Sentences with phrase «such pseudoscience»

«Of Pandas and People» ran up against the first amendment, and that's the only way such pseudoscience can be kept out of schools (after lawsuits).

«Yet you have just defi9ed the 1st Law of thermodynamics in making such a pseudoscience claim.»

But modern embryology and fetology exploded such pseudoscience long before Roe.

Not exact matches

Such techniques are considered pseudoscience and there is no evidence that they reduce the symptoms associated with reactive attachment disorder.

And it again, it brought home to me the way in which Martin Gardner was at the hub of a vast universe of brilliant, sparkling intellect — including people like Marvin Minsky [at] the M.I.T. artificial intelligence lab; and John Conway who at the time was in England and later came to Princeton and who invented so many deep and fascinating mathematical ideas, especially the Game of Life, to which Martin devoted several columns and which was an incredibly important thing in bringing new ideas to the world of computation and about the cellular automata; and Donald Knuth at Stanford, the great computer [scientist]; Perci Diaconis a statistician who is fascinated by paradoxes of probability and a great magician as well; and Ray Hyman, a psychologist who had a spent a great deal of his life debunking people such as [Uri Geller]; and James Randi, one of the great magicians of our era who also was one of the most important debunkers of pseudoscience in the world.

It was Karl Popper who first identified what he called «the demarcation problem» of finding a criterion to distinguish between empirical science, such as the successful 1919 test of Einstein's general theory of relativity, and pseudoscience, such as Freud's theories, whose adherents sought only confirming evidence while ignoring disconfirming cases.

This combination of scientific responsibility and general accessibility is desperately needed if we are to escape the serious social damage caused by such widely disseminated pseudoscience.»

Recently I read this article «Critics Object to Pseudoscience Center,» and it had me in such fits I could barely restrain myself from screaming out loud when I realized that all the progress in natural medicine research we have been fighting for may be wiped out:

No scientific evidence has been provided to prove that Himalayan salt has substantial benefits compared to common salt, thus such claims should be treated as pseudoscience.

Students learn about concepts such as non-profits, bias, and pseudoscience.

But I don't think that qualifies as «pseudoscience,» which to me suggests such things as controversial hypotheses masquerading as self - evident assumptions («ordered complexity implies a designer»), or outright fallacies of inference and errors of fact, perhaps hidden behind familar jargon («in information - theoretic terms, evolution of the eye is impossible»), or cleverly disguised as well - established results from other sciences («quantum electrodynamics suggests that consciousness is the fundamental nature of reality, and so we don't need to age, and crime will be reduced if we meditate on it correctly»).

Can such an idea be tested when it is being treated as a pseudoscience and thus above testing, when it is considered herisy to even subject it to test?

That aside, flawed pseudoscience such as the selfish mining cancer are incredibly simple to debunk.