Any movement, corporation or set of corporations (conglomerate) with a single prominent leader that proposes a significant new knowledge, say with an inspiration from some traditional culture, is necessarily a cult. The leader is necessarily a pseudo scientific guru. Any attempt to connect their knowledge to some well known scientific theory is necessarily pseudoscience.
By new knowledge, I mean a structured knowledge with components that are provided with the intention to support each other. Also, the existence of a prominent leader is important. Organizations such as Yahoo inc. or Google inc. would not fit at all the above criteria.
I just asked almost the same question in General - Science & Mathematics. I hope it is not a duplication. I think that physicists are the most concerned.
Can you provide any possible exception to this criteria, even in principle? The idea is that, if no exception is provided, even in principle, then it is the criteria used by people.
2007-07-27 09:35:37 · 5 answers · asked by My account has been compromised 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
Dr. R. I like your Crackpot Index. It is a completely different criteria than the one I wrote, and much better than it. Unfortunately, I don't think that enough scientists adhere to this Crackpot Index criteria.
2007-07-27 09:54:34 · update #1
To mistofolese: Nope, it is not at all a setup against evolution or global warming or any established theory. You are too much on the defensive, maybe you are afraid of something. However, I gave you a thumb up for the rest of the answer.
2007-07-27 10:33:31 · update #2
Close. It is conceivable that evidence may support the new proposition, in which case it would have to be called science rather than pseudoscience. But any such purported "evidence" would require careful scrutiny.
2007-07-27 09:48:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Most of your assessment looks sounds and well thought of. I may have just a bit of a problem with the "single prominent leader", emphasis on "single". I am sure that some pseudoscience cult could come form and exist with several leaders (Order of the solar temple, with Jouret and Di Mambro), or several leaders in succession (Scientology could be a prime example; after Hubbard died, there were other leaders who took over, although they officially are following in the path of the founder--that is until someone decides that he is better than the founder and adds his two penny's worth).
Further, the "new knowledge" concept may be restrictive; surely someone who would start a movement following ancient roman divinities would qualify as a cult; it may be new for the current followers, but perceived as antique by most people. Perhaps it should be "unusual knowledge and attitude that runs against a perceived normality and against demonstrated evidence or probability of evidence", or something like that.
But I am nit picking. You definition is quite sound, and should be immediately perceived as such by a vast majority of people.
2007-07-27 16:53:03 · answer #2 · answered by Vincent G 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This sounds like a lame set-up for some anti Global Warming or evolution speech. And no your criteria are not sufficient or necessary. Science is hypothesis supported by fact (ie. GW and evolution). Pseudoscience is hypothesis supported by faith or belief but no facts (ie. creationism or flat earth). A cult is probably well-defined on wikipedia as is guru.
2007-07-27 16:49:14 · answer #3 · answered by mistofolese 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I use the Crackpot Index myself.
2007-07-27 16:39:52 · answer #4 · answered by Dr. R 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your question was so long i lost interest about half way through.
Sorry
ADD
2007-07-27 16:40:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋