0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
1. First and foremost of these traits is that [they] work in almost total isolation from their colleagues ... isolation in the sense of having no fruitful contacts with fellow researchers.2. The pseudoscientist submits his or her work not to bona fide experts in the field but to the general public, though the general public is not qualified to evaluate it.3. The pseudoscientist speaks through organizations he or she has founded, thus avoiding genuine peer review and conveying an aura of professional expertise.4. The pseudoscientist considers himself or herself to be a genius (most likely misunderstood and persecuted).5. The pseudoscientist regards colleagues to be, almost without exception, "blockheads".6. The pseudoscientist compares himself to Galileo, Bruno, Pasteur, or other well-known, well-respected scientists whose work met initial hostility and resistance. The pseudoscientist repeatedly cites comparisons between his or her view and historical cases of persecution of true genius, which was initially misunderstood. (This functions as a form of fallacy of positioning).7. The pseudoscientist exhibits a strong compulsion to focus criticism on the greatest scientists and/or best-established theories of the day.8. The pseudoscientist tends to write in a complex jargon often making use of phrases, terms and locutions he or she has coined. This rhetoric can be quite persuasive, creating a beautifully crafted jigsaw puzzle of assertions. Clever use of circular reasoning, equivocations, and other persuasive tricks makes it difficult to refute pseudoscience by logic and authentic scientific evidence.
The problem with characteristic 6 is that it is difficult to think of anyone who made a significant contribution to scientific knowledge, who didn't meet initial hostility and resistance!
Were Darwin and Mendel team players?
Rule 0 - The Pseudoscientist see's almost everything they read as protoscience.Another meaning extends this idea into the present, involving the distinction between hard and soft sciences, in which various sciences (or branches thereof) are ranked according to methodological rigorI would argue it is us who are peer viewing you...
Quote from: alancalverdThe problem with characteristic 6 is that it is difficult to think of anyone who made a significant contribution to scientific knowledge, who didn't meet initial hostility and resistance! That statement is only about citing those people, not actually being in such a position. I never heard of Einstein say anything like Yeah! Well the said the same thing about Galileo too! 
I would certainly be wary of anyone who exhibited all the characteristics at once, ...
Fortunately as an experimentalist ...
An Experimental physics is the category of disciplines and sub-disciplines in the field of physics that are concerned with the observation of physical phenomena and experiments
Medical Physics is generally speaking the application of physics concepts, theories and methods to medicine or healthcare. Medical physics departments may be found in hospitals or universities.
Submitting to peer review is not a good idea if you hope to make any money from your discovery or invention.
A patent is a public disclosure which is only checked by experts in patent law, to ensure that it is original (in the UK it doesn't even have to be feasible, as long as it isn't for a perpetual motion machine) and unlikely to undermine State security.
You might not consider the invention of magnetic resonance imaging or Facebook to be great science, but they are the subject of patents and copyrights, not learned papers. And to which "bona fide experts" in the field of vaccination or evolution could Jenner and Darwin have submitted their groundbreaking hypotheses?
When the 1902 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine was considered, the Nobel Committee initially intended the prize to be shared between Ross and Grassi. Then Ross initiated a defamatory campaign accusing Grassi of deliberate fraud, calling him "a mountebank, a cheap crook, a parasite who survived on the ideas of others."
became Director-in-Chief of the Ross Institute and Hospital for Tropical Diseases, which was established in honour of his works.
Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist's research, practiced and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success. In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died at age 47 after being beaten by the guards, only 14 days after he was committed.
Quote from: Thebox on 27/04/2015 20:07:16Rule 0 - The Pseudoscientist see's almost everything they read as protoscience.Another meaning extends this idea into the present, involving the distinction between hard and soft sciences, in which various sciences (or branches thereof) are ranked according to methodological rigorI would argue it is us who are peer viewing you...Yeah. We all know how much you think of yourself. And that's exactly what makes you the supreme pseudoscientist, i.e. because you fit the role of #4 ten fold. You think that you're a genius but in reality you're an idiot.