Hating Pseudoscience

So guys, I am part of a new facebook page called I fucking hate pseudoscience. (shameless plug) It is a play on the very popular 'I fucking love science' page name. The idea is to raise consciousness and expose a young audience to critical thinking via a dynamic they prefer. Of course this means posting many memes, quotes, funny clips while trying to teach some core skeptical values as well.

Right away we are getting criticism for the name. No one seems to care about the expletive in the title, but they're suggesting that it is somehow wrong to encourage hate of pseudoscience, or to suggest that hate is a valid philosophical position. Of course the page name is simply an expression of sentiment, we are not encouraging anyone to hate individuals, but ideas and faulty thought processes. I do not think there is anything wrong with feeling and expressing contempt when people are scammed or fooled out of their money, health, feelings or ability to think clearly.

So since many of you have helped me sharpen my skeptical and philosophical outlook over the years, I thought I would ask your guy's opinion. To me this is just another example of those that fear criticism playing the hurt card.

What do you think?

I love this idea. It's unbelievable how stupid people are today, they believe anything. Religion, this new age crap, etc.

DON'T CHANGE THE NAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's perfect.

Just went and liked the page btw.

Great, appreciate the support!


I think often times contempt is an appropriate response to bullshit.

Well I don't like to be an asshole, but when you face this stuff day in and day out, it wears on you.

Hate is an emotional response and to attribute it to the idea of pseudoscience seems like a waste of energy.

Not withstanding that often today's 'pseudoscience' leads to tomorrows conventional thinking.

Moebius said:

Hate is an emotional response and to attribute it to the idea of pseudoscience seems like a waste of energy.

Not withstanding that often today's 'pseudoscience' leads to tomorrows conventional thinking.

Click to expand...

My contempt comes from the likes of John Edwards telling people he can talk to their dead grandma. From Sylvia Browne telling the parents of kidnapped children to give up hope because she can sense their death. From Kevin Trudeau selling sick people useless alternative treatments 'they don't want you to know about'. From Peter Popoff pretending to heal desperate crippled people on stage and then abandoning them when he moves on to the next town. I could go on and on.

I do not think people who fall for pseudoscience deserve contempt. Mistakes are an inevitable pitfall of the human experience and all humans are entitled to make them. Pseudoscience however often leads to discrimination, misogyny, abuse and overall misery.

Just curious, could you give an example of a pseudoscience which has evolved into conventional thinking?

If by pseudoscience you mean unconventional, unproven or outlandish ideas, I say that this is a critical part of the development of science and should be encouraged.

Humans need the freedom to 'think' without the fear of their ideas being 'hated' by the self-appointed guardians of the truth.


edit;
The internet needs another 'hate' thread like it needs another ad-pop up.

Heisenberg said:

My contempt comes from the likes of John Edwards telling people he can talk to their dead grandma. From Sylvia Browne telling the parents of kidnapped children to give up hope because she can sense their death. From Kevin Trudeau selling sick people useless alternative treatments 'they don't want you to know about'. From Peter Popoff pretending to heal desperate crippled people on stage and then abandoning them when he moves on to the next town. I could go on and on.

I do not think people who fall for pseudoscience deserve contempt. Mistakes are an inevitable pitfall of the human experience and all humans are entitled to make them. Pseudoscience however often leads to discrimination, misogyny, abuse and overall misery.

Just curious, could you give an example of a pseudoscience which has evolved into conventional thinking?

Click to expand...

Then why not just hate 'discrimination, misogyny, abuse and overall misery. '?

examples of thinking that has taken a paradigm shift into conventional wisdom might be .... Water on the moon? Dark Energy? Darwinian evolution? Depletion of the ozone layer through CFC's? .... yes and even 'predeterminism' .

Moebius said:

The why not hate 'discrimination, misogyny, abuse and overall misery. '?

Click to expand...

Because that wouldn't make for a very pithy facebook page title, says nothing specific about pseudoscience, and we would still get the same objections to the word hate. The alternative name would probably be, I fucking love skepticism.

examples of thinking that has taken a paradigm shift into conventional wisdom might be .... Water on the moon? Dark Energy? Darwinian evolution? Depletion of the ozone layer through CFC's? .... yes and even 'predeterminism' .

Click to expand...

I think it is because of the process of science that those ideas were eventually accepted. Science bows to evidence and reason. Pseudoscience happens when the evidence does not support the thoery, yet the thoery is favored anyway. Pseudoscience works backwards starting with the conclusion and then tries to force reality to fit, throwing out any quality controls of science that get in the way.

Heisenberg said:

Because that wouldn't make for a very pithy facebook page title, says nothing specific about pseudoscience, and we would still get the same objections to the word hate. The alternative name would probably be, I fucking love skepticism.



I think it is because of the process of science that those ideas were eventually accepted. Science bows to evidence and reason. Pseudoscience happens when the evidence does not support the thoery, yet the thoery is favored anyway. Pseudoscience works backwards starting with the conclusion and then tries to force reality to fit, throwing out any quality controls of science that gets in the way.

Click to expand...

The history of science is one where the greatest thinkers in history have started with unproven and favored ideas. Many of the ideas long lost in time and dis-proven would seem laughable with today hindsight. .. The same great thinkers had other ideas, which have been proven, and have contributed to the our conventional understanding.

What you describe is a very modern methodology to science. Its the way we 'think' today. 500 years ago it was different. In 500 years time it will almost certainly have changed again. With respect, you seem to be held in a prison of 'present' day paradigms without entertaining the possibility of unexplored ideas. This to me is the enemy of human progression.

I'm all for scientific methods but they exist (and have always done so) along with unproven ideas and I see this as part of being human.

btw ..

I still think your facebook page is funny and cool if taken on face value. I'm merely exploring the rationality of the statement 'I fucking hate pseudoscience'.

Moebius said:

The history of science is one where the greatest thinkers in history have started with unproven and favored ideas. Many of the ideas long lost in time and dis-proven would seem laughable with today hindsight. .. The same great thinkers had other ideas, which have been proven, and have contributed to the our conventional understanding.

What you describe is a very modern methodology to science. Its the way we 'think' today. 500 years ago it was different. In 500 years time it will almost certainly have changed again. With respect, you seem to be held in a prison of 'present' day paradigms without entertaining the possibility of unexplored ideas. This to me is the enemy of human progression.

I'm all for scientific methods but they exist (and have always done so) along with unproven ideas and I see this as part of being human.

Click to expand...

Science thrives on new ideas and creative thinking. I believe you are confused about what pseudoscience is. It is not simply outlandish ideas that go against the mainstream, it is a perversion of the scientific method in an attempt to gain the trappings of science without doing the work. For example, a psychic that says her powers are backed up by science, but then lays out a thoery which fails rigorous scrutiny, yet continues to tell people her powers are science.

Homeopathy is a great example. It makes three basic claims.

1) Like cures like. If you are having trouble sleeping, we fix it with caffeine. If you feel nauseated, we give you a substance known to cause upset stomach. I am not making this up.

2) Diluting a substance makes it more powerful. The more you dilute the caffeine, the better it works to put you to sleep. So we dilute it to the point that not even one molecule of caffeine remains.

3) Water has memory. Even though there is no actual caffeine in the water (or pill), it will still work because the water remembers what substance we diluted into it. (yet somehow forgets all the other stuff that's ever been diluted into it)

Even though these claims make no sense and have no plausibility, science had a look at it anyway. Science wanted to know what mechanisms cause these things to work, what chemistry is at work in the body, ect. Despite very extensive testing science can find no evidence that homeopathy works. Science did discover other reasons why people think these remedies work. Reasons like confirmation bias, placebo effect, and lax experimental protocols. Homeopathic practitioners simply wave this away and say that homeopathy is beyond the modern day tools we have to study it (along with dozens of other excuses), and keep selling their useless treatments anyway.

Moebius said:

btw ..

I still think your facebook page is funny and cool if taken on face value. I'm merely exploring the rationality of the statement 'I fucking hate pseudoscience'.

Click to expand...

No worries. I enjoy being challenged and am always willing to consider other views.

ima go out on a limb here and say that your group may get reported for the use of language and if it does too many times facebook will delete your page.

Heisenberg said:

Science thrives on new ideas and creative thinking. I believe you are confused about what pseudoscience is. It is not simply outlandish ideas that go against the mainstream, it is a perversion of the scientific method in an attempt to gain the trappings of science without doing the work. For example, a psychic that says her powers are backed up by science, but then lays out a thoery which fails rigorous scrutiny, yet continues to tell people her powers are science.

Homeopathy is a great example. It makes three basic claims.

1) Like cures like. If you are having trouble sleeping, we fix it with caffeine. If you feel nauseated, we give you a substance known to cause upset stomach. I am not making this up.

2) Diluting a substance makes it more powerful. The more you dilute the caffeine, the better it works to put you to sleep. So we dilute it to the point that not even one molecule of caffeine remains.

3) Water has memory. Because there is no actual caffeine in the water (or pill), it will still work because the water remembers what substance we diluted into it.

Even though these claims make no sense and have no plausibility, science had a look at it anyway. Science wanted to know what mechanisms cause these things to work, what chemistry is at work in the body, ect. Despite very extensive testing science can find no evidence that homeopathy works. Science did discover other reasons why people think these remedies work. Reasons like confirmation bias, placebo effect, and lax experimental protocols. Homeopathic practitioners simply wave this away and say that homeopathy is beyond the modern day tools we have to study it (along with dozens of other excuses), and keep selling their useless treatments anyway.

Click to expand...

I understand exactly what pseudoscience is. .... But to illustrate the depth of my understanding lets call it 'Fables'. ... it makes no difference.

My point is they are 'essential'. .. They are indivisible as part of the human experience from true 'critical' thinking. In fact neuro-science proves as much.

but you've mentioned 'Homeopathy' and the silly claims associated with it. ... To me, these ideas present us who love science with the opportunity to explore the validity of these claims. .. The fact remain many of these treatments do work. Inflammation has been shown to decrease and some reports state comfort levels increased. .. The question is, is this due to the active ingredient or maybe a placebo. If its a placebo and helps patients, then this is what science needs to look into, and it does. and in turn our understanding is broadened.

sunni said:

ima go out on a limb here and say that your group may get reported for the use of language and if it does too many times facebook will delete your page.

Click to expand...

You may be right but I fucking love science is a year old now (today) with nearly 5 million followers and seems to have had no problems. Time will tell though.

Heisenberg said:

You may be right but I fucking love science is a year old now (today) with nearly 5 million followers and seems to have had no problems. Time will tell though.

Click to expand...

mmhm just depends how many people you piss off really lol

You mean like the pseudoscience on here about LED light tech? lol By definition pseudoscience is not science at all. Good luck.