A thread for Science. Discussion of studies from whatever sphere in here please.

Debunking of myths most welcome.

Here is one to start, a scientist questioning science looking for perfection. Would be interested in @anon7035031 thoughts.

And who are people here anyway con ected to the sciences? So we can tag them

What’s the question you want my thoughts on?

Does it matter?

1 Like

Scientific? What science do you want?

1 Like

Sorry, edited there.

1 Like

This opinion piece is in the realm of philosophy of science, not science itself. It’s describing a logical fallacy, the perfect solution fallacy. However, literally nobody involved in science would argue that perfect solutions exist, and something should be rejected because it doesn’t answer everything. I’m not sure what they are arguing actually, as the piece is very superficial, and it seems a bit of a straw man argument.

Striving for perfection is a noble goal even if it can never be achieved. It’s certainly better than rejecting science because it doesn’t have all the answers, while embracing pseudo-science which claims to have all the answers.

1 Like



What abput when traditional science rejects (what it calls) pseudoscience because it has not come up with all the answers or reached perfection?

I’m not arguing there is no pseudoscience, i see it every day. But i find there is at least in some cases just a pure will of old school science to not believe in certain things because they could not figure them out previously.

1 Like

That’s not why science rejects pseudo-science, it rejects it due to lack of evidence to support it’s claims.

Ok so you won’t answer the question.

Off to a bad start.


What’s the question exactly, as maybe I’m misreading it?

Science doesn’t reject pseudo-science because it (I assume you mean pseudo-science) doesn’t have all the answers or reached perfection, it rejects it due to lack of evidence.

I did say anything about the ones that don’t have any evidence.

1 Like

So, what’s your question then? Science doesn’t claim to have all the answers or have reached perfection, the opposite actually. What the lads in the article are arguing is that the standards of peer review in their field (medicine) are too high. Their argument isn’t fleshed out enough though to determine exactly what they are saying, but I would think medicine is one field where standards should be high.

Ya thats fair enough ya

A man is looking at a photo of a man, and he says:

“brother and sister I have none, but that man’s father is my father’s son”

who is he looking at?



Has gender fluidity been factored into this?