From 5759502b432f19d8076966cdea1504c98171da19 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Yann Esposito (Yogsototh)" Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 10:02:04 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] notes/characteristics_of_pseudoscience.org --- notes/characteristics_of_pseudoscience.org | 14 ++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/notes/characteristics_of_pseudoscience.org b/notes/characteristics_of_pseudoscience.org index 417fb448..9b999391 100644 --- a/notes/characteristics_of_pseudoscience.org +++ b/notes/characteristics_of_pseudoscience.org @@ -7,6 +7,16 @@ - tags :: - source :: https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/plvskm/a_guide_on_how_to_sniff_out_pseudoscience/ -* 10 points +* 11 points -1. Is *Unfalsifiable* (can't be proven wrong): Makes vague or unobservable claims +1. Is *UNFALSIFIABLE* (can't be proven wrong): Makes vague or unobservable claims +2. Relies heavily on *ANECDOTES*, personal experiences, and testimonials +3. *CHERRY PICKS* confirming evidence while ignoring/minimizing disconfirming evidence +4. Uses *TECHNOBABBLE*: words that sound scientific but don't make sense +5. Lacks *PLAUSIBLE MECHANISM*: Now way to explain it based on existing knowledge +6. Is *UNCHANGING*: Doesn't self-correct or progress +7. Makes *EXTRAORDINARY/EXAGERATED CLAIMS* with insufficient evidence +8. Professes *CERTAINTY*: Talks of "proof", with great confidence +9. Commits *LOGICAL FALLACIES*: Arguments contain errors in reasoning +10. Lacks *PEER REVIEW*: Goes directly to the public, avoiding scientific scrutinity +11. Claims there's a *CONSPIRACY* to suppress their ideas