Why people create Pseudo Science?

Why people create Pseudo Science?

There are quite a few different reasons why people create pseudo science claims / beliefs.

1. Creators who want to sell stuffs

One of the obvious reasons is to benefit from people who are lazy (or lack of critical thinking). Many people take the mental shortcut and believe comments from experts or reputable source, like various Science forum without a second thought. 

For example, someone create pseudo science claim like magnetic wristbands improve your sporting performance in order to sell their stuffs.

2. Creators who want to cover up their mistakes so they can look good

The other group of pseudo science creators are not for any "tangible" reason. They don't get a cent by promoting the questionable claims they created. 

Then why they still created pseudo science claims?

Most of the time, they just made a mistake when they made such claims initially (due to mistake or mis-understanding of certain concepts).

However due to their ego, they refuse to admit that they made mistakes. 

Then they attempt to cover up their mistakes in the questionable claims by creating some (pseudo) scientific evidences to show / prove that their questionable claims are "indeed" valid. Most of these evidences are pseudo science in nature as they deliberately omit some tiny but important fact / information about the evidences as shown in my earlier blog.

At this point, they would feel comfortable in continuing to promote the questionable claims as they have (pseudo) scientific evidences to back up their claims.

Well... are these claims really valid? or just "valid but not absolutely"?.

Any claim that based on "valid but not absolutely" scientific evidences would be considered as Pseudo Science.

Is looking good really that important?

I understand people have a tendency cover up mistake in order to look good.  However, creating an illusion would not make things from wrong to right.

Deleting all the evidences won't help all the time, as some evidences may be resurrented for some legitimate or mysterious reasons. 

Artificially(*) adding a last comment to a already closed thread won't help too. Facts are facts, Wrong are wrong. All the people who have critical thinking would know.

Let's work togethe to debunk pseudo science claim with our critical thinking! Cheers!

Appendix

(*) How often your mouth is shut while someone else has the privilege to keep on saying whatever he wants to say (no matter it is correct or not)?


A deleted thread re-surface (related to my complaint). The thread was undeleted and closed at around 8am EST, 13 May 2024.

After almost 12 hours (7:40am EST 14 May 2024), the moderator decided to add his own comment as the last comment on an already closed thread after the discussion here.

What he wants to archieve? I don't know as I cannot read his mind. One thing for sure, he wants to archieve something by adding his last comment to "conclude" the thread.

You can read the whole thread from the very beginning slowly and find out the answer yourself.

Let me know if you want to know more about that thread. Cheers.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there any audibly transparent DAC? Yes or no?

Image
 Is there any audibly transparent DAC? Yes or no? TLDR: According to  SMSL SU-10 DAC Review | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum , the above DAC is considered as "audibly transparent" by those "Audio Science" guys.  Amongst all the DACs they measured (as of today, 8 June 2024), its SINAD is ranked the 1st as shown below: Does it really mean such DAC is audibly transparent? Before we can answer the question, let's look at the definition of "audibly transparent" DAC again. What is the definition of audibly transparent in general public? If you ask the general public who has Hi Fi system at home (here we are talking both Audiophiles and non-Audiophiles general public), they would give you something like the following for the definition of audibly transparent: Audiby Transparent is the holy grail they are looking for. If a DAC is audiby transparent, it means it does not introduce any audible sound of its own and reproduces the audio signal faithfully. In oth...
Read more

Do you see the same color? Why?

Image
They sound the same but why we hear difference??? Do you think if you would demonstrate having  confirmation bias  (a well known human behaviour in  Psychology Studies ) when you participate an objective experiment? I am pretty sure you do. Why? I will explain later. Let's have a quick look of the definition what's confirmation bias before we proceed further: The definition of  Confirmation bias  (from Wiki) is: Confirmation bias  is the  tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior  beliefs  or values . People  display this bias  when they  select information that supports their views ,  ignoring contrary information , or when they  interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes . The effect is strongest for  desired outcomes , for  emotionally  charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias i...
Read more

Fact vs good-enough... Science vs pseudo-science.

Image
Fact vs good-enough... Science vs pseudo-science. TLDR: I came across a thread that discuss 16-bit vs 24-bit in digital music .  Some people said 16-bit is good enough and 24-bit is useless. Some said 24-bit is marketing hype for promoting Hi-Res music and its play-back equipments. Is it true that 24-bit is useless?  Math is the queen of all science .  What does Math tell us? Let's see what the math tell us about 16-bit vs 24-bit: In digital music (PCM-format), the music is quantized at different sampling time. CD uses 16-bit and Hi-Res use 24-bit (or higher). For 16-bit quantization, it divides the full dynamic range into 2^16 levels, i.e. 65,536 levels. For 24-bit quantization, it divides the same full dynamic range into 2^26 levels, i.e. 16,777,216 levels. It is 256 times more than the 16-bit quantization. It is a hard-core fact that 24-bit is inherently better than 16-bit.  I my mind, it is very simple. It is like 1.000 is different than 1.001 Math won't lie; on...
Read more