Customize

10 Questions To Distinguish Real From Fake Science

Discussion in 'Think Tank' started by Anonymous, Mar 21, 2013.

  1. Anonymous Member

    Let's see how "the tech" and "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health" score with questions from http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywi...-to-distinguish-real-from-fake-science/print/
    Quote each question in your replies when answering.
    1. What is the source?
    2. What is the agenda?
    3. What kind of language does it use?
    4. Does it involve testimonials?
    5. Are there claims of exclusivity?
    6. Is there mention of a conspiracy of any kind?
    7. Does the claim involve multiple unassociated disorders?
    8. Is there a money trail or a passionate belief involved?
    9. Were real scientific processes involved?
    10. Is there expertise?
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Anonymous Member

    But bear in mind
    - Thinking that the source of something makes it science or not is the fallacy of appeal to authority.
    - Agenda does not distinguish between science and non-science.
    - Mentioning "conspiracies" does not distinguish between science and non-science.
    etc, etc.

    So, all in all, quite an invalid set of tests for science.
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Anonymous Member

    I would call that a superstitious list of determining factors.

    A better question is - Does it use verifiable data and valid reasoning to support a (falsifiable) conclusion?
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Anonymous Member

    That'd be 9. real scientific processes

    I guess you didn't read the explanations with clarifications for each question in the link.
  5. Anonymous Member


    1 - A criminal mad man

    2 - make money, make more money, brainwash people to make more money

    3 - the first thing people learn is they have to "clear" their "bank"

    4 - yes, providing testimonials is compulsory and they must talk only about success

    5 - the most ethical people on the planet

    6 - yes, and UFOs and aliens and Xenu the galactic overlord

    7 - yes, asthma, arthritis, cancer, insanity can all be cured

    8 - yes, lots of money AND belief in Engrams

    9 - no, not one

    10 - none
  6. Anonymous Member

    But unless you are an expert in the relevant scientific field or you have perhaps months of free time to learn the relevant scientific literature in detail, you are forced to use general rules of thumb for deciding whether some claim is worth bothering about.

    Source matters because the odds of some untrained fool coming up with a real solution to a very complicated problem are vanishingly small.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Anonymous Member

    Interesting point.

    I'd say that the 'real scientific processes' include:

    - peer-review,

    - experiments which can be reproduced by other people.

    Which is intended to, and to a large extend does, get round the 'not everyone's an expert' problem. Although this process can be a problem in itself when the experts in the field have vested interests in keeping out new theories - e.g. see Jake Topiary's favourite book.

    So I think all you really need is point 9.

    But as a sort of an idiot's guide, yes the points made in OP aren't bad. E.g. if it says "MAKE MONEY FAST!!!!!!" then it's probably bollocks. But most of us knew that already.
  8. Anonymous Member

    1. What is the source? Source is "Source" himself, L Ron Hubbard, the greatest expert on dianetics.
    2. What is the agenda? The Agenda is the welfare of the human race and expansion of knowledge across all dimensions.
    3. What kind of language does it use? The language is proper technical language, in which each term is defined.
    4. Does it involve testimonials? It involves examples of multiple witnesses to prove the validity of the data.
    5. Are there claims of exclusivity? No. It builds on the work of Einstein, Socrates and Lao Tzu, amongst others.
    6. Is there mention of a conspiracy of any kind? Actually, the detractors of Dianetics claim that Hubbard himself is part of a conspiracy to defraud people, so they must be wrong.
    7. Does the claim involve multiple unassociated disorders? No, the disorders are clearly all associated with common engram related causes.
    8. Is there a money trail or a passionate belief involved? How do you think science gets funded without a money trail, or carried out without people having a passionate belief in learning and truth?
    9. Were real scientific processes involved? Dianetics is the product of much clinical research on subjects, verified by other accredited experts in Dianetics.
    10. Is there expertise? L Ron Hubbard is the recognised, qualified expert in the field of dianetics. People in other fields such as Psychology, Medicine etc, are obviously not qualified to critique his work as they do not have the required expertise.
  9. In Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard's fake science is their religion, well, ever since the fake science got them into legal trouble and the religious cloaking policy was instituted by L. Ron Fraudtard.

    "Fake ministers are to wear cleric collars and put some fucking double crosses up in all orgs, imean churches, stat." LRH (trufax)
  10. jensting Member

    • Like Like x 3
  11. fishypants Moderator

    [Funny]
  12. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  13. Anonymous Member

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins