Pseudoscience and how to debunk it

[blumenkraft]

[blumenkraft]

A quick how-to user-guide to debunking pseudoscientific claims

Link >> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.06165.pdf

[The Walrus]

Debunking pseudoscience claims are relatively easy.  What about scientific claims, based on limited or selective data? 

[blumenkraft]

I see a great difference between pseudoscience and science that is based on limited or selective data, Walrus.

So my clear answer is, it depends.

[KiwiGriff]

The walrus quoted a Heartland and GWPF financed blog as reputable science .
The owner of the blog has zero published work on the topic on hand he still insisted it was a reliable source. He has also been known on multiple occasions to cherry pick passages and misrepresent the conclusions in peer reviewed papers  to support his views.

If you are interested in medical pseudo science a read of Ben Goldacre's  https://www.badscience.net/ is worthwhile.
Though no longer updated it is still highly educational on the subject of medical Woo.

[blumenkraft]

Yeah, the grift is surely an element of pseudoscience, KiwiGriff.

When the heartland institute is behind it, it fits this thread.

I encourage everyone who reads this thread to point those connections out.

Edit: Sorry, this was easily mistakable i guess. Not saying you are a grifter, Walrus. The heartland institute is!

Thanks, KiwiGriff, this is a great blog.

[oren]

I find RationalWiki to be a good debunking source.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

[johnm33]

Debunk this, "The physics of course is that the tidal effect is caused by expansion of water in the deep ocean at lower latitudes, with minimal actual movement of water except where coastal obstruction creates a local height/gravity imbalance (a fancy way of saying "downward slope")." for example.

[Human Habitat Index]

Interesting article

Growing number of Aussies believe police should be able to fine COVID-19 conspiracy theorists

https://www.9news.com.au/national/coronavirus-australia-police-should-be-able-to-fine-covid19-conspiracy-theorists/43378b24-034c-4e07-a942-64f0cdd7e910

[blumenkraft]

Debunk this, "The physics of course is that the tidal effect is caused by expansion of water in the deep ocean at lower latitudes, with minimal actual movement of water except where coastal obstruction creates a local height/gravity imbalance (a fancy way of saying "downward slope")." for example.

For all practical purposes, fluids are incompressible. Under extremely high pressures: the volume of a fluid can be decreased somewhat, though the decrease is so slight that it is considered to be negligible except by design engineers.

Liquids expand and contract because of temperature changes.

http://constructionmanuals.tpub.com/14273/css/Incompressibility-and-Expansion-of-Liquids-96.htm

[The Walrus]

The walrus quoted a Heartland and GWPF financed blog as reputable science .
The owner of the blog has zero published work on the topic on hand he still insisted it was a reliable source. He has also been known on multiple occasions to cherry pick passages and misrepresent the conclusions in peer reviewed papers  to support his views.

Then there are those who, being unable to refute the work being presented, resort to attacking the messenger, in order to discredit them.  When this occurs, I tend to believe that the message is that much more reputable.  Otherwise, they would be able to post a reliable rebuttal.

[blumenkraft]

Relevant video!

[KiwiGriff]

Then there are those who, being unable to refute the work being presented,

You did not present any identifiable actual science you presented multiple links to a well known fringe web site and  to some story in the msm .
I am  not going to waste hours researching a subject I frankly have no interest in just to refute some nutbars web site .
Instead I simply demonstrate by reference to an actual published paper  by  world experts in both the fields of polar bears and  the study of climate change denial that your source is at best extremely suspect at worse outright denial.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/68/4/281/4644513
Abstract

Increasing surface temperatures, Arctic sea-ice loss, and other evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are acknowledged by every major scientific organization in the world. However, there is a wide gap between this broad scientific consensus and public opinion. Internet blogs have strongly contributed to this consensus gap by fomenting misunderstandings of AGW causes and consequences. Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) have become a “poster species” for AGW, making them a target of those denying AGW evidence. Here, focusing on Arctic sea ice and polar bears, we show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. By denying the impacts of AGW on polar bears, bloggers aim to cast doubt on other established ecological consequences of AGW, aggravating the consensus gap. To counter misinformation and reduce this gap, scientists should directly engage the public in the media and blogosphere.

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Mark Twain.
 
Your  willingness to distort and cherry pick to support your views has already been noted by many on this site.
That my peers on the ASIF have been shown this yet again is enough for me.

[The Walrus]

I think I see your viewpoint; anyone that states that polar bears are threatened is science-based, and anyone who that says they are not is a denier.  That sounds like circular reasoning to me.

Once again, I see the old discredit the messenger tactic at work at the end of your post.  Funny how you cannot see it, when someone with whom you agree does so.

[blumenkraft]

Walrus, what validates the opinion of a think tank writer and invalidates the finding of all those scientific articles presented to you in the other thread?

[bluice]

Walrus is a sealion with tusks? The polar bear thread neatly and efficiently became a meta-discussion instead of discussion about, well, polar bears.

Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

[The Walrus]

Walrus, what validates the opinion of a think tank writer and invalidates the finding of all those scientific articles presented to you in the other thread?

The issue was not about validating or invalidating the science.  Rather the validation only of that science that corresponds to ones own views.  Calling those that do correspond as “science”, and those that do not as “opinion”, is quite telling. 

[blumenkraft]

Calling those that do correspond as “science”, and those that do not as “opinion”, is quite telling.

Not acknowledging opinion as opinion and science as science, is quite telling.

IIRC it was literally you citing an opinion piece posted by someone writing for the heartland institute and others pulling up the actual science. Correct me if i'm wrong.

[The Walrus]

Calling those that do correspond as “science”, and those that do not as “opinion”, is quite telling.

Not acknowledging opinion as opinion and science as science, is quite telling.

IIRC it was literally you citing an opinion piece posted by someone writing for the heartland institute and others pulling up the actual science. Correct me if i'm wrong.

We were discussing a paper published in Nature.  That was sole reference to any scientific publication.  Posters, including myself, cited various opinions on the subject.  I checked my links and could not find any evidence that it was written by a writer for the heartland institute. 

[blumenkraft]

We were discussing a paper published in Nature.

No. We were talking about the link you shared from polarbearscience.com.

[The Walrus]

We were discussing a paper published in Nature.

No. We were talking about the link you shared from polarbearscience.com.

Yes, that was in response to the Nature paper.

[blumenkraft]

However. everyone wondering what's that about can read up on it in the Holocene thread. Enuf said about it there already. (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2305.0.html). And since this is starting to derail i recommend switching the topic.

[The Walrus]

However. everyone wondering what's that about can read up on it in the Holocene thread. Enuf said about it there already. (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2305.0.html). And since this is starting to derail i recommend switching the topic.

Alright.

[KiwiGriff]

What can we learn ?
Check your sources who are they, who funds them, what are their aims.   
Is someone represented as an expert actually an expert?
Credentials,Do they have qualifications  in the field and or hold a research position.
 Peer reviewed is the gold standard for science not perfect  gives an indication of adherence to the scientific method.What have they published?  number of cites? impact factor of journal? Watch out for circular references. A source that only references its own output is at best questionable.

[P-maker]

One hour long documentary to be shown on Danish TV this evening:

https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/webfeature/kampagnen-mod-klimaet

"The campaign against climate"

90 % of it is in English showing recent quotes from a wide range of hired climate change deniers, and a few quotes from scientists trying to oppose the campaign.

A few of the deniers appear to show some degree of remorse, but they are far from convincing.

None of the main culprits, however, were willing to stand up and defend their wrong-doings.

[morganism]

Pocket Guide for Scientists: The First Amendment

"This guide helps scientists navigate the First Amendment so they can be involved in their communities and the political process while minimizing concerns about negative repercussions in their professional lives."

https://www.csldf.org/resource/first-amendment/

pdf avail at site

[Human Habitat Index]

Virology is pseudoscience because it is not falsifiable.

Stefan Lanka conducted control experiments that refuted the methods that virologists use to prove the existence of viruses.

The final refutal of virology

https://rumble.com/vhx3l1-the-final-refutal-of-virology.html