Pseudoscience vs. Science

Boiled down:

  • Science = testable hypotheses
  • Pseudoscience = exploiting anomalies in Science

I had the misfortune of running into a 9-11 Truther last week, on a bridge in Houston. I was gracious enough to accept 4 DVDs from him, and was open minded enough to even start viewing one of these videos (along with my son, who’s getting old enough now to actual be curious about politics). 30 minutes in, though, I just had to shout out “Arghh!” and throw my hands up. These guys don’t engage in science, or even scientific dialogue. If you chance to argue with them, to point out alternative, feasible, Occam’s Razor-limited hypotheses, along with the supporting evidence – or even dare to point out the anomalies in their own data and theories – then you’ll be immediately branded as a apologist, a shill for the State, or worse.

I mean, heck, I’m like any other guy: I like good conspiracy theories. It’s great entertainment! And yeah, perhaps “we” have planted evidence or created events as excuses for going into wars before (USS Maine, anyone?). But Controlled Demolition, Missiles, Remote-Controlled Planes, Holographic Plane Images, even UFOs? This isn’t science, falls flat on so many fronts. I’ve got better things to do than read up or view all this. And, better things to blog about. So, I’m off …

Published by


I'm the founder of Agoric Source, co-organizer of the Houston Python Meetup, director of technology at Newspaper Subscription Services, LP, technology advisor to InstaFuel, active board member of the Houston Area Model United Nations, and occasional volunteer to the Red Cross (during hurricanes or other local emergencies). I'm first and foremost still a software hacker, but with my economics background and business experience, I serve well as a project or program manager, technical visionary, etc.