Can pseudo-science serve a purpose in scientific advancement?

[Kerrie]

FZ, you say, "it isn't science then", but science is a tool, and tools are not perfect, especially when handled by the subjective human being...we need to remember this, but many claim that science = truth, but not always, it is as developed as we are...

 

[FZ+]

I mean that something which does not fit into the scientific method is obviously not scientific. And without the scientific methods of checking and testing, it would be impossible to validate it's validity, even to the limited degrees that science allows.

My view is that pseudoscience can form a basis and inspiration for new ideas. But for these ideas to mean anything, they need to get scientific.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Pseudo-science often is the effort to investigate claims that lack scientific evidence, and generally is an effort to investigate phenomenon by means not consistent with the scientific method. The term in itself implies no specific subject. No claim of personal experience is pseudo-science. Any inference otherwise is a value judgment.

Any such judgment could in itself qualify as pseudo-science.

IMHO, the arena of pseudo-science comes in three flavors: Scams, fantasies, and truths. Unfortunately, truths exist for which science provides no legitimate means of investigation. This may be due to a lack of cleverness – no one has ever managed to figure out what else to do – or it can be due in part to the unavoidable conundrums of detecting transient, random, or even unrepeatable phenomena. I fail to place any fault with those persons of good conscience associated with the first option mentioned: claims that lack legitimate evidence. In many cases these individual may simply place human testimony, or even the conviction of certainty through personal experience ahead of the artificial constraints of science. This is not unreasonable given significant justification for belief, even if it can’t be proven. These individuals may then engage in bad science because no other options exist. I find this option preferable to simply ignoring a significant truth due to artificial constraints. At least in this way science can wait, silently watching for those illusive bits of gold that could emerge from the sand.

The fantasies and scams can surely do harm. But I think these are merely manifestations of mental health problems, emotional problems or needs, and crime. These things would exist without the bad science. In fact, the fantasies may not even be a bad thing in some instances