Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with pseudoscience

All in your head?

Yakuman — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:33:33 -0800

Does anyone still believe in phrenology?

Recommend me some pseudo-scientific art please.

SebastianKnight — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 12:31:14 -0800

Looking for examples of artists using scientific, sociological, mathematical, ethnographic, or psychological devices in their practice. Bonus points for funny. I'm in the (very) early stages of planning an art piece and I'm looking for some inspiration and context. I'm casting a wide net, so give me whatever you can - I'll narrow down my focus as the project takes shape. If you can be fairly specific you'll save me some legwork - artists' names, specific works etc. If you suggest a movement in the arts please try to narrow it down a little bit - 'conceptualism' is far, far too broad, for example.

Don't limit yourself to the above categories - I'm grateful for anything tangentially related.

(By way of example, Sophie Calle and Gillian Wearing have both used pseudo-social-science in their practice. I'm tempted even to include something like Throwing four balls... by Baldessari, but that one's a bit of a stretch. I've heard a little about map-based psychogeographic works like The Shipping Forecast and 26 Different Endings by Mark Power, but they don't particularly interest me.)

Thank you!

Books about cryptozoology?

spockette — Wed, 13 May 2009 11:57:23 -0800

I'd like some recommendations for books about cryptozoology. A broad overview of the subject would be welcome, but I'd prefer books that are more specific to a single kind of creature, like lake monsters, Bigfoot, yetis, the Jersey Devil, Mothman, or any other fantastical creatures. I really don't want anything about the Loch Ness monster (but other lake monsters would be fine). I grew up in a wee village a few miles from Loch Ness, so, as you can imagine, I've had more than enough Nessie to last me a lifetime.

I'm not looking for books that debunk this kind of thing - I'm already a skeptic, I just think monsters are cool.

Mobility Device?

Arquimedez Pozo — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 20:01:51 -0800

I am looking for a biological answer to a very strange and SFW question. The following are a somewhat isolated set of circumstances: When I'm hungover and in any car, whether as a passenger or driver, I will feel pretty nauseous. My cure for this nausea is to hang one hand out the window. The twist is that the cure only works if it is precipitating and cool outside, but it works really well. More below... I was traveling with my stepbrother the other day, and he wasn't feeling well (hungover) and I suggested the strange cure without telling him why. He immediately felt better. Any theories on why and how this works?

How do I convince someone that (S)cience is real?

doppleradar — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:50:32 -0800

How do I convince someone Science is real? I've run into a handful of people in the last year who are skeptical that (S)cience is real. Or is any more real/credible/valid than other "belief system."

Their arguments have all had one or a mix of "I don't believe in Science because":
1. It has been wrong before
2. There are still unanswered questions
3. There have been conflicting results on the same topic
4. I read "The Secret"/watched "What The Bleep Do We Know"/etc., and think that pairing pseudo-science with vaguely related Scientific concepts makes it all equally true.
6. Science is accepted because people are brainwashed by authority and not because it is true.
5. Any of the above reasons why Science is "wrong" proves my hypothesis right.
6. If it works for me, it is true.

I don't begrudge anyone their belief system, but am a little overwhelmed with the sheer baseness of why there is a distinction between Belief and Fact. It seems like there should be an easier way to explain it all than having to get into some long diatribe on the history and philosophy of Scientific thought.

So, hivemind, what is the most basic, and most respectful way to explain why (S)cience is "real?"

Chariots of the Globs

Artw — Thu, 15 May 2008 01:13:16 -0800

Help identify a (most likely European) comic with Von Daniken style ancient astronauts that I vaguely remember from childhood. I would have seen it in the early 80s, and it came in softcover Tin-tin sized volumes. It concerned (as I remember) a bunch of ancient astronauts knocking around on Earth befire the evolution of man, carving the Nasca lines in Peru with spaceship born lasers, that sort of thing.

(No, it wasn't Jack Kirby)

Why can't I move shit with my mind?

Nattie — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 06:18:51 -0800

On what grounds does one draw the line between quantum physics/mechanics and pseudoscientific claims about the powers of consciousness? I'm naturally skeptical of claims like the following that purport to be supported by quantum physics/mechanics:

- Telekinesis.
- Telepathy.
- Healing yourself with your mind, etc.

I don't know enough about quantum physics to understand where the reasoning goes south, though. When I read skeptical articles, they usually dismiss the claims by saying "they misunderstand the science," but they don't go into detail. That's what I'm looking for.

If it's helpful, these sort of things tend to take the idea that your consciousness acts on everything it observes and extrapolates from there.

Does it have something to do with the idea of a "conscious observer" not necessarily meaning "a human being with a conscious," depending on your interpretation of quantum mechanics? Is it conflating superposition with observer effect? Something else?

Are these claims actually possible in some "legitimate" interpretations but we're doubtful those interpretations are true? Or are all the claims based on misunderstanding?

I feel like I have a very vague grasp of these concepts, and whenever I try to pinpoint the flaw in reasoning my mind can't process it.

Help me find or create a word for false knowledge

Astro Zombie — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:40:06 -0800

I'm looking a word for a behavior, and, failing that, I am looking for help in inventing that word. I am looking for a word to describe ersatz education. That is, the sort of thing people spend a lot of time studying, but isn't really knowledge, because it isn't verifiable and, in most cases, is actually disprovable. I'm talking about things like horoscopes, 9/11 theorists, creation science. Mind you, I'm not talking about the study of these things from a cultural or historical viewpoint, or for entertainment or novelty. I'm talking about the earnest mistaking of these sorts of things for legitimate knowledge, and the pompous sense that having memorized nonsense makes you somehow more educated.

Now, if you happen to think my examples are actual knowledge, and are angry at me for accusing you of having taught yourself nonsense, well, just imagine I picked another example that you know to be nonsense, even though, say horoscopes are, in your mind, a science. Let's say you think lay lines, or cryptozoology, or phrenology is bullshit. Just imagine I used that example, and let's not discuss whether my original examples are nonsense or not.

So what I am looking for is a word to describe this false knowledge (something broader, and funnier, than pseudoscience). And I guess I'm looking for a related word to describe people who take pride in their mastery of nonsense knowledge. The word, should we invent it, should be appropriately snide and mocking.

Hive mind, do your thing.

What do know about Clear Direction?

climalene — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 18:30:46 -0800

Ever heard of Clear Direction and its relation to formal axiology? Is it scammy? Legit? What can you tell me about it? My boyfriend's boss had all his managers take a survey today as part of the Clear Direction program, a new business solution/training package he's signed up for. The program came up with a "management profile" for my boyfriend. On the one hand, the profile is typical Myers-Briggs personality stuff; on the other hand, there's a whiff of pseudoscience to the whole thing -- it tries very hard to sell "formal axiology" as a hard science, and it talks about "balancing one's six thought centers" and such.

Googling tells me that formal axiology does seem to be a real, though small, scholarly field, but otherwise I'm coming up with circular hits -- everything leads back to Hartman, who invented formal axiology, Hartman's co-authors, and the society Hartman founded. And there's little about Clear Direction and how it truly relates to formal axiology....or whether it's a reasonable program. Is this the usual business process/personality/leadership thing, or is it something worse?

Web Cults: Do They Exist?

TwelveTwo — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:22:05 -0800

Crazy people, pseudoscience and cult pages, are there any on the internet with a following or are they just there to be amusing? I am asking for links to successful snake oils, and internet based cults. I have doubts that anyone buys into these things. Prove me wrong, or prove me right!