Do Psuedoscientists Generally Believe Their Own Bullshit?

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2005-04-25 09:21pm

Ron Magginis recent behavior in the HoS made me wonder about this. Do you think most psuedoscientists actually believe their own bullshit? Or do they generally just do it for the money they can extort out of those fools ignorant and trusting enough to believe them?
The whole persecution complex thing makes me think they actually believe their own bullshit. It's the classic action of somebody who deep down knows they're so full of shit it's a wonder they're not being swarmed by dung beetles but doesn't have the guts to face up to it. So instead of accepting that they wasted precious years of their life they make up all sorts of bizzarre reasons to themselves why they're actually right and everybody else is against them.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2005-04-25 09:53pm

In my mind, most of them are probably religious fanatics, just with whatever pseudoscientific fantasy they're attached to substituted for religious fervour. They just want to believe, and so believe it so strongly that they'll do anything to cling to their fantasies. They actually, genuinely, honestly believe they're right.

Of course, a few don't actually believe in what they do and just do it to swindle people out of their money, but those are probably a minority.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-04-25 10:03pm

It's a case-by-case study. Generally, the most insane ones believe it, and the most sane ones are probably fleecing people.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2005-04-25 10:08pm

Overall, I believe so. Also, it might be noteworthy that some practicing pseudoscience actually performed stellar scientific work at one time, sometimes even the same work. For example, Hans Dreisch made good contributions to biology, but his rather bizzarre theory of 'entelechy' was not one of them; other examples, like Blondlot's N-Rays, come to mind. A persecution complex generally doesn't develop in cases like these, and the person in question still tries to go through mainstream science channels, so perhaps this phenomenon is simply a temporary lapse of an otherwise competent scientist rather than the sort of pseudoscientist you mean.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-04-25 10:11pm

I've seen articles citing Lord Kelvin supposedly confirming the creationist belief that the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. I don't know whether these quotes are fraudulent or not (given the infamous Darwin death-bed recantation fraud, I'm skeptical of creationist quotes in general), but even if it were, it would certainly be a good example of a legendary scientist going off the deep end. Of course, it's also a well-known fact that he said heavier-than-air flight is impossible in his waning years, so maybe his mental faculties were simply clouded by the ravages of age.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2005-04-25 10:18pm

IIRC, Kelvin's quote has to do with the Earth being too young to support the theory of evolution. At that time the Earth was believed to be a fraction of its true age, so that quote is completely irrelevant. Another distortion courteousy of the Creationists.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2005-04-25 10:24pm

Imperial Overlord wrote:IIRC, Kelvin's quote has to do with the Earth being too young to support the theory of evolution. At that time the Earth was believed to be a fraction of its true age, so that quote is completely irrelevant. Another distortion courteousy of the Creationists.

And IIRC, he believed Earth to be around 100 million years old because the interior of our world is still warm and they thought the world had been cooling off since it was formed. They had no idea about radioactive decay, after all.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2005-04-25 10:49pm

Darth Wong wrote:I've seen articles citing Lord Kelvin supposedly confirming the creationist belief that the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. I don't know whether these quotes are fraudulent or not (given the infamous Darwin death-bed recantation fraud, I'm skeptical of creationist quotes in general), but even if it were, it would certainly be a good example of a legendary scientist going off the deep end. Of course, it's also a well-known fact that he said heavier-than-air flight is impossible in his waning years, so maybe his mental faculties were simply clouded by the ravages of age.

Christians have made the exact same claims about Thomas Paine, who wrote "The Age of Reason". "The Age of Reason" is such a scathing, and such an accurate, well reasoned, and logical refutation of the Bible, that Paine has been accorded an almost equal status with Darwin (whose theory has proved such a firmly supported refutation of the Genesis creation story) in the Christian religion's rogues gallery of villains. It's interesting that Christians seek to promulgate stories of the religion's most outspoken and effective critics' deathbed conversions. The fact that they are still considered such villians by Christians is eloquent proof of these stories' falsehood. If these conversions were genuine, and could be genuinely backed up with reliable evidence, these men would be hailed as heroes, like the prodigal son in the Biblical parable. They may have erred and fallen into sinful ways, but their final embrace of God's love stands as proof not only of the power of God's word, not only of the triumph of faith, but also of God's infinite mercy, granting forgiveness and redemption even to men who sinned so badly, and led so many others into sin. They would be held up as examples, that even the most seemingly unsalvageable sinners can be saved. Hallelujah! Amen brother.

Since they are still excoriated as villians, and since their is no reliable evidence to support these deathbed conversions, we can safely assume such stories are nothing more than Christian propaganda.

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2005-04-25 11:13pm

Look at Newton. Did you know he was a passionate alchemist?

Link

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-04-25 11:33pm

Did a quick Google search. Lord Kelvin wrote an article "On the Origin of Life" which basically confirms that he believed in a divine origin.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2005-04-25 11:44pm

Galvatron wrote:Look at Newton. Did you know he was a passionate alchemist?

Yes, but Newton simply could not have known better, since atomism did not exist as a scientific theory. It was, at best, a philosophy of metaphysics until the end of the 19th century, with people like Boltzmann, who made use of it, virtually ignored. Even the law of conservation of mass, which is a staple of chemistry, was formulated many decades after Newton's death (Lavoisier). This was no small feat, since it required a complete reworking of the understanding of themodynamics at the time. In contrast, in cases like Dreisch's entelecy (an 'inner living force', so to speak, invoked to explain certain observations on embryo development and limb regeneration, later taken to a completely ludicruous degree), Blondlot's N-Rays (a bit like X-Rays, but a hoax, if unintentinal on Blondlot's part), and Lord Kelvin's judgment of flight, the scientist in question really should have known better, since the requisite principles and scientific protocol were already present.

Galvatron wrote:Did a quick Google search. Lord Kelvin wrote an article "On the Origin of Life" which basically confirms that he believed in a divine origin.

This is not too suprising, since the understanding of thermodynamics at the time pointed to a young earth, and this happened to be Lord Kelvin's particular area of expertise, so it would be natural for him to rely on it. Natural, perhaps, the rationality of this judgement would depend on independent estimates of the Earth's age. There should be geological evidence based on soil deposits and rock formation, or some other way. I'm not certain what the geologists' figure was in that timeframe, but it seems like it should be higher than Lord Kelvin's. (That might be something to look into...)

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2005-04-25 11:46pm

Aa, apologies for the misquote, DPDarkPrimus.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-04-26 12:16am

The person I'm honestly stuck about whether or not he buys his BS is Hovind.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-04-26 12:23am

Kelvin's judgement of flight is particularly galling because birds do it all the time. One does not need to be a scientific genius to note that a bird is denser than air and yet is capable of flight. So it was obviously a mere matter of engine efficiency.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-04-26 12:24am

His own BS, that is.

Castor Troy · Post by **Castor Troy** » 2005-04-26 01:31am

They don't really care if it's actually true, they just care if people actually buy into their bullshit.

Draxle · Post by **Draxle** » 2005-04-26 01:35am

In a delicious bit of irony, I recall once hearing a Bible passage that the punishment for liars was that they would be forced to believe their own lies.

I'd offer the exact chapter and verse, but honestly, I don't have them. My zeal for memorizing Bible verses sort of died the same time my faith did, which, ironically enough, was just after I read the Book of Job a couple of years ago.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-04-26 01:59am

Castor Troy wrote:They don't really care if it's actually true, they just care if people actually buy into their bullshit.

More often than not they start to believe their own bullshit

Castor Troy · Post by **Castor Troy** » 2005-04-26 02:03am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Castor Troy wrote:They don't really care if it's actually true, they just care if people actually buy into their bullshit.
More often than not they start to believe their own bullshit

Yeah, then that's really sad.

Speaking of which, is there an official definition of a pseudoscientist? Because I've heard many meanings here and there...

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-04-26 02:08am

A pseudoscientist is someone who makes extraordinary unfalsifiable claims and attempts to pass them off as science. IE Palm reading and Fung... however the fuck it is spelled

Castor Troy · Post by **Castor Troy** » 2005-04-26 02:12am

Kind of like those cold fusion "salt hydrolosis" scientists, right?

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-04-26 07:20pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:A pseudoscientist is someone who makes extraordinary unfalsifiable claims and attempts to pass them off as science. IE Palm reading and Fung... however the fuck it is spelled

Feng shuai or something? The crazy furniture people? I thought that was a part of Chinese folk superstition. I mean, a pseudoscientist has to actualy try to pass something off as science, right?

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2005-04-26 07:33pm

unbeataBULL wrote:Feng shuai or something? The crazy furniture people? I thought that was a part of Chinese folk superstition.

Yes, it is. At least I think so. It may not be complete bullshit though. Once you strip away the mystic language a lot of it IIRC boils down to ergonomics and psychology. Stuff like having a chair face the wall depresses you, as it makes you feel boxed in and claustrophobic.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-05-01 11:17am

Junghalli wrote:
unbeataBULL wrote:Feng shuai or something? The crazy furniture people? I thought that was a part of Chinese folk superstition.
Yes, it is. At least I think so. It may not be complete bullshit though. Once you strip away the mystic language a lot of it IIRC boils down to ergonomics and psychology. Stuff like having a chair face the wall depresses you, as it makes you feel boxed in and claustrophobic.

I have wondered whether modern people who follow it belief in its mystical connations or just because they find its instructions on how to design buildings aesthetically pleasing.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2005-05-01 03:43pm

mr friendly guy wrote:I have wondered whether modern people who follow it belief in its mystical connations or just because they find its instructions on how to design buildings aesthetically pleasing.

There are Chinese practices that are actually rather impressive once the excessive mysticism is excised, most notably acupuncture. It's a very good anesthetic, and is a decent treatment for many milder conditions, certainly healthier in many cases.