Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Flamestrike" data-source="post: 8272229" data-attributes="member: 6788736">Whoa. I never said pseudo-science was 'meaningless'. I'm not inferring any negative connotations to the term at all. I'm simply making the distinction between the scientific method - in which any given theory must be falsifiable - and other methods of uncovering the truth (whether those methods of investigation and epistemology be pseudo- scientific and follow a similar method to the Scientific method - but lack falsifiability - or otherwise seek to uncover the truth of existence - such as theology, or other philosophies outside of the method)Psychology for example is a pseudo-science and its far from meaningless. Ditto theology (not a pseudo-science, but also far from meaningless).I certainly dont hold the Scientific Method up as some kind of holy grail of uncovering truth of the universe. It's the best one we have at the moment, but I (personally) hold the view that it's critically flawed in that it's underpinned by a false assumption (that the universe is objectively real and contains objectively real truths that can be measured).People from Descartes to Heisenberg have challenged that notion pretty strongly I would argue, and the method doesnt really hold up to a postmodern critique either.</blockquote>