orientation of the connector occupies both states at the same time. If you look at it, the superposition collapses into either of the two.
-
I feel like the list is a mixed bag. There are things like flat earth, which are just against common sense, things like homeopathy, that sound promising to many people but were scientifically disproven many times.
And then there are many things that are mostly pseudoscience but can have some aspects that are true. For example aromatherapy is bullshit in general, but the smell of mint specifically was proven to have a beneficial effect on people's mood. And there could be more smelling efects we don't know about, so one day, we might witness the rise of a new science-based aromatherapy. Or Lysenkism - such a twisted terrible dark times for science! Such a disgrace, I always get angry just thinking about this totalitarian shit. But the Lamarckian evolution aspect is surprisingly not completely bullshit, as it turns out, now that we understand that genes are not the only vehicle for evolution and how things like epigenetics work. That's one point for Lamarck though, not for Lysenko.
Our decisions should be based on what was proven by science. That doesn't mean that's all there is. Otherwise we wouldn't need science anymore.
The list is very interesting, I've never heard of Minimum parking requirements and would definitely fall for that.
The wording for the fad diet section bothered me. If benefits of calorie restriction and fasting aren't scientifically supported, why are their Wikipedia pages full of scientific research regarding their benefits?
Things like the actual uses of aromatherapy make me wonder what to call them. Maybe the word placebo applies, but I feel that there's a certain level of arbitrariness needed for that specific word.
There's something about aromas and the soft gestures of reiki that are pleasurable to us in a more objective sense. We don't like them simply because we've been told they're good for us; we like them because we like them. A waterfall will make most people feel good even you don't tell them it's good for them, so I don't feel it can be called a placebo effect.
What is the term for a thing which isn't directly a medicine, but is medically beneficial by promoting a sense of wellbeing?I don't think that laughter should be considered medicine in a literal sense because it would make the term too broad, but also because these things are at least somewhat subject to taste rather than the truly objective effects of drugs. A given drug might effect two people differently, but the difference is a matter of chemistry rather than the subject's opinion.
(Maybe it will all be the same someday when we've dialed in how everybody's brains work in exact detail and tailor treatments more specifically. Maybe we'll actually prescribe touching grass instead of suggesting it.)
-
That is not really cryptozoology, a known real creature that we think is extinct, but if it's turns out to not be... Nothing weird here.
A lot different to claiming there is a loch Ness monster.
Many people claim the Loch Ness monster is an animal thought to be extinct though. The thylacine is generally held to be a cryptid in my experience.
-
I subscribe to historical materialism, which is apparently a pseudoscience according to that Wikipedia article.
Karl Marx stated that technological development can change the modes of production over time. This change in the mode of production inevitably encourages changes to a society's economic system.
I dunno, man, that doesn't sound too crazy. I'm in a really bad condition for learning new things right now, and I can't even figure out what claims this idea would be making. It sounds like it's just describing a process of advancement and the types of conflicts that arise?
I'm finding this especially hard to grasp because my brain's on a tangent about how you'd really go about falsifying most stuff in history or sociology. You gonna put a bunch of people in a series of jars with carefully controlled conditions for hundreds of years and observe the results? Like we have this piece of paper from 1700 that says Jimothy won the big game, but our understanding of this guy and his alleged win of this supposed game are totally vibes-based because we don't have a time machine. I think like the best you can do is try to base your beliefs and claims off things that have been observed repeatedly, but does that make these kinds of topics unscientific? We test what we can and go with our best guess for what we can't, right? This is going to bother me.
-
Science can't "prove" anything. It is more accurate to say that it reduces the level of uncertainty of hypotheses, but that uncertainty can never be reduced to exactly zero.
What is “zero” exactly? Scientists CAN prove unequivocally that the earth is a globe, there is no uncertainty and it is not an hypothesis.
Assuming “zero” is the number of people who don’t believe in an hypothesis, then I agree with you. Despite the overwhelming evidence there are people that believe the world is flat.
The beauty of science is you don’t have to believe in it for it to be real or true.
-
That... actually makes a lot of sense. Time could just be an emergent property of entropy. The second law of thermodynamics (the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases) could then be applied to explain why time appears to only move in one direction.
I've often thought that maybe time is like color or weight. Electromagnetic radiation exists, but color only exists as an idea in our heads, how we're perceiving and interpreting what does actually exist. Our weight is variable based on our mass and gravitational effects in our environment, rather than being an actual property that describes us. Is what you're saying about time potentially being an emergent property of entropy the same deal? Are color and weight emergent? (I'm asking both about the actual wording and also how analogous the ideas are.)
-
What is “zero” exactly? Scientists CAN prove unequivocally that the earth is a globe, there is no uncertainty and it is not an hypothesis.
Assuming “zero” is the number of people who don’t believe in an hypothesis, then I agree with you. Despite the overwhelming evidence there are people that believe the world is flat.
The beauty of science is you don’t have to believe in it for it to be real or true.
Scientists CAN prove unequivocally that the earth is a globe, there is no uncertainty and it is not an hypothesis.
Could be a weird confluence of spatial anomalies perfectly mimicking a "globe" to our tests. That's not very likely at all, but it's a non-zero uncertainty.
-
Modern geocentrism
kinda. It's more that "center" of the universe can be picked completely arbitrarily. I can say I'm the center of the universe, and when I spin on my chair, the universe revolves around me. You can define the frame of reference however you wish to. The change of perspective does not change how orbits work.
Lunar effect – the belief that the full Moon influences human and animal behavior.
by that short definition sure, but probably not how they mean. If you're active at night, the amount of ambient light is surely going to impact your behavior. Not so much in areas with artificial lighting.
Memetics.
Insofar as there are self-replicating ideas, and the ones more likely to self-replicate become more prevalent...sure. Not the whole story either, as ideas can also be pushed by people that don't believe those ideas.
You are always the center of the observable universe.
-
Came across a list of pseudosciences and was fun seeing where im woo woo.
Lunar effect – the belief that the full Moon influences human and animal behavior.
Ley Lines
Accupressure/puncture
Ayurveda
Body Memory
Faith healing
Anyway, list too long to read. I guess Im quite the nonscientific woowoomancer. How about you? What pseudoscience do you believe? Also I believe nearly every stone i find was an ancient indian stone. Also manifesting and or prayer to manipulate via subconscious aligning the future.
Before she passed my Nan had chronic arthritis. She had many joint replacements (both hips, a knee, shoulder, pins in her wrists etc) and without medication life was a misery.
One thing she said gave her genuine relief was acupuncture, and she wasn't into pseudoscience at all. Maybe is was a placebo effect and it was expensive but it was worthwhile for her.
-
Scientists CAN prove unequivocally that the earth is a globe, there is no uncertainty and it is not an hypothesis.
Could be a weird confluence of spatial anomalies perfectly mimicking a "globe" to our tests. That's not very likely at all, but it's a non-zero uncertainty.
Of course, we could all be living in the matrix and nothing is real.
-
Came across a list of pseudosciences and was fun seeing where im woo woo.
Lunar effect – the belief that the full Moon influences human and animal behavior.
Ley Lines
Accupressure/puncture
Ayurveda
Body Memory
Faith healing
Anyway, list too long to read. I guess Im quite the nonscientific woowoomancer. How about you? What pseudoscience do you believe? Also I believe nearly every stone i find was an ancient indian stone. Also manifesting and or prayer to manipulate via subconscious aligning the future.
I think that currently society is too polar about this issue. A lot of so-called pseudoscience have a lot of anecdotal evidence that should be taken into consideration and don't have a lot of science to deny them. On the other hand a lot of them do have that so there is an issue where there's a lot of people who believe a lot of different pseudosciences because some of them genuinely seem to have results but the people who go explicitly by scientific research sometimes can group all of these together. For example, homeopathy is obviously bullshit, and there is a ton of scientific research that shows that. But, for example, a lot of Chinese medicine, which has no scientific backing, does seem to have a lot of anecdotal and historical evidence that suggests that if science does look into it, they might find some actual results.
I don't know what lunar effect is, but the description you gave sounds very plausible. Like, why wouldn't a full moon affect the behavior of humans and other animals? How it affects them? To what degree? Sure, that's debatable. But generally affecting them, that sounds reasonable. It's a significant change in the night. It lights up the night more and It wouldn't be a stretch to assume that some animals might use it as time management indicators that might relate to biological cycles.
-
The only pseudo science I believe is that one day I'll be happy. Even though I know i ll never be happy.
That is neither science nor pseudoscience. I don't know your story, but there are scientific and pseudoscientific ways that might be able to make you happy one day.
-
I kind of a little bit believe that dreams have some weird predictive ability. The scientist in me knows it's likely a mix of confirmation bias and information synthesis, but like... my family has a pretty strong history of dreaming about deaths and births a week or two prior to pregnancy announcements and deaths. My mom has had several dreams where a loved one has come and chatted with her in a dream and said goodbye, then later that day we learn they passed, for example. It's happened enough that I have a lot of trouble brushing it off.
It's not impossible that for some reason you and your family have some sort of strong subconscious indications in your dreams. So maybe things that your subconscious has picked up manifest in dreams and if we're talking about predicting things that have been developing for a while like someone's death (old age or sickness) or pregnancy, it's not impossible that you subconsciously already knew it to a degree.
But confirmation bias abd memory synthesis is probably more likely.
-
Came across a list of pseudosciences and was fun seeing where im woo woo.
Lunar effect – the belief that the full Moon influences human and animal behavior.
Ley Lines
Accupressure/puncture
Ayurveda
Body Memory
Faith healing
Anyway, list too long to read. I guess Im quite the nonscientific woowoomancer. How about you? What pseudoscience do you believe? Also I believe nearly every stone i find was an ancient indian stone. Also manifesting and or prayer to manipulate via subconscious aligning the future.
-
Love is a physical force, not just a human emotion.
Did I get that from Interstellar? Yes. Do I care? No.
Human life has meaning because we decide it does. That decision and that meaning are influenced by love, and the ensuing actions we take affect our physical environment.
Love takes energy and invokes acceleration of matter one way or the other. It’s a force.
but then it's a social force, and social force can be turned into a physical force. I would say any cybernetician would agree with this. Social signals are part of the same system of physical signals. Then we can argue cybernetics is not science but rather its own paradigm, but that's a different conversation.
-
Came across a list of pseudosciences and was fun seeing where im woo woo.
Lunar effect – the belief that the full Moon influences human and animal behavior.
Ley Lines
Accupressure/puncture
Ayurveda
Body Memory
Faith healing
Anyway, list too long to read. I guess Im quite the nonscientific woowoomancer. How about you? What pseudoscience do you believe? Also I believe nearly every stone i find was an ancient indian stone. Also manifesting and or prayer to manipulate via subconscious aligning the future.
Maybe like a limited Gaia hypothesis. The whole planet is a conscious thing, we are its braincells and its hands.
-
Modern geocentrism
kinda. It's more that "center" of the universe can be picked completely arbitrarily. I can say I'm the center of the universe, and when I spin on my chair, the universe revolves around me. You can define the frame of reference however you wish to. The change of perspective does not change how orbits work.
Lunar effect – the belief that the full Moon influences human and animal behavior.
by that short definition sure, but probably not how they mean. If you're active at night, the amount of ambient light is surely going to impact your behavior. Not so much in areas with artificial lighting.
Memetics.
Insofar as there are self-replicating ideas, and the ones more likely to self-replicate become more prevalent...sure. Not the whole story either, as ideas can also be pushed by people that don't believe those ideas.
Memetics is not really pseudoscience. It was science, there there were compelling evidence and arguemtns that ideas have no agency on their own, contrary to genes, and the whole field died for good.
