In article <[email hidden]>,
Dave said:"Eric Bohlman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:"Dave" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:Quoted message said:"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> If you think astrology is an "excellent example of a science," that
> tells me a lot about your apparent inability to understand why I am
> skeptical of your claims. Astrology is NOT a science. Period.Well, then what is it?
It's a pseudo-science; a belief system that couches its doctrine in the
*vocabulary* of science but doesn't apply scientific methodology. It
makesQuoted message said:claims that are not empirically falsifiable. A "theory" that can explain
everything is not a theory at all. You can use all the "science words"
youQuoted message said:want, but if in the end you have to rely on "it's true because I say so"
then you're not doing science.Would be like saying a vaccine that cures cancer is coming soon?
Straw man. Science says no such thing. People making predictions about
what science will achieve say such things, and these predictions can be
correct or incorrect.
Quoted message said:Or like
saying drugs
are good for you because we have this "real" pseudo-science that says so?
Again, science says no such thing. All medicines have risks and
benefits. It is the balance of risks and benefits that determine whether
a drug is "good" for any particular disease. Science does not make the
blanket statement that "all drugs are good for you." People like you
mischaracterizing science say such things. On the other hand, people
like you DO make claims along the lines of "herbs are good for you."
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"