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.



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'? (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. (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


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)