Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
Nicole Rust | 1 years ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 @359dd83b 
To make sure I understand (what I anticipate are very good points), your proposal is something along the lines of: 

*) IIT researchers are claiming they have a theory (that's the T).

*) However, until they state what would constitute a falsification of their theory, it's pseudoscience.

Did I get it right?
▲ ▼
931d80e8 | 1 years ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 @8599d6ab Let's say that if an advocate of a theory does not hold a concept of a potentially falsifying test, then that theory has the cognitive value of a pseudoscience for that person. If none of its advocates hold such a concept, then it is a de facto pseudoscience.

I don't want to be dogmatic about what a pseudoscience is though. What's important here is that someone claiming a given theory is pseudoscience must make explicit the criteria being used to make that claim.
▲ ▼
Nicole Rust | 1 years ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 @359dd83b 
OK, agree - when you say pseudoscience, define it.

This conversation also clarifies for me: why this is pseudoscience 🙂​.
▲ ▼
a36bb9ff | 1 years ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 @8599d6ab @359dd83b 
totally agree with this as well. letter in its current form may need revision for clarity and completeness. but Hakwan Lau will be posting a long accompanying piece in coming days that i think will address this concern and a number of other reactions that seem to be repeatedly cropping up, so perhaps that will help the discussion.