Hacker News Reader

I dislike this idea of calling theories that ended up being wrong as "pseudo-science". Not all wrong ideas were just random ramblings. Miasma Theory came from imperfect knowledge and not understanding the mechanisms of some of their observations.

If you read the debates on how miasma works, you can totally see reasonable rational arguments if you strip away a few generations of scientific knowledge.

View on HN

I agree. It becomes pseudoscience when it contradicts existing scientific knowledge without any rationale or explicitly comes from a a rejection of the scientific method. There's a difference between being pseudoscientific and being wrong. A lot of hypothesis about how the world works today, including some seemingly strong beliefs backed by pots of evidence, will be found to be wrong or incomplete as we move forward and develop better tools and science.

My understanding is that the term 'pseudo-science' refers to theories that people pretend have scientific backing but really don't, as opposed to theories that just eventually prove to be false. So I might claim that homeopathy is based on the principle of 'like-heals-like' and claim that it is based in science, but in reality there is no scientific evidence to back that idea and so homeopathy would then be pseudo-science.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com