Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pseudoscience--why is it so common?
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 5 (448)
10-25-2001 3:45 PM


Recently I've been reading up a bit on this fellow on Sci-Fi channel who claims to be a medium. I watched a bit the other night and it seemed to me that he was simply following common cold reading tactics and it amused me that he was gaining such popularity. In other cases recently my father-in-law mentioned how a particular co-worker wanted to discuss the Loch Ness Monster with him as well as other paranormal phenomenon.
What is the attraction of pseudoscience to people? How do people find such tales worthy of serious attention? I really am fascinated on this and would love to hear some ideas.
As a good social scientist I want to place the responsibility on class and education, but I'm not sure that is enough--any ideas?
Larry

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Percy, posted 10-25-2001 4:05 PM lbhandli has replied
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 11-01-2001 9:24 PM lbhandli has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2 of 5 (449)
10-25-2001 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbhandli
10-25-2001 3:45 PM


While ignoring scientific findings is not the same thing as pseudoscience, I find it interesting that many of my co-workers who smoke also have PhDs in either physics, mathematics, computer science or engineering.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient (edited 10-25-2001).]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbhandli, posted 10-25-2001 3:45 PM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by lbhandli, posted 10-25-2001 5:25 PM Percy has not replied

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 5 (450)
10-25-2001 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Percy
10-25-2001 4:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
While ignoring scientific findings is not the same thing as pseudoscience, I find it interesting that many of my co-workers who smoke also have PhDs in either physics, mathematics, computer science or engineering.

LOL--we've had the discussion around the lab several times. One former office mate of mine was also a former Marine and after several minutes on ranting about the stupidity of such behavior would start with the Hoo-RAHs! My understanding is the stat conferences in Political Science are rather devoid of smokers...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Percy, posted 10-25-2001 4:05 PM Percy has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 4 of 5 (456)
11-01-2001 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbhandli
10-25-2001 3:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by lbhandli:
Recently I've been reading up a bit on this fellow on Sci-Fi channel who claims to be a medium. I watched a bit the other night and it seemed to me that he was simply following common cold reading tactics and it amused me that he was gaining such popularity. In other cases recently my father-in-law mentioned how a particular co-worker wanted to discuss the Loch Ness Monster with him as well as other paranormal phenomenon.
What is the attraction of pseudoscience to people? How do people find such tales worthy of serious attention? I really am fascinated on this and would love to hear some ideas.
As a good social scientist I want to place the responsibility on class and education, but I'm not sure that is enough--any ideas?
Larry

Interesting question. I also used to lament this kind of thing as I saw it growing among my acquaintances during my college years and twenties especially. It seemed to me the world was in pretty bad shape if educated people -- I'm thinking of university-educated people -- were taking such phenomena as astrology and pyramid power and seances and shamanistic explorations seriously.
But later I became a believer in the supernatural myself. Started with a belief in a generic supernatural God, included all forms of occultic and paranormal phenomena as possible at least. Began accepting what people told me about their encounters with strange phenomena. All kinds of tales came out of hiding since I was now receptive to them. Eventually I ended up a "fundamentalist" Christian and regard most of those phenomena as dangerous and deceptive and devoutly to be shunned.
Why do so many accept this kind of thing? Much of it is no doubt fraudulent, much is also merely wishful, but there is a certain amount that is real. Most of the people I knew who got involved in these things did not believe in any religion, though I'm not sure what the connection is if there is one.
I now think some people have a genuine intuition that there is "something more" than this materialistic world we live in these days and are longing to have it made real and believable. But some do just naturally intuit the supernatural too and believe in it very simply. As I said, I now believe most of this is dangerous so it is sad to see psychic and shamanistic practices multiplying around us. Now what interests me more is why scientists get distressed over these things. They don't really challenge science after all.
The Loch Ness monster? I don't know, maybe he's symbolic of this denied Other World, which is often intuited only in rare "glimpses" just like the monster. That one I don't really know how to explain.
[This message has been edited by Faith (edited 11-01-2001).]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbhandli, posted 10-25-2001 3:45 PM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by lbhandli, posted 11-02-2001 6:14 PM Faith has not replied

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 5 (460)
11-02-2001 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
11-01-2001 9:24 PM


quote:
what interests me more is why scientists get distressed over these things. They don't really challenge science after all.
For a couple reasons. One, most of the time mediums and the such try and make definitive claims about their abilities. This is exploitation and such behavior is reprehensible. And if such claims were true, there should be a way to measure such events. John Edwards is using people's grief often times for his personal gain.
Second, a lot of these groups try and dress themselves up as scientific. There is a guy at the University of Arizona named Gary Schwartz who claims to be doing scientific research and writes papers on his "findings." When confronted on why he doesn't use double blind methodology, he responded he wanted to use triple blind methodology after his initial work was completed. I have no idea what triple blind methodology is.
quote:
The Loch Ness monster? I don't know, maybe he's symbolic of this denied Other World, which is often intuited only in rare "glimpses" just like the monster. That one I don't really know how to explain.
It would have to involve the magical appearance of food since an organism of that size would have no food after about a year.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 11-01-2001 9:24 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024