Talk:Pathological science

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon pseudoscience.svg

This Pseudoscience related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

Questions[edit]

Would Fred Hoyle and the steady state universe be another example? Or the Dozenal Society

In some cases there is genuine uncertainty as to which model is correct - Isaac Newton and astrology might be a case) and on occasion 'the daft theory' turns out to be the right one.

To what extent is pathological science a matter of attitude 'us versus them' as distinct from 'my theory, your theory mixed with academic jibes'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that Fred actually "believed" the things he was proposing, I got the feeling he just liked to be the fly in the ointment. There's a difference between that and, say, polywater, where the original researchers went off into a black hole and never returned.
I think it's also very important to remember this has "pathological" in the name, and for a good reason. Homeopathy is simply bunk, it's not science by any definition. Pathological science is science, its just wrong and the proponents have developed a pathology. 108.168.93.48 (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Do the two tags at the top actually describe topics falling within 'Pathological science' with a degree of accuracy? Anna Livia (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)