Came across a list of pseudosciences and was fun seeing where im woo woo.
Lunar effect β the belief that the full Moon influences human and animal behavior.
Ley Lines
Accupressure/puncture
Ayurveda
Body Memory
Faith healing
Anyway, list too long to read. I guess Im quite the nonscientific woowoomancer. How about you? What pseudoscience do you believe? Also I believe nearly every stone i find was an ancient indian stone. Also manifesting and or prayer to manipulate via subconscious aligning the future. oh and the ability to subconsciously deeply understand animals, know the future, etc
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, itβs welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
Icon by @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
- 0 users online
- 221 users / day
- 936 users / week
- 2.44K users / month
- 5.59K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 3.07K Posts
- 119K Comments
- Modlog
ITT: very little pseudoscience. Itβs pseudoscience only when you try to pass something non-scientific as science (understood in the modernist sense). There are plenty of systems of knowledge that are outside of science and donβt really care about passing as science when making statements about the world: metaphysics, theology, cybernetics, open systems theory, and so forth. Those are not pseudosciences.
Love is a physical force, not just a human emotion.
Did I get that from Interstellar? Yes. Do I care? No.
Human life has meaning because we decide it does. That decision and that meaning are influenced by love, and the ensuing actions we take affect our physical environment.
Love takes energy and invokes acceleration of matter one way or the other. Itβs a force.
but then itβs a social force, and social force can be turned into a physical force. I would say any cybernetician would agree with this. Social signals are part of the same system of physical signals. Then we can argue cybernetics is not science but rather its own paradigm, but thatβs a different conversation.
kinda. Itβs more that βcenterβ of the universe can be picked completely arbitrarily. I can say Iβm the center of the universe, and when I spin on my chair, the universe revolves around me. You can define the frame of reference however you wish to. The change of perspective does not change how orbits work.
by that short definition sure, but probably not how they mean. If youβre active at night, the amount of ambient light is surely going to impact your behavior. Not so much in areas with artificial lighting.
Insofar as there are self-replicating ideas, and the ones more likely to self-replicate become more prevalentβ¦sure. Not the whole story either, as ideas can also be pushed by people that donβt believe those ideas.
Memetics is not really pseudoscience. It was science, there there were compelling evidence and arguemtns that ideas have no agency on their own, contrary to genes, and the whole field died for good.
Genes donβt have agency either.
While genetic agency is often appropriated by reactionary politics, itβs a quite established scientific perspective.
Iβm guessing βagencyβ in this case is being used in a way thatβs very specific to that area of research and not exactly how people use it in normal conversation?
Itβs obviously an open topic of debate in philosophy, but genes have agency for some definition of agency.
In a cybernetic sense, they have agency in the sense that the information within them transforms the world way more than the world affects their information. They are more players than chessboard.
For people like Dennet, which Iβm not necessarily a fan of, you can think of agency (and therefore freedom) as the ability of any unit of matter to prevent its dissolution in the face of threats. Life can be framed as a strategy of DNA to reproduce itself in the face of entropy. That is agency.
Does a grain of sand have agency? Does it want to be caught by a specific size of classification sieve?
Because thatβs exactly the level of agency that drives natural selection.
Agency is not will though. For sure genes have no will and neither does sand
You are always the center of the observable universe.
If any of it was reproducable it would science instead of pseudoscience
If itβs not provable by science, then I donβt believe it.
Science cannot even prove itself as a method. Science is just spicy epistemology.