science and pseudo science

janis · Post by **janis** » 10 Jan 2008 00:10

What do you think makes something qualify as being "scientific"?

what do you think the difference between science and non-science is?

very interested to hear your thoughts.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 11 Jan 2008 01:07

Science: Put forward a hypothesis, then attempt to disprove it.

Yeah?

QuantumBalance · Post by **QuantumBalance** » 11 Jan 2008 04:46

permascience!! the science of not being able to edit discussion posts.. justk

PROTOSCIENCE - an infant science!

WHAT NOW PROTOSCIENCE FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

max · Post by **max** » 11 Jan 2008 08:32

QuantumBalance wrote:permascience!! the science of not being able to edit discussion posts.. justk

PROTOSCIENCE - an infant science!

WHAT NOW PROTOSCIENCE FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So is this an *epic* post? Should it be stickied?

QuantumBalance · Post by **QuantumBalance** » 13 Jan 2008 00:21

good times !!

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 15 Jan 2008 04:27

Science is the way things work. Non science is anything not pertaining to that.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 15 Jan 2008 17:17

If you're specifically interested in what modified people think then disregard

but if you're interested in the topic

Gaston Bachelard might interest you - French philosopher - "the New Scientific Mind" (1934) and "The Formation of the Scientific Mind" (1938)

I haven't read his stuff myself but I have come across it in other people's work. He influenced people like Kuhn, Althusser and Foucault.