LOL.
Couch posting Stanford's definition of pseudo-science the other day. He needed a reminder of how dumb the sheep are, so he throws @F's "xyience" in their faces:
http://www.crossfit.com/mt-archive2/005332.html
Then Kool-Aid drinker Steve comments later with a link on how to specifically identify pseudo-science. Just like with the cult stuff posted previously, the obviousness with which @F fits into this is just sad.
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html
Pseudoscience
- Pseudosciences are more likely to be driven by ideological, cultural, or commercial goals.
- The field has evolved very little since it was first established. The small amount of research and experimentation that is carried out is generally done more to justify the belief than to extend it.
- In the pseudosciences, a challenge to accepted dogma is often considered a hostile act if not heresy, and leads to bitter disputes or even schisms.
- Observations or data that are not consistent with established beliefs tend to be ignored or actively suppressed.
- The major tenets and principles of the field are often not falsifiable, and are unlikely ever to be altered or shown to be wrong.
- Pseudoscientific concepts tend to be shaped by individual egos and personalities, almost always by individuals who are not in contact with mainstream science. They often invoke authority (a famous name, for example) for support.
- Pseudoscientific explanations tend to be vague and ambiguous, often invoking scientific terms in dubious contexts.
Examples of every single one of the above are plainly obvious and most are documented in this thread already.
Reminds me of how funny it is to hear couch calling out others on their supposed pseudo-science, fatness, weak performances, and no squat.
And no, the irony of this post is not lost on me.
