tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3617874732276424275.post8606567594032662484..comments2024-03-17T22:49:24.929-07:00Comments on Oklahoma Skeptic: What's the worst that could happen? How about death?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583301116123219760noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3617874732276424275.post-60366510358892992942015-11-13T21:13:19.334-08:002015-11-13T21:13:19.334-08:00Like any word, "dangerous" is defined re...Like any word, "dangerous" is defined relative to background information. The fact that people die horribly while pursuing pseudo-scientific beliefs provides absolutely no support for the consequentialist argument that people should avoid pseudo-science because it is dangerous. Most people suffer injury, and everybody dies.<br /><br />What would (at least plausibly) provide such evidence would be whether something fairly equivalent to ghost hunting in the dark but without the pseudo-science is shown to be much safer. <br /><br />Let's assume for argument that "abandoned house spelunking" exists (does it?) and was equivalent to ghost hunting. To make a valid argument, we need to show a counter-factual: that "but for" belief in ghosts, the same level of injuries would not have occurred. That's a form of valid support for claiming "pseudo-scientific ghost hunting is dangerous", and there are others.<br /><br />Science is more of a method than it is the conclusion reached by that method. <br /><br />Let's not fight pseudo-science with more of the same.BurntSynapsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03641657321119260817noreply@blogger.com