There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
- Are you referring to Biblical prophecies? We do have a separate page on that. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 05:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- wp:Bibliomancy (note that it's not limited to the Bible)? The Bible Code?--ZooGuard (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Hypotheses which are not able to make such testable predictions are frequently pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is almost universally characterized by the inability to make meaningful, specific predictions constructed from the core pseudoscientific theory. What does 'frequently' and 'almost universally' mean here? Can someone give an example of an exception to the rule? Any theory, even a pseudoscientific theory - [which basically means just 'discredited'; I cannot imagine that 'methods' or 'principles' are able to derive by themselves new theories and advance knowledge. It's only in the light of knowledge already attained that we look upon previous ones in a darker light. Otherwise, as in the case of creationism or climate denial we could speak of a rational (i.e. goal-oriented; polemic, meant to advance social or political goals) effort to use formal logic in a way that tries to rationalize conclusions and impressions that do not logically follow but have to be distorted and raped; we could call it 'preferential, 'arbitrary' or 'revolutionary' logic] - makes 'predictions' i.e. it does indeed provide an explanation of the fabric of reality or at least the reality it is interested in interpreting bindingly and so does the same thing as 'scientific' theories. Established scientific rationality is the unexpected result of the collaborative efforts of individuals that didn't work in concert or harmoniously to deliver them, but who held different or diverging intents and views in which the most productive won out in a process akin to natural selection. So the most important thing is maybe not the 'scientific method' or theories about 'empiricism' but actual painstaking mental labor, productivity, extraneous environmental and societal stimuli that allow the scientific perception of reality to evolve and with it a sense of expertise (and the scientific perception of reality is merely but one perception of reality amid others that are non-scientific). Here's a question for all to consider: how are we to interpret the fact that Newton's theoretical synthesis of classical mechanics owed a lot to the traditions of hermeticism and occultism or 18th century mathematicians 'proving' that machines heavier than air cannot fly or scientific nationalism in the 20th century? As Americans how do the traditions of our society flow into our view of scientific reality and 'skepticism'? Do what extent are we a 'culture' or a 'cult'? Gewgtweg (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)