Pseudo-scientific crackpottery
May. 9th, 2017 11:02 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
luzribeiroSee, my quasi-scientific observations show that the two fallacious tactics that are by far the most frequently used by the pseudo-scientific types to "pseudo-debunk" science are:
- The Science Has Been Wrong Before argument
and
- The Appeal To Ignorance argument
There are some others, like Red Herring, Tu Quoque, Circular Logic, etc.
So here's a scientific inquiry for y'all. Why are pseudo-scientific crackpots so worked up about science, why does it bug them so much? Why are they so driven to debunk it?
- The Science Has Been Wrong Before argument
and
- The Appeal To Ignorance argument
There are some others, like Red Herring, Tu Quoque, Circular Logic, etc.
So here's a scientific inquiry for y'all. Why are pseudo-scientific crackpots so worked up about science, why does it bug them so much? Why are they so driven to debunk it?
