|
#redirect[[Padua Cathedral]]
== Edits==
-- [[VAMP]]
-- [[Synaptobrevin]]
-- [[Exocytosis]]
-- [[Syntaxin]]
-- [[SNAP-25]]
-- [[Synaptotagmin]]
-- [[SNARE (protein)]]
-- [[Vascular smooth muscle]]
-- [[Quantum brain dynamics]]
-- [[Davydov soliton]]
-- [[Polaron]]
-- [[Sine-Gordon equation]]
==How to [[diagnose]] the [[pseudoscience]]?==
[[Image:Pietro Longhi 015.jpg|thumb|[[Pietro Longhi]]: The Charlatan, 1757]]
When someone decides to be a [[scientist]] and do [[science]], he must from the very beginning understand what [[science]] is. Unfortunately in the [[philosophy of science]] there have been many (and now known to be [[false]]) [[definition]]s of what [[science]] is. The best example is the suggestion of the ''induction principle'' as a characteristic ingredient of the [[scientific method]]. Nowadays one can find numerous versions of [[Karl Popper]]'s [[Mathematical proof|proof]] that nothing like the ''induction principle'' is needed for one to do [[science]]. Instead one creates bold [[hypothesis|hypotheses]], and then tries to [[falsification|falsify]] them via [[experiment]]. This conclusion arises from the [[logic]]al [[asymmetry]] of singular vs. universal statements. For example, a [[single]] [[negative]] [[fact]]/[[statement]] can disprove given universal law/statement, however no [[finite]] number of [[positive]] facts/statements can prove a universal law/statement. Although this is a first step in the right direction of defining what [[science]] is, it does not provide [[insight]] of how and what you should do to be [[scientist]], because [[Karl Popper|Popper]]'s [[thesis]] is descriptive, not methodological one.
Fortunately in modern [[physics]] (and [[philosophy of science]]) the answer is known, and it has been suggested by the rapid [[axiom]]atic development of [[mathematics]] itself. Simply [[science]] is "to try to construct [[Consistency proof|consistent]] [[axiom]]atic [[model]]s (toy models) and then test them [[experiment]]ally or [[logic]]ally investigate them for unnoticed [[Consistency proof|inconsistencies]]".
How this is possible or why such a radical definition is needed? And isn't it possible once and for all to prove that a given axiomatic system is [[Consistency proof|consistent]]? The answer to both questions is "No!".
As a consequence of a series of [[incompleteness theorem]]s proved by [[Kurt Gödel]] it comes out that there exists no universal [[algorithm]] that provides answer whether a given formal system is [[Consistency proof|consistent]] or not! Thus after the construction of a formal model it is always possible to be discovered logical [[Consistency proof|inconsistency]] of the model, yet never it cannot be proven that the model is [[Consistency proof|consistent]] if it is indeed [[Consistency proof|consistent]]. So this new [[logic]]al [[asymmetry]] requires that one not only tests a constructed toy model by [[experiment]], it is also necessary to put the toy model on [[logic]]al [[test]]s for [[Consistency proof|consistency]], which will end in [[finite]] [[time]] with [[falsification]] of the [[model]] if the model is [[Consistency proof|inconsistent]], yet will never end in case of [[Consistency proof|consistency]] of the [[model]].
Therefore the [[scientist]] must keep these two [[rule]]s in [[mind]]:
:[1] The experimental testing of a toy model never ends in case when the model is correct, yet it may end in finite time only if critical [[falsification]] occurs.
:[2] The [[logic]]al [[test]]ing of model for [[logic]]al [[Consistency proof|inconsistencies]] never ends if the [[model]] is [[Consistency proof|mathematically consistent]], yet it may in [[finite]] [[time]] if a mathematically one may prove an [[Consistency proof|inconsistency]] within the [[model]].
Thus some scientists/experimentalists might produce [[pseudoscience]], if they ignore the mathematical requirement for consistency. Once this is done, and the experimentalist (putative scientist) goes over the limits of consistency, a perpetual [[vicious circle]] is originated. Due to the inconistency of the proposed model the putative scientist can prove/disprove any statement (from inconsistency follows everything). When additionally the experimentalist/pseudoscientist (who is not sensitive for the whole issue of consistency) is not critical for his own work, and he appears within an inconsistent model, it becomes very easy for him to disprove the opponents within his inconsistent model, and inversely “prove” any of his "pet theses". Thus the uncriticality for his own work might lead to fueling of a [[belief]] that the others are “provably” wrong, and he is “provably” unappreciated. The future discussion then becomes [[person]] oriented, and not [[science]] oriented. All irrelevant [[factor]]s as the social status of the opponent, his personal qualifications, notability in the scientific community, etc. now play a central role in the arguments of the pseudoscientist.
Concluding this discussion with concise answer to the initially posed question might be done in the following fashion: ''"[[pseudoscience]] should be recognized by its proved [[Consistency proof|logical inconsistency]], its frequent usage of irrelevant [[argument]]s for the main topic, never directly answering to posed questions, and claiming other positions to be wrong without being able to provide answers for the very questions that the alternative [[theory|theories]] have failed".''
It is worth for a [[scientist]] to study in depth what is this thing called [[Consistency proof|mathematical consistency]], and if he or she does not feel like studying or reading mathematics, then a good advice is: ''"Better find yourself another [[hobby]]!"''
| 