Joined: Jan. 2006
You get the problems then of things like string theory and evolutionary psychology.
|Popper might be interested to know that a lot of philosophers of science don't believe pseudoscience exists. Rather, they think it is just really, really bad science which produces nothing.|
I agree, whats also useful I find is the distinction between pseudoscience and protoscience. If the only exposure to ID I had was Telic Thoughts for example, I would consider classifying it as protoscience. Their claim seems to be that ID is not yet science, and it is they who need to come up with theories, test predictions etc. When I have suggested this over at UD I have been told that it is bollocks (their word not mine), and ID has infact been scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and only the atheist conspiracy says otherwise. When confronted with this you tend to classify it as a pseudoscience, so i think the label is useful and means something other than just makes unproven claims.
|Even if there's no clear, perfect philisophical distinction between science and pseudoscience, for practical purposes there is.|