
Ask HN: How do you decide science or pseudo science? - thallukrish
A bunch of friends were debating about Allopathy vs. Homeopathy. There were for and against each. In the end I was left with these questions.
1. How do you decide something is scientific?
2. Who should decide it ? Are there guardians of Science ?
3. if every theory is wrong until proven right and vice-versa then how can science be in any way effective for theories that are not currently worked on to prove them ? 
4. Who and How is it decided that something is science or pseudo science?
======
carapace
> 1\. How do you decide something is scientific?

Is it a body of knowledge arrived at by means of the scientific method?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

> 2\. Who should decide it?

Each person for themselves. The whole point of _empirical_ knowledge is that
it does not matter _who_ performs the experiment.

> Are there guardians of Science?

Yes, but they will tell you that the true authority is the real world: the
results of experiments.

> 3\. if every theory is wrong until proven right...

 _No_ scientific theory is _right_. Science _does not and cannot_ prove
anything. This is also something that the guardians of Science will insist on.
Even the Standard Model (which has no known violations) has only _failed to be
disproved so far_.

I don't understand the rest of Q #3.

> 4\. Who and How is it decided that something is science or pseudo science?

There's a lot of hemming and hawing but it comes down to empirical experiment
as the source of confidence in knowledge. (Also, math.)

~~~
thallukrish
Thanks. The rest of Q#3 is actually questioning how one makes a choice to go
after theory X to prove vis-a-vis theory Y. Does it have a grounding on the
impact (positive) on humanity, funds, personal likes and dislikes etc.?

~~~
carapace
Ah, how the scientific sausage is made, eh? You'd have to ask a real
scientist, sorry. :-)

------
z3phyr
> How do you decide something is scientific?

Science is a method of making a claim, testing it with vivid experiments,
testing it more, recording observations, wait for other people to test the
claim with their own experiments, and if the tests happen to agree with the
claims, it becomes a consensus.

You can participate in the scientific verification of a claim by

1) By testing it yourself using proper scientific method and proper lab
equipment. President requisite is education.

2) If you can't afford that, then wait for scientific community to test that.
If there is a consensus of statistical certainty from the various scientific
institutions you trust, then you can choose to form your facts around those.

~~~
thallukrish
So how does the scientific community decide which are the theories that is
worth spending time on to prove them and which are not ? Are there personal
biases ? How do we know choosing theory X over theory Y to prove will advance
Science and humanity ? Is it just the budget available to prove theory X over
theory Y the criterion?

~~~
z3phyr
>So how does the scientific community decide which are the theories that is
worth spending time on to prove them and which are not?

Four primary variables: 1) Collective interest of the researchers in the topic
of attack 2) Collective interest of the financiers of research on some
application of the topic of attack 3) Funding for research 4) The effective
tools for experiments are already invented and available (example, a
microscope)

~~~
thallukrish
So it is possible that we could have pursued(time and money) on things that do
not turn out to be impactful or left out working on those that could have had
a major impact.

~~~
z3phyr
Yes. But it does not matter.

We do not do science for some high level goal of "Benefit for humanity". I
love stars, I like astronomy, and when I study the stars, I do not think about
how my study would impact humanity. I just study them because I find them
interesting. (Studying star systems do not actually have much impact on
humanity in general, mostly).

Attempting to qualify science only limits it.

~~~
thallukrish
That probably explains why we didn't put money in an anti viral drug which
would have saved lives during a pandemic. Our goals if you look from a
humanity or global perspective are misplaced

------
rs23296008n1
Evidence. Replication of results by multiple unrelated investigators.

Those two points alone remove a lot of gibberish. Even an appeal to authority
is suspect if those first two aren't addressed.

