What about Creationism?

Evidence for temporary relief of chronic low back pain, no sufficient population-wide evidence for sustainable benefits over time. I put it in mostly because of its historical association with Qi energy.

Merely claiming a large ape lives in the woods somewhere because you happened to see one can hardly be psuedoscience cos they're not even saying its science.

That's a good critique of that example to be fair. I was leaning more on the unfalsifiability angle on that one and it doesn't match other aspects of the definition such as claims to scientific knowledge.

0:38 only when it contradicts those things? Bc To most religious or spiritual people God has the power to blueprint evolution and many have never questioned the “contradiction” of Earth’s age bc they know it doesn’t matter how old Earth is, doesn’t matter if dinosaurs existed, these things don’t prove there isn’t a creator. Suggesting that believing in something unprovable is inherently pseudoscience is Just wrong, especially when a number of scientists believe that thing

​@@wyattcole5452 If belief in a God gives you comfort, so be it. But accept the truth - if it makes authoritative claims about the universe that don't comport with scientific evidence (i.e. creationism) and cannot be supported by the scientific method, it is indeed pseudoscience. A thought experiment - if your religion held that creationism was NOT real, would your mind suddenly change on this matter to cohere with the doctrine of your religion? If so, you are working back from your conclusions - a terrible situation to be in, when you have to bend reality to fit your beliefs. P.S. you made the god of the gaps fallacy and appeal to authority fallacy in your argument. There are (a small few) solid arguments for a God. However, those that you have presented are not the ones.

@@3-Minute-Psychology I don’t follow a religion, but wanna give examples of “claims about the universe that don’t comport with scientific evidence”? The creation of the universe being explained by a god is the point of a god, so idk how Its a “god of the gaps” fallacy, in that case all belief in god falls under that, how convenient for you. How am I doing an appeal to authority, im going off my own experiences and observations. You’ve only proven that you can assume so far

​@@wyattcole5452 The point that "scientists believe in god" is the appeal to authority fallacy. The “claims about the universe that don’t comport with scientific evidence” refers to creationism.

@@3-Minute-Psychology but I didn’t make the initial claim to authority, in that case. I was responding to the initial claim to authority, a false claim that suggests to me that science has concluded god doesn’t exist. Never concluded that, and many scientists believe in god, so that is false. The claims about the universe is referring to the creation of it. Hence anyone who believes in god is inherently making a fallacy by suggesting god created the universe. Gotcha

No proof for it either tho...

Yes there is. We know who made it up.

That is because it can't be proven false. Any proof that it is wrong is hand waved away as "God just wants you to think that," or some such nonsense. Any good statement about the state of the world is falsifiable. Which means there are ways to prove it wrong. Since creationism isn't falsifiable it is not a good statement about the world.

There's no proof FOR that creationist nonsense either. Just verbal diarrhea like yours "some magic being did it". Funny enough, every religious nutcase out there claims THEIR magic daddy is the actual, real, totally honest to goodness existing one while all others are misguided fools.

Unfalsifiability is a key element of all pseudoscientific Ideas 💡 Claims need to emerge from empirical evidence to be accepted as scientific.

I'll accept that. Maybe someone could make a claim for creationism that is falsifiable and consistent with the scientific method... I do think such a claim would be disputed by the vast majority of mainstream biologists, but it's possible... I'm no biologist. I think we can both agree that claims of creationism that rely solely on an unfalsifiable appeal to authority (i.e. an ancient text) would be pseudoscientific, though,

⁠@@3-Minute-Psychologyno, not necessarily at all. You’re just closing your mind, I have first hand proof that science can’t explain everything, Idc if you think I’m crazy for that bc I know I’m not, I’m not alone. And I don’t mean there’s a community of people who believe me or have similar experiences, I mean people I’m with all the time in the same places I’m at are experiencing the unexplainable

​@@wyattcole5452 You are correct. Science can't explain everything. But it's important not to fall into the god of the gaps fallacy. Where things are unexplainable, we must acknowledge that, and not fill it with other unfalsifiable nonsense. I believe you sincerely believe in your first-hand experiences, but it's important to be acutely aware that experiences, anecdotes, and memories are extremely unreliable. No matter how much you subjectively believe in what you experienced, if you can't present testable, repeatable and reliable evidence, you don't have "proof". For more on how incredibly faulty the human mind can be and how much it misleads us, see: The Loftus car crash experiment, the misinformation effect. For more, read: helpfulprofessor.com/misinformation-effect-examples/

@@3-Minute-Psychology these memories are happening, science can’t explain all of existence, that’s a fact. Quit pretending otherwise

@@3-Minute-Psychology explain how I fall into those fallacies. These experiences aren’t happening bc of god, I’m not saying that