My own impression is that much of pseudoscience is framed in such a way that it cannot be disproven (falsifiability). I once had a friend discuss chakra networks with me. At one point he said: “don’t you think it’s possible for the human body to exchange energy with the outside world?” This is technically true. Philosophy can sometimes make some very ridiculous arguments too, but those cannot be disproven either. I would instead recommend explaining scientific philosophy and why this has proven so successful.
I would instead recommend explaining scientific philosophy and why this has proven so successful.
How would you go about explaining that in a way to someone who thinks that Bruce Lipton is a scientist because he was a professor of anatomy at respected university and to the extend that other scientists disagree with him that’s simply a case of scientific controversy?
My own impression is that much of pseudoscience is framed in such a way that it cannot be disproven (falsifiability). I once had a friend discuss chakra networks with me. At one point he said: “don’t you think it’s possible for the human body to exchange energy with the outside world?” This is technically true. Philosophy can sometimes make some very ridiculous arguments too, but those cannot be disproven either. I would instead recommend explaining scientific philosophy and why this has proven so successful.
How would you go about explaining that in a way to someone who thinks that Bruce Lipton is a scientist because
he was a professor of anatomy at respected university and to the extend that other scientists disagree with him that’s simply a case of scientific controversy?