What's the most obvious pseudoscience book /lit/ has read?

>>9936846


Except the column on the right describes Science. The one on the left is more like Analytic Philosophy. The only criterion for the "pseudo" label is a conclusion inconsistent with current dogma. Take 50 "Scientific" papers and 50 "Pseudoscientific" ones, omit the conclusions and deny access to reviews and ask any number of experts to identify which are which based on methodology alone. No one will know. If anything, more "pseudo" papers will be seen as legit simply due to them not lazily taking previous data as "self-evident".

>Starts with a conclusion, then works backwards to confirm.
Basically describes the majority of Evolutionary Science to a T.

File: 51LVx6UrW5L._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (40KB, 328x499px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 328x499px

>>9936846
The epitome of 'Starts with a conclusion, then works backwards to confirm.'

>>9937071
You have no idea what you're talking about, everything you just claimed is wrong. You claim the left is more like analytic philosophy but the very term falls under "Uses vague jargon to confuse and evade". Philosophy is more dependent on a given individual, it is nether left or right. As an action and a field it is diverse.

>>9936846
>starts with a conclusion then works backwards to confirm
Literally the chart itself

>>9937135
The chart isn't scientific. Just a good (but not resolute by any means) indicator of the differences between legitimate science and the abundant pseudoscience.

>>9937131

Maybe it confuses YOU, given that you don't know what "jargon" means.