notes/characteristics_of_pseudoscience.org
This commit is contained in:
parent
37ad4df6b0
commit
5759502b43
1 changed files with 12 additions and 2 deletions
|
@ -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
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue