在我看来，科学和伪科学在认识论上的分界是相当明确的:科学调整结论以符合证据，伪科学调整证据以符合结论。无论是神创论、纳粹种族理论还是否认全球变暖，这些伪科学的一个共同点是，他们只承认支持他们的理论的证据，不管这些证据有多么可疑，而忽略所有与他们的理论相矛盾的证据，不管这些证据有多么可信。
Just because someone's taken the trouble to accrue some scientific evidence to support a theory doesn't make it scientific. What makes a theory scientific is one's willingness to accept falsifiability and to conform one's findings when confronted with facts that contradict it.

伪科学——包括后现代和前科学(或者仅仅是前理性?)——有一种惊人的东西，它以惊人的相似方式，成功地以几乎相同的活力，运用了美国右翼和左翼的非理性方面。
至于那些(通常)站在左派的人，我指的是那些，因为找不到更好的词，我们可以称他们为嬉皮士，在他们所有的大眼睛，水晶能量的荣耀。还有一些学者，不管出于什么原因，他们迷恋法国思想，却以大多数荒谬的理由拒绝科学方法，正如你所说，科学方法是学术-科学-工业-军事-政府综合体的阴谋诡计，在某种程度上是一种社会/语言建构，没有真正的知识权威。但所有这一切都打动了我，我特别恳求他们做出某种政治正确。
Meanwhile, those on the religious right have persuaded themselves that faith is the highest card in the deck and trumps any and all rational or empirical argument. Needless to say, this doesn't impress my philosophical sensibilities.
I used to think these two streams of thought were as far apart as they could get. But then I saw this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ
想象一下，狐狸王诡辩家宣称真理是主观的!我只能猜测保守主义和后现代主义武装的邪恶结合会把我们带向何方。我想我们会看到更多的伪科学。

我猜你们这些家伙足够聪明，意识到你们的第一个评论充满了通常为辩论家保留的那种语言——“成为猎物”?“坚持”?。来点很酷的anaylis怎么样?我想，唯一可以被合理地称为伪科学的东西，就是那些在某种程度上，至少是含蓄地，声称自己是科学的东西(因为你提到的那些假定的荣誉)。创造科学肯定是其中之一，但我不确定你提到的其他所有人都做出了这样的“科学”声明。所以我猜你只是在人类探索的领域上随意抛出一个“科学的”(或者，用争论的方式，“科学的”)模板，当它们不匹配时，你就宣称它们是伪科学。你真正的问题是为什么大多数人在他们生命的大部分时间里不接受你的模板。或者更确切地说，他们接受了把他们的信仰和行动建立在理性和证据基础上的相当平庸的要求，但不接受你的“理性”和“证据”的模板?(如果你想在奇妙的行动中找到证据和推理狂热的理由，可以看看《伊斯兰法理学》。)无论如何，有没有这样的“科学”模板，可以应用于从量子物理学到社会学的各个学科? The answer is, of course, no, you just feed your proposals into the "established" academic machine, and some come out shiningly legitemated as "scientific", others do not fare so well, but are not condemned, others manage just to be bad science, and not a few are unscientific. But here is a thing. How much of the results of human curiosity would a sane person want to submit to this machine? Would you attempt to throw your template over imaginative writing, and declare this pseudo-scientific, or would you be content with a lesser charge, that it is "just a story"? I don't doubt that there are mad creationists trying to hijack the putative prestige of science for their own carnal ends, so quite understand your sharpening your polemical tools to prevent them boarding. However, the white coats (polemic alert!) do not, and never will, own, or even define the rules for, the whole domain of human curiosity. Lastly, it is a bit disengenuous to link the "success" of science - whose basics, in physics, cosmology and biology, are intellectually in a complete ferment/mess - to the success (I admit that must be the word) of technology, but at least it does highlight the limited domain of the "scientific" template.
Good luck in your endeavours.

According to B.F. Skinner's Theory of Behaviorism, people would do more of what works (because they're rewarded by results) and less of what doesn't work (because they're penalized by the lack of results). Science gets results and pseudo-science doesn't. The number of people who still believe in pseudo-science therefore strongly suggests that Skinner's Theory of Behaviorism is at least partially in error.

不幸的是，对于大多数人，尤其是学识最渊博的人来说，真理是一门伪科学。
=
MJA

there are many interesting in our world, and most of them is a part of Science

很棒的文章和好话题。我认为将其称为“科学”会让《捉鬼者》在现代心理中占有一席之地。
"Well, we?re philosophers. It?s part of our job to decide what?s worthy of believing and what isn?t worthy of believing. Science is worthy of belief. Pseudo-science is not worthy of belief." I think this word belief is the true problem. It shows our weakness to detach from everyday superstition.

Consensus defined science incorporates precise logic, mathematical logic and analysis in particular. That aspect is rarely contested. Valid scientific method next incorporates empirical data. Thereby usually lies the rub in that instruments and experiments have margins of error or uncertainty (e.g. the factors in global warming).
Fortunately there is the availability of consensus and peer review among experts which historically vastly increases the likelihood of accurate conclusions. Therefore we have "rocket science" as compared to the story about the Chinese emperor who strapped the newly-developed rockets to his throne in order to fly to the moon. Good idea up to a point!

The central question of epistemology is: "Why is astronomy a science and astrology is not?" It turns out that a clear and precise answer to that question is not easy. Without such an answer, aren't we just calling names when we say that something is a "pseudo-science"? I agree with the intuition about where the lines are to be drawn between sciences and pseudo-sciences (although there are hard cases, like psychoanalysis). But without a clear, testable explanation of the difference, it is only an intuition. (I also think that philosophers have little to offer on the subject. Those who do science likely can determine where genuine knowledge (as opposed to pseudo-science) in their field lies, but I doubt that philosophers have anything to add to their conclusions.)

很明显，这和什么是现实是同一个问题?(形而上学)现实既不是精神的(伪的)也不是物理的(科学的)，它是两者的合作……现在，在任何人发表任何错误的观点之前，请允许我解释一下——那就做你最坏的!!(“每一个行动都有一个……看到更多的反应，但是…没有线人就没有行动。每个目的都有一个来源，但没有意义就没有目的!”)我们必须明白，科学只验证那些被证明过的理论，这意味着没有那么灵活的盒子之外!现在伪是相反的，在这种情况下，它是一个无形的过程，所以它是一个真正的挑战，物化不是客观的!然而，挑战并不意味着想法永远不可能合理化，变成符合逻辑的东西，甚至是健全的理论!毕竟，所有科学的基础都是伪概念(假设实践)的表现，这些概念已经被分析、测试、合理化，直到逻辑变得有效和健全。 Not all "Pseudo science" can be rationalize to become valid or even sound, however, rest assure the idea that does will become science!