“Quasiscience” may be a useful term for a field somewhere between science and pseudoscience. The foundations are dubious and the whole thing may be nonsense. There well may be some real stuff there, but it’s impossible to sort out which, given the methods used.
-
-
A field whose leaders recognize and acknowledge that its foundations are shaky, and/or its methods are questionable, and are working to improve them, is not pathological—quite the opposite. (Although its results are unreliable in the interim.)
-
If outsiders took the field as reliable when the leaders are loudly saying “no, not yet” that would be pathological (although not the field’s fault). Do you have examples in mind?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Definitely. I work at the intersection of something like 4-5 and the differences are mindboggling.
-
Wonderful, would love to hear more! I’ve often/usually worked at the intersection of multiple fields, and that does seem to give one meta-scientific insight that straight-ahead normal scientists can’t have.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.