On 1/23/01, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< Tell me Mel, what is science and what is pseudoscience? .....  In my
opinion western, so-called science is at a high level but also very arrogant
and biased.>>

*** This is a wonderful philosophical question that is central to the world
of academia and technology.   And I agree with you in that 'Western' science
can sometimes tend to be very arrogant and biased, usually because it seems
to develop amnesia about what science purports to be.

The scientific method would appear to be extremely well defined in the
classical literature and, since craniosacral disciples ventured into this
narrow classical definition of the territory by offering typical examples of
"the" scientific method, they forced themselves to be judged by these
standards.  When in the scientific Rome, be judged by the rules and laws of
the Romans!

The classical definition of "the" Scientific Method"  is described very
adequately on this website:

<http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html>

<The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and
over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent
and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions
and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of
standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing
a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers)
can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In
summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or
prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the
hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical
relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to
predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a
theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory
and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be
rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method
just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory
than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by
experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved,
only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a
new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory. >

The next website covers similar territory:

<http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html>

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth
from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

    1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
    2. Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed.
    3. Use the theory to make predictions.
    4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
    5. Modify the theory in the light of your results.
    6. Go to step 3.

---------------------------------------

This site distinguishes between science and pseudoscience:

<http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html>

"A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the
proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or
experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the
scientific method are repeatable. In fact, most experiments and observations
are repeated many times (certain experiments are not repeated independently
but are repeated as parts of other experiments). If the original claims are
not verified the origin of such discrepancies is hunted down and exhaustively
studied.

When studying the cosmos we cannot perform experiments; all information is
obtained from observations and measurements. Theories are then devised by
extracting some regularity in the observations and coding this into physical
laws.

There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis
which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be
``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible
discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory
of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These
experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the
theory was (and still is) falsifiable.

In contrast, the theory that ``the moon is populated by little green men who
can read our minds and will hide whenever anyone on Earth looks for them, and
will flee into deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near'' is not
falsifiable: these green men are designed so that no one can ever see them.
On the other hand, the theory that there are no little green men on the moon
is scientific: you can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply
to abominable snow-persons, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster (s?).

A frequent criticism made of the scientific method is that it cannot
accommodate anything that has not been proved. The argument then points out
that many things thought to be impossible in the past are now everyday
realities. This criticism is based on a misinterpretation of the scientific
method. When a hypothesis passes the test it is adopted as a theory it
correctly explains a range of phenomena it can, at any time, be falsified by
new experimental evidence. When exploring a new set or phenomena scientists
do use existing theories but, since this is a new area of investigation, it
is always kept in mind that the old theories might fail to explain the new
experiments and observations. In this case new hypotheses are devised and
tested until a new theory emerges.

There are many types of "pseudo-scientific'' theories which wrap themselves
in a mantle of apparent  experimental evidence but that, when examined
closely, are nothing but statements of faith. The argument, cited by some
creationists, that science is just another kind of faith is a philosophic
stance which ignores the trans-cultural nature of science. Science's theory
of gravity explains why both creationists and scientists don't float off the
earth. All you have to do is jump to verify this theory - no leap of faith
required. "

-----------------------------------------

This website presents the views of Nobel Prize- winning physicist, Richard
Feynman's on what he called 'Cargo Cult Science'.  As it stands at present,
naked of any basic proof of logical foundations, craniosacral therapy still
falls into the realm of Cargo Cultism.

<http://pc65.frontier.osrhe.edu/hs/science/feynman.htm>

During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such as that a
piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency. Then a method was discovered
for separating the ideas - which was to try one to see if it worked, and if
it didn't work, to eliminate it. This method became organized, of course,
into science. And it developed very well, so that we are now in the
scientific age. It is such a scientific age, in fact, that we have difficulty
in understanding how witch doctors could ever have existed, when nothing that
they proposed ever really worked - or very little of it did.

But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a
conversation about UFO's, or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded
consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth. And I've concluded
that it's not a scientific world.

Most people believe so many wonderful things that I decided to investigate
why they did. And what has been referred to as my curiosity for investigation
has landed me in a difficulty where I found so much junk that I'm
overwhelmed. First I started out by investigating various ideas of mysticism
and mystic experiences. I went into isolation tanks and got many hours of
hallucinations, so I know something about that. Then I went to Esalen, which
is a hotbed of this kind of thought (it's a wonderful place; you should go
visit there). Then I became overwhelmed. I didn't realize how MUCH there
was.... "

This website distinguishes between pseudoscience and 'bad science' by
commenting that 'purveyors of bad
science are generally teachers or writers who just don't know any better. a'

Bad Science:

<http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/BadScience.html>

"Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never,
ever get it out. "

---------------------------------------------

Just to introduce a little balance or heresy into the temple of orthodoxy,
let us end off with a website which  offers some refreshing insights into the
scope and limitations of "the" scientific method:

The Myth of the Scientific Method:

<http://www.dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of-scientific-method.htm>

-------------------------------------------

Happy theorising!

Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://www.egroups.com/group/supertraining