February 5, 2011
What’s pseudo science and what’s misinformation. Well I will ponder for a while and I will give it a little thought than come forward with an instantaneous answer.
Now we do science in the presence of society more than any intertwined implications for doing a science that’s the requirement and motivation of social factors. By that I mean to say we are all socially compelled to take into consideration various social factors before we can trod the path we chose for ourselves. And to name such a path as an independent enlightenment and consequential field of knowledge and information and expansion of existential motivations which are nourished by how much we have gathered and how much we have set out to gather as science is a difficult and slim task.
In a basic sense we are all a social factor, the life we live and the constraints we face, the change we perspire through on everyday basis and the uncertainties of our approach towards life these are all embodied into something that can be called our social or personal soul.
SO when we are doing science or rather experiencing and collecting the ideas and the knowledge gained through a self-sustainable process of approach towards such we are doing such through the labor of the spiritual and physical self, or the soul I just defined in the above line.
SO indeed science has a relation to society and it’s a valuable philosophy to understand the implications of each for the other. But if we can take science as a monolithic motivation towards the realization of the occultation of our thoughts in a way we are inspired by the mystic and in a way we can tolerate the esoteric significance of our own life we are neither a social nor an unsocial or antisocial representation of our own self.
In that sense without having to differentiate between the implications of science onto the social self and the occult esoteric self we end up doing a kind of science which is impersonal despite of how we can infer some of its relation to the social self. As long as we do not fine tune into such a respectability of the meaning of science we are doing science proper (and there is no science improper in this sense, here) and we must follow our intuition and imagination in doing such science.
This and only this creates a super motivation for seeking a kind of truth, which is not quite visible to our insight in any other way. It is of course scary, as it is unusual. But doing science essentially means such a twilight. OK, I may be antimotivated enough to not seek such twilights in my vision or imagination or day to day motivations, but I must not lay my intentions to gather a formidable share or even a tiny interest of credit from such twilights.
I believe those who see twilights in their pursuance of what they envision as the workings of nature or the pleasure of seeing the meaning of such workings have a natural share on the selfish credits available through such twilights. But those who do not work out enough to see the beauty of nature as a paramount guide to their own thinking and as a significant motivation to their tendency to what they may call as science should not associate their pleasure nerves to such twilight credits because this falls into plagiarism and pseudo science tendencies.
What are then the few consequences of doing science without a motivation, which is purely passion and pleasure centric, pleasure and passion can develop through long working hours of monotonous career compulsions in the fields of science research, and in the hard working helplessness syndrome of the laboratory ambience, passion can also develop from experience and from rejection of your spiritual needs, you can take on from here, let me make a short cut back into the main discourse of my article.
The few consequences are pseudo science and malice through misinformation and the likes. So this is the side effect or the negative consequences of peacetime science. Science is such a worthy credit making activity of the human mind and spirit. It can for this very reason attract the neophyte and the malice monger through a promise of good that they do not deserve for any reason whatsoever. I am tempted to say this is a definition of pseudoscience… Pseudo science is the subversion of good practices of science to achieve ulterior motives of credits. It is so prevalent in how we do science today that it can work upto a twilight credit, most 3rd rate science participants show an affinity towards twilight credits of science. Its enticingly sleazy.
One suitably recognized malice is called plagiarism. Plagiarism is a forgery of ethical practices. It’s also a falsified account of any of the steps to good science. What are the steps to good science? OK, we can define the methods of science or briefly note to a practicing or competent scientist what are the steps to doing science, so any subversion at any of these phases before a result or idea can be claimed to be scientific constitutes a case of malice or plagiarism.
One plagiarism identification or rather say index is when someone or a group has espoused an idea, worked out a solution or defined and stated a problem, directed a field of research and the credit goes into another person or organization through information malice. (in short all forms of corruption are malice towards science) This is not applicable to formal organization or a formally available work group only.
A community of science devouts can enlighten a particular emerging idea or field of ideas and associate this to the right proponents or individual proponent and such an idea or science need not be a data centric work. This may relate to any thing that affects the state of science or state of academics, the state of well being of a noted scientist or the state of well being of an organization that in the past has contributed value to the progress of science and humanistic concerns.
(Science is always associated with humanistic values and concerns)
This is a noteworthy and value-consuming effort because the way we do science today or we have ever done, there is always a factor of 99 to 1, which governs the ethical syndrome of the affairs of science. Its never 99 % are capable and performing scientists. The factor 1 represents the fact that its per hundred therefore the total effort we put has a efficiency and despite of the small efficiency factors we are glaringly successful at the motivations of science.
This is not to say 99% of the factors are not working with the set goals.
(And neither it is my intention here to say these are absolute numbers, this is just to highlight the idea, and in any case the nature of the number, that is one large Vs one small, which adds up to a normalized number such as 100, is the idea here)
This is to say the perfection that is attainable ideally is quite “quite small”. It’s also a good thing that an “undefined” human preoccupancy such as science is quite efficient despite of a small factor working with the ideal productivity. So we want to offset the onslaught of malice, plagiarism, inefficiency, misunderstanding, and unproductivity, ill preparedness etc through an ideal 1% effectiveness. This indeed is an unimaginably quirky affair for science enthusiasts like myself.