Hello and it's symposium 52 and we're going to talk about pseudoscience and science

Yeah, it's in funny that you say so because a lot of the times when we're trying to

understand a concept we need to see what contrasts with it. So frequently when

people try to approach science, they try to distinguish between what science is and what

you know unscientific, non-scientific or pseudo-scientific enterprises are.

And it's, I think, a matter of focus.

But in this case, I think it is a bit more interesting to focus on pseudoscience,

at least for this discussion?

Sure well I think most people have an idea of what science is and the sort of

colloquial meaning like if you ask your average person what is science, they'll probably say how it's

you know physics, chemistry, biology, which are the disciplines within the sciences, but if you are

to define what science is in and of itself, it's a methodology, it's an

epistemology, it's an approach towards getting information, it's a scientific method basically. That's what it's

shorthand for, science. And so although you're not necessarily wrong to list

some subjects, it's not necessarily the right focus, in my opinion at least, even though you're technically right.

Great, one thing that is important to add is that the concept of science itself has changed throughout the ages.

I think that for a long time science just meant knowledge or the episteme in the old sense but now in the English speaking world it counts for natural science.

Whereas for instance, some people have said that most,

that the notion of science in, let's say, German,

involves both the humanities and the natural sciences,

whereas in English speaking world the notion of science frequently is

used and reserved for natural science as opposed to the humanities?

...