Pseudo science: EM Drive

[Loppan Torkel]

If it turns out to be without merit, it will indeed be another case of pseudo-science.

As Uppi pointed out, this wasn't a proper scientific endeavor from the get go. Nobody developed a scientific hypothesis and tried to test it. Instead, this was an invention which may or may not work as the inventor claims.

Has anyone made any claims about it? Not sure what you're arguing exactly. Do you believe it was wrong to label it pseudo science at this time from what we know? Imo, pseudo science isn't the same as 'false' science.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

As Uppi pointed out, this wasn't a proper scientific endeavor from the get go. Nobody presented a hypothesis

To do science without a hypothesis certainly opens the doors wide open for "pseudo-science", I think we all will be able to agree on that.
However, as I already tried to explain, it seems obvious to me that it is none-sense to categorically vilify such an approach by shaming it with the label "pseudo-science" as you appear to do.
Science is not just a clean fully controlled lab ideal. Even hard science also depends on intuition, of just trying things and looking what happens etc. All this is in the end as integral to science as the finale theories.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Has anyone made any claims about it? Not sure what you're arguing exactly. Do you believe it was wrong to label it pseudo science at this time from what we know? Imo, pseudo science isn't the same as 'false' science.

As I already pointed out long ago, "pseudo" means false. So, yes "pseudo-science" is indeed "false science".

To do science without a hypothesis certainly opens the doors wide open for "pseudo-science", I think we all will be able to agree on that.

It isn't science at all as Uppi clearly explained.

However, as I already tried to explain, it seems obvious to me that it is none-sense to categorically vilify such an approach by shaming it with the label "pseudo-science" as you appear to do.

I'm glad you at least added the "appear" here, even though I have made it quite clear that it wasn't me who "labeled" it pseudo-science. It was obviously Loppan Torkel who did so.

I've been merely responding to his own characterization.

Science is not just a clean fully controlled lab ideal. Even hard science also depends on intuition, of just trying things and looking what happens etc. All this is in the end as integral to science as the finale theories.

Perhaps you should ask a scientist what it actually means instead of trying to use intuition.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I am just gonne say it: You are an idiot.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

As I already pointed out long ago, "pseudo" means false. So, yes "pseudo-science" is indeed "false science".

You regard EM drive to be neither science or false science. As most times you don't commit to anything.
I don't regard EM drive to be proper science at this point, which made me put it in the pseudo science group for now. It doesn't mean I regard it as false science, just that it hasn't reached the level of proper science yet. It may also stay in the pseudo science group for good if new discoveries are made.
I don't think this interpretation is wrong and honestly I don't trust you enough to correct me if it's totally pseudo. I don't find this discussion worthwhile.

It isn't science at all as Uppi clearly explained.

I'm glad you at least added the "appear" here, even though I have made it quite clear that it wasn't me who "labeled" it pseudo-science. It was obviously Loppan Torkel who did so.

I've been merely responding to his own characterization.

Perhaps you should ask a scientist what it actually means instead of trying to use intuition.

 

[Akka]

That is quite a strong statement regarding a matter that is still undecided. There is enough friction between GR and QFTs to doubt that statement.

Anyway, there is no need to go to GR here. For the sake of the discussion it can be adequately described as a force. It is basic Newtonian mechanics that is at stake here.

I'm not an expert so it might be that I'm just basing my claims on oversimplifications, but I thought that the GR pretty much proved the whole "gravity is a geometrical property of the space-time continuum" (or something like that) which changed its usual perception from a force to a curving of said continuum ?

 

[uppi]

Perhaps you should ask a scientist what it actually means instead of trying to use intuition.

It does not hurt, if his intuition is correct.

Intuition is not a fundamental part of the scientific method, but a good intuition is vital to being a successful scientist. A good hunch where to look, which hypothesis to pursue and which experiment to perform is very important when you want to discover something new.

To do science without a hypothesis certainly opens the doors wide open for "pseudo-science", I think we all will be able to agree on that.
However, as I already tried to explain, it seems obvious to me that it is none-sense to categorically vilify such an approach by shaming it with the label "pseudo-science" as you appear to do.
Science is not just a clean fully controlled lab ideal. Even hard science also depends on intuition, of just trying things and looking what happens etc. All this is in the end as integral to science as the finale theories.

I think there is a line between labeling something as not-science and labeling it as pseudo-science. If a discovery is in its infancy and not science yet, or does not even try to be science, it is not pseudo-science. The line is crossed if it claims to be science, uses sciency-sounding terms and/or repeats explanations that have been thoroughly debunked.

The claim that these devices could produce thrust is not science, but it is not pseudo-science either. But if you try to make a handwaving argument involving quantum vacuum fluctuations (under the assumptions that you can violate the laws of physics by invoking "quantum"), then you are in pseudo-science territory.

I'm not an expert so it might be that I'm just basing my claims on oversimplifications, but I thought that the GR pretty much proved the whole "gravity is a geometrical property of the space-time continuum" (or something like that) which changed its usual perception from a force to a curving of said continuum ?

GR does not prove anything. It is a description of gravity as a property of space-time that is compatible with all our observations. At the same time there are QFT descriptions of the electroweak and the strong force that are also compatible with all our observations. The problem is that these descriptions contradict each other in currently experimentally inaccessible situations. So these descriptions need to be brought into agreement and there are multiple possibilities for that:
- Gravity can be reformulated as some sort of QFT
- The other forces can be reformulated as a property of space-time
- There is a way to transform one description into the other, making the distinction meaningless
- A unified theory is found that treats gravity fundamentally different from other forces

Only in the last case it would make sense to distinguish between forces and gravity. Until we have a unified theory, I would be very careful to make any assertions either way.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It does not hurt, if his intuition is correct.

Intuition is not a fundamental part of the scientific method, but a good intuition is vital to being a successful scientist. A good hunch where to look, which hypothesis to pursue and which experiment to perform is very important when you want to discover something new.

I didn't intend to suggest or insinuate intuition wasn't important. It obviously is. So is an insatiable curiosity.

What I find so disturbing though is how much general ignorance there is regarding science and the scientific method. It is as though people have simply not been paying any attention at all to the required science courses they had to sit through to even receive a high school diploma.

You can't even expect those who claim to be science journalists to accurately report about the topic. Even periodicals like Scientific American are generally a joke if you are actually familiar with the field in question. The only way to really determine the results of a particular paper is to read it yourself. And if you aren't intimately familiar with the field of study you frequently aren't even going to be able to discern the importance without further research or discussing it with an expert. But it usually becomes quite clear that what is being reported in the media is just so much half-truths and utter nonsense.

Science is an integral part of our lives. It is critically important to remain at least relatively informed. Otherwise the results can be devastating. The current level of denial by so many Americans regarding AGW and evolution is just the tip of the iceberg.

Speaking of which, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is a literal joke.


Link to video.

The hilarity begins at 3:40 in...


Link to video.

We should be embarrassed as a nation that our own national legislators are so comically misinformed and willfully ignorant about basic scientific precepts they should have mastered in grade school.

 

[Luckymoose]

No, what we have here are people who are naturally skeptical because they have heard so much similar stuff that turned out to be utter nonsense in the past.

That is the great thing about science. Eventually the truth will come out. That seems to bother some quite a bit.

Speaking of which, the search function is now down so I can't do a few simple queries. How do you feel about AGW and evolution? Or do I have you confused with someone else?

What? Are you saying that I don't adhere to the basics of scientific understanding? Are you trying to call me an anti-evolutionist and climate denier? Are you making up some form of lie about me in order to bash this conversation over the head with more blunt, broad statements in an attempt to win in this pathetic excuse for a scientific discussion?

 

[Formaldehyde]

What? Are you saying that I don't adhere to the basics of scientific understanding? Are you trying to call me an anti-evolutionist and climate denier? Are you making up some form of lie about me in order to bash this conversation over the head with more blunt, broad statements in an attempt to win in this pathetic excuse for a scientific discussion?

As I said, the search function was down and your name sounded familiar for making ultraconservative statements in this forum. So I was merely asking you to state your opinions regarding these two topics which are so frequently misunderstood by others of your political persuasion.

While I have been able to confirm that you are indeed a strident evolutionist, unlike so many other ultraconservatives (one might even say militant), the same doesn't appear to be true regarding AGW:

From the "Bye Bye Oil thread" in 2007:

1) Global warming is natural. And thus you cannot fix it.

From the "Solving Global Warming" thread in 2007:

Only one thing needs to happen to solve global warming. Kill Al Gore.

From the "Global Warming is a Fad" thread in 2008:

Global warming is a natural occurrence and thus Al Gore is not a scientist.

From the "Russia, Pakistan a taste of future climate" thread in 2010:

I'm not afraid of global warming. It's already 115 F and 100% humidity here. Bring it on you bastard planet!

 

[Borachio]

Science is an integral part of our lives. It is critically important to remain at least relatively informed. Otherwise the results can be devastating. The current level of denial by so many Americans regarding AGW and evolution is just the tip of the iceberg.

Now, that's piqued my interest somewhat. I can see that climate change denial could have devastating results. But the denial of evolution seems to have less clear consequences. I can't honestly think of any beyond a general anti-science sentiment - which is devastating enough, I guess. But are there any more direct consequences, I wonder?

 

[Synobun]

Did you really go through years of post history of another user to attack their sarcastic remarks that are clearly not serious, Forma? That's a little... far, especially in a thread that has nothing to do with what you're attacking.

 

[onejayhawk]

To do science without a hypothesis certainly opens the doors wide open for "pseudo-science", I think we all will be able to agree on that.
However, as I already tried to explain, it seems obvious to me that it is none-sense to categorically vilify such an approach by shaming it with the label "pseudo-science" as you appear to do.
Science is not just a clean fully controlled lab ideal. Even hard science also depends on intuition, of just trying things and looking what happens etc. All this is in the end as integral to science as the finale theories.

A great deal of science is simple observation. As long as the effect is reproducible, observe away.

Pseudo-science is in the extrapolations. All to often the real science has little connection to what is reported.

J

 

[Luckymoose]

As I said, the search function was down and your name sounded familiar for making ultraconservative statements in this forum. So I was merely asking you to state your opinions regarding these two topics which are so frequently misunderstood by others of your political persuasion.

While I have been able to confirm that you are indeed a strident evolutionist, unlike so many other ultraconservatives (one might even say militant), the same doesn't appear to be true regarding AGW:

Eight years ago I was a 17 year old conservative raised in a deeply conservative household in the deep south. I haven't been that person in about as long as it has been since then. The final quote: no, I'm not afraid of high temperatures, I'm afraid of mass food shortages, migrations, and conflict. There are far more quotes on my politics in many more recent years than that for you to go searching for, but instead you aimed at something so completely old and far from what I became as an adult in an attempt to slander me in this conversation.

Your attempts to win by using quotes from, effectively, children, when I'm speaking to you as a post-university, highly educated adult is frankly insulting to the nature of scientific discussion. 2007 is fast approaching a decade ago. But I'm sure you're the exact same person you were in 2007, and if I went digging I wouldn't uncover anything unusual there.

You have no right to say you know my actual politics, ideology, etc. I'm not a conservative. Farthest thing from it, in fact. So please, talk in the here and now, because you have nothing on me as you do not know me.

And learn to accept from that very example that current skepticism doesn't mean jack squat to science.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Now, that's piqued my interest somewhat. I can see that climate change denial could have devastating results. But the denial of evolution seems to have less clear consequences. I can't honestly think of any beyond a general anti-science sentiment - which is devastating enough, I guess. But are there any more direct consequences, I wonder?

It is bad enough that they are teaching their own children sheer nonsense in the place of science. But it is an entirely different matter when they demand that the children of everybody else be indoctrinated the very same way.

Yes, I consider this to be an extreme danger to our society in general because it directly leads to denying other aspects of science, such as AGW.

I imagine you don't see it much in England where creationists and evangelists make up such a tiny percentage of your population that they have little or no political power. But here in the US they have a very pervasive influence on us all, especially those of us who live in the South.

Eight years ago I was a 17 year old conservative raised in a deeply conservative household in the deep south. I haven't been that person in about as long as it has been since then. The final quote: no, I'm not afraid of high temperatures, I'm afraid of mass food shortages, migrations, and conflict. There are far more quotes on my politics in many more recent years than that for you to go searching for, but instead you aimed at something so completely old and far from what I became as an adult in an attempt to slander me in this conversation.

You seem to be forgetting that I merely asked you a simple question which you could have easily responded as you just did. But instead you decided to personally attack me, as you continue to nonsensically do for merely disagreeing with your opinions.

And congratulations for finally changing your opinion on AGW. If I had found quotes which reflect that I would have said so, as I did with evolution.

Did you really go through years of post history of another user to attack their sarcastic remarks that are clearly not serious, Forma? That's a little... far, especially in a thread that has nothing to do with what you're attacking.

So much for your continuing, and clearly nonsensical, personal attacks as well.

Now, would you both mind trying to discuss the topic instead of your clearly ludicrous opinions of me?

 

[Algeroth]

"The funny thing" is that this "ad hoc hypothesis" apparently isn't being tested by the two current groups. And as the Wiki article points out the results of those tests are in dispute. "Perhaps try again."

Oh, i think I see the problem right here. But you know what? I'll wait for your quotation of the Wiki article that points it out, if Wiki articles now become the scientific standard you aim to achieve.

Why are you seemingly so convinced that all this means anything so far? Have you no patience to wait for some reasonably conclusive outcome? Do you have a pressing need to get to Mars in the near future?

That would be mighty nice, I have to admit. But the one with no patience for the outcome here is you. Don't flatter yourself that your scientific illiteracy masked as a skepticism makes you something better than the crowd that is screaming about the dawn of the interstellar travel in ecstasy.

Do you remember the results of the OPERA experiment (that with the badly plugged optic cable?) that seemed like the neutrinos were traveling in FTL speed? CERN didn't have any theory for that, just measurements. That however didn't turned CERN into pseudoscientific institutions even if some illiterate nutjobs claimed so.

My position is the very same as Uppi's. Perhaps you should try insulting him instead.

It's adorable how you try to use Uppi as your shield when you are losing. He (I presume?) however writes this:

The claim that these devices could produce thrust is not science, but it is not pseudo-science either.

Come on, attack him that he doesn't understand science. I'll wait.

That isn't how science works. It simply doesn't care very long about any personal opinions, even those of respected scientists once the scientific method has shown them to no longer be valid.

True scientific research can never be stopped or censored by anybody simply "dismissing the concept", at least for long. That is the inherent beauty of it. It transcends human frailties and irrational fears. It allows others to stand on the shoulders of giants to continue to make even more scientific discoveries. It is self-correcting and self-perpetuating, at least in any reasonably free and open society. It even finally silenced the mighty Roman Catholic Church which was foolish enough to try to hamper and even stop its progress for centuries.

Lol, no. I even don't know where to stand with this one. If with the horrible understanding of history of science and its relationship with Catholic church if or the heroic glorification of scientific process. I literary can't just even.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Oh, i think I see the problem right here. But you know what? I'll wait for your quotation of the Wiki article that points it out, if Wiki articles now become the scientific standard you aim to achieve.

As though you can find anything wrong with the cited facts in it in the least.

 

[Synobun]

So much for your continuing, and clearly nonsensical, personal attacks as well.

Now, would you both mind trying to discuss the topic instead of your clearly ludicrous opinions of me?

Please quote the attack, I'm having difficulties finding it. I asked a legitimate question since it does seem like you went through years (2007-2011 spans multiple years) of a poster's history (Luckymoose is indeed a poster on this forum) to discredit their opinion when they hadn't made much of a commitment to the thread anyways.

From my point of view, that is a little far and especially misplaced in a thread about the definition of pseudo-science and whether or not that fits the EM Drive. I somewhat doubt the engine's capabilities in influencing global warming or the opinions of global warming deniers (if Luckymoose were to be one). His (mostly) respectful response -- the second paragraph could have done with some editing but it wasn't outright rude -- got him a "but bro you attacked me first" answer which is rather pointless and, which I am sure you will take as a horrific attack here, immature.

Additionally, I would love to discuss the topic once you give a serious response to my last statement. There is, unfortunately, not much I can say in response to a mocking reply about how NASA and the scientific community have hurt feelings because of you. It's difficult to have a back-and-forth and a "let's stick to the topic" mentality when you've provided no avenue for that very concept. Respond with sentences rather than petty one-liners and I will absolutely put more focus on the topic rather than your behaviour.

 

[uppi]

Do you remember the results of the OPERA experiment (that with the badly plugged optic cable?) that seemed like the neutrinos were traveling in FTL speed? CERN didn't have any theory for that, just measurements. That however didn't turned CERN into pseudoscientific institutions even if some illiterate nutjobs claimed so.

The handling of the OPERA incident was heavily criticized within the scientific community. It is hardly a good example for what is science and what is pseudo-science.

That being said, they stated a valid scientific hypothesis: Neutrinos move at 1.00002 times the speed of light. It was tentative and ad hoc, but it was properly defined and, most importantly, testable. That enabled the quick rejection as soon as other measurements came along.

 

[Atticus]

Wouldn't electricity be a good example? Even though there was no theory or model about it, people made all kinds of experiments pretty much showing that the phenomenon is real. At least that's how I've understood it.

Instead of being pseudo science it could be quasi science.

Or a non-physics example: electric shocks as the cure for depression. AFAIK, the way it works is mystery, but it's known it works.