
The chosen research areas of mad scientists, 1810-2010 - jamesbritt
http://io9.com/5646481/
======
sqrt17
Interesting that there is a distinction between (in film) pseudoscience and
(in film) psychology, or nuclear and (generic) physics - 99% of anything that
is used by a "mad scientist" character is safely grounded in the pseudoscience
side of things, as in "all of this is made-up" against the "20% of the claims
of this paper may hold up to the next 50 years of research" of actual science.

The only difference is that we as a public, don't know most of the actual
sciences and cannot distinguish between, e.g., biotech psychobabble and actual
biotech. But it's interesting -- would parapsychology (or alchimy, or other
not-science-anymore) be counted towards psychology/chemistry if we were to
adopt a nomenclature that allows made-up stuff to be (nominally) part of an
established discipline because it uses the scientific terms and - loosely -
suspected way of thinking of that discipline?

~~~
sprout
If it were based on real science, it wouldn't be research, it would be simple
engineering.

------
cing
They claim the appendix is available for download but all I can find are
JPG's.

