1
Judea Pearl's book on causality[1] was written precisely due to such type of issue, mainly to define a method to establish the causal relationship of a fact of perception with another (I think he says somewhere that people did not believe the causal link between vaccines and sickness, so he tried to formalize the process to establish causality with such book)...
1
An interesting parallel here is with the debate on an earlier global climate problem. This was the effect of CFCs on the ozone layer and motivated an international consensus to limit and phase out their use. This was achieved within a relatively short time frame and without a great deal of controversy of about the scientific evidence.
Since the 'debate' on ...
1
First, there was outright denial. People didn't believe the climate is changing. (Back then, climate change was commonly called "global warming," though that term was a little simplistic.)
As the evidence became ever more overwhelming, people were forced to admit that climate change is real. So they tried a different approach; they simply described it as a ...
1
First, let me point out that the term 'pseudoscience' is badly misused in the modern world. Pseudoscience points at a particular activity: the attempt to portray something as a scientific result without actually engaging scientific methodologies, procedures, or reasonings. You can think of it as an effort to obtain the political/social authority of 'being ...
1
Yes, axioms do exist. Underlying the processes of science are several philosophical assumptions--aka 'axioms' or 'first principles.' They are necessary for making any and all inferences from scientific data, and really, even for the application and method of science itself. We take them for granted--like most philosophy--and don't think about them much. They ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
