Came across a list of pseudosciences and was fun seeing where im woo woo.
Lunar effect – 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
You must log in or register to comment.
I really want to believe the Assassin’s Creed concept that our DNA holds memories from our ancestors.
Epigenetics. But that’s not as cool as whatever Assassin’s Creed is.
Body Memory
I mean, cellular memory and muscle memory exist.
None. If any of it was reproducable it would science instead of pseudoscience
Although anyone who works in an ER will tell you the full moon is the busiest night; the occurrence rate of every issue but murder goes up.
My mother is a career nurse and swears by this and I’m inclined to believe her. I’d love to see if numbers actually back it up or whether it’s sort of confirmation bias.
Maybe like a limited Gaia hypothesis. The whole planet is a conscious thing, we are its braincells and its hands.
why not go full panpsychic it actually makes even more sense and has been seriously studied for millenia
I guess fundamentally I see the mind as arising out of physicality and emergent constructs within that physical system rather than being fundamental. The reason the Gaia hypothesis appeals to me then is because it is just an extension of that emergence idea but across the whole world
In that theory we’d more be the cancer-cells rather than braincells 😏
That wiki article is very biased.
It also has problems distinguishing pseudo medicine (proven not to work) from alternative medicine (not conclusively proved or disproved).
Once something works, we call it medicine. There’s no such thing as “alternative medicine”.
Even if it’s weird, or comes from popular knowledge, or disrupts the profits of a pharmaceutical company - if it’s proven to work, it’s medicine.
Modern doctors are using fish skin to combat burns, maggots against necrosis, electroshock therapy for depression.
The things that need the “alternative” qualifier before the word “medicine” are the ones that do nothing but extract your money.
I’m not sure what are you trying to tell me.
That you agree with me that “alternative medicine = not proven to work, but I’m wrong somehow”?
If your definition is that something can be called “alternative medicine” simply because we have no proof if it works or not, my magic stick that heals all wounds is alternative medicine.
What? There are no studies proving it doesn’t work… and no, I won’t let you touch it. But it’s alternative medicine!
That’s literally alternative medicine defined as per well, science. And you being silly doesn’t take from it. In the past, viruses were considered alternative medicine (quackery even), until they were proven to exist and work as in theory.
If you hit someone with a stick and that person gets cured of cold, it’s alternative medicine (you suspect there’s correlation or causation, and repeating the treatment during other incidents tends to have similar effect, i.e. when you hit more people they also get cured). When it’s proven that there’s causation between your action and the cure, then it’s medicine.
There’s no scientific definition of alternative medicine, it’s not a real category.
You might want to check out wikipedia.
Ah, that explains why you think popular definitions are somehow scientific.
I think that currently society is too polar about this issue. A lot of so-called pseudoscience have a lot of anecdotal evidence that should be taken into consideration and don’t have a lot of science to deny them. On the other hand a lot of them do have that so there is an issue where there’s a lot of people who believe a lot of different pseudosciences because some of them genuinely seem to have results but the people who go explicitly by scientific research sometimes can group all of these together. For example, homeopathy is obviously bullshit, and there is a ton of scientific research that shows that. But, for example, a lot of Chinese medicine, which has no scientific backing, does seem to have a lot of anecdotal and historical evidence that suggests that if science does look into it, they might find some actual results.
I don’t know what lunar effect is, but the description you gave sounds very plausible. Like, why wouldn’t a full moon affect the behavior of humans and other animals? How it affects them? To what degree? Sure, that’s debatable. But generally affecting them, that sounds reasonable. It’s a significant change in the night. It lights up the night more and It wouldn’t be a stretch to assume that some animals might use it as time management indicators that might relate to biological cycles.
Right. There’s a mix in lots of ideas, of interpreting real evidence and experience, and of making up rubbish to sell things. And just of building too big of a theory off minimal data and putting too much trust in it.
So, moonlight being a major factor to change your behaviour to evil or crazy, is presumably nonsense. But, as you say, moonlit nights affecting human behaviour, such as having social events on a moonlit night, or even working later in the fields those nights, is obvious.
And the phase of the moon causing programming bugs? Absolutely real. There’s one or two documented cases.
It’s hard resisting the power of the moon.
Especially if you work on a boat, by the coast.
The only pseudo science I believe is that one day I’ll be happy. Even though I know i ll never be happy.
We have come so far through the application of rationality and the scientific method. All the wonders of the modern world we owe to science.
What has pseudoscience bought us? Ignorance and stagnation.
I want to live in a world of technological progress not a “Demon Haunted World.”
The USB law.
When you try to plug in a USB-A connector, there’s a 70% probability it won’t go in. Mathematically it should be 50%, but I don’t believe that.
You switch it around, and there’s a 30% probability it won’t go in. This is not something they taught at school.
You switch it around the third time, and there’s a 5% chance it still won’t go in. Your mind begins to melt down, you switch and insert repeatedly until it finally works sooner or later.
That’s true only if you don’t want to or cannot look at the connector. The side with the seam goes to the part of the hole with the plastic bit.
Also, the overwhelming majority of USB plugs have the logo on the side away from the plastic bit, and sockets have their plastic bits towards the top of the device. You want the plastic bits on opposite sides (as physical objects don’t like to overlap), so that means that if you can feel the logo with your thumb, that side goes up when you plug it in, and you don’t even have to look.
Amazing! I need to check how many of my cables actually follow this rule.
Also, the socket side tends to be aligned in a particular way, but it won’t work with all manufacturers. I recall seeing some laptops that had their USB-A sockets upside down. Oh, and desktops too! Those sockets are usually vertical, and facing a wall, so it’s anyone’s guess which way is right.
Towards the back of the machine normally counts as up for upwards-facing sockets, unless it’s a case with feet on the side, in which case it’ll be away from those feet so the sockets would be the right way up if it were sideways and on the alternative feet.
Pretty sure lunar effect is a real, scientifically confirmed thing, just known by a different name. Perhaps not the full moon specifically, but we do oscillate according to the moon phase. It’s called circalunar cycles. The name might sound familiar to circadian cycles because they both derive from the same word structure, ie circa-dia (“around a day”) and circa-lunar (“around a month”)
At minimum, I’m quite surprised that Wikipedia lists this as a pseudoscience, because my impression has generally been that circadian researchers acknowledge circalunar cycles as a given
A lot of these are adjacent to real observable phenomenon but a nutty belief system has been overlaid and then additional claims are made on the basis of that nutty belief system which are not observable.
For example, Feng Shui in practice is usually pretty sensible “where should I put the sofa” kind of stuff, but if you claim that it’s about the flow of qi through your house and suggest that based on that not only should the sofa go over there, but you need to put a topiary vase on the table next to it, that might be a nice aesthetic touch but there’s no evidence of qi.
Additionally there’s plenty of Traditional Chinese Medicine that became actual medicine because it has observable properties. For example turmeric is a mild anti-inflammatory.
Not sure either of these counts fully as what OP is looking for, but -
The idea of the technological singularity feels right to me. There’s a whole section on the wikipedia page about scientific objections to it, and I get that, but if we don’t kill ourselves before then, it seems like an event that almost has to occur at some point, to me. And maybe it zigs instead of zags and we get star trek. Or maybe it zags and we get terminator. But probably neither of those I’m guessing, and these days it’s hard to imagine that it would put humanity on a worse trajectory than we seem to be on today.
Similarly, but less seriously (for me) I like to consider the whole “maybe we’re in a simulation” theory.
Yeah I kinda adhere to the simulation thing too. As a videogames programmer, every time I try to learn about quantum mechanics I learn about some new quirk that really makes it sound like some game engine limitation
when I like to gain perspective and imagine how useless we are on this meaningless little planet in a massive galaxy universe etc I just imagine the lonely little Boltzmann brain that’s actually just imagining the whole thing for a few nanoseconds before it returns back to quantum foam
Modern geocentrism
kinda. It’s more that “center” of the universe can be picked completely arbitrarily. I can say I’m 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.
Lunar effect – the belief that the full Moon influences human and animal behavior.
by that short definition sure, but probably not how they mean. If you’re active at night, the amount of ambient light is surely going to impact your behavior. Not so much in areas with artificial lighting.
Memetics.
Insofar as there are self-replicating ideas, and the ones more likely to self-replicate become more prevalent…sure. Not the whole story either, as ideas can also be pushed by people that don’t believe those ideas.
You are always the center of the observable universe.
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 don’t have agency either.
While genetic agency is often appropriated by reactionary politics, it’s a quite established scientific perspective.
I subscribe to historical materialism, which is apparently a pseudoscience according to that Wikipedia article.
Karl Marx stated that technological development can change the modes of production over time. This change in the mode of production inevitably encourages changes to a society’s economic system.
I dunno, man, that doesn’t sound too crazy. I’m in a really bad condition for learning new things right now, and I can’t even figure out what claims this idea would be making. It sounds like it’s just describing a process of advancement and the types of conflicts that arise?
I’m finding this especially hard to grasp because my brain’s on a tangent about how you’d really go about falsifying most stuff in history or sociology. You gonna put a bunch of people in a series of jars with carefully controlled conditions for hundreds of years and observe the results? Like we have this piece of paper from 1700 that says Jimothy won the big game, but our understanding of this guy and his alleged win of this supposed game are totally vibes-based because we don’t have a time machine. I think like the best you can do is try to base your beliefs and claims off things that have been observed repeatedly, but does that make these kinds of topics unscientific? We test what we can and go with our best guess for what we can’t, right? This is going to bother me.
I’m too lazy and tired to go into it at the moment, so I’m just going to paste this infographic explaining the relationship between the material base and ideological superstructure.
To the falsifiability point, while I can’t say a lot without knowing the specifics that Popper argued, historical materialism (and dialectical materialism, the way of understanding the world historical materialism comes from) don’t on the surface make much sense trying to attack from a falsifiability angle. While one could attempt to disprove, say, the extraction of surplus value through profit or the tendency of the rate of profit to fall being properties of capitalism (these are claims about the world that can conceivably be true or false), dialectical/historical materialism is the tool used to analyze the world, attempt to change the world based on the understanding from that analysis, incorporate the lessons learned from those attempts (be they failed or successful) into one’s understanding of the world, and repeat. It’s basically a way of gaining knowledge about the world, as well as an explanation of how people get knowledge.
Again, I’d have to check out Popper’s full argument for the specifics, but I don’t know how one can make assertions about the falsifiability of what is basically an epistemology without committing some kind of category error.
Uff, i have a lot:
Life on earth is a huge organized organism. It created intelligent humans deliberately sothat we can spread life to other planets. Living beings (plants, insects, other animals, fungi) could not do that otherwise.
All life is sentient. Sentience doesn’t come from the brain, rather it comes from the hormones in your bloodstream. When we sweat, these hormones enter the air (apparently within the fraction of a second) and other people can smell them. That is how we can instinctually know how others are feeling.
Also i have a lot of mythology:
Heaven (realm of all ideas, knowledge and forms) and Earth (origin of mass and material) are a love pair. Because they couldn’t easily meet (there was an insurmountable gap between them), they created a bridge, which is life. This way, heaven supplies the shape (genes), and Earth supplies the body, and these two can be together in this way.
Viruses are books. They have a cover (shell) and contain scripture (RNA/DNA). We humans let them in because they are nature’s messengers and have a specific purpose, which is to exchange some information.
ask for more and i will give.
More plz
