• NOSin
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    So it is a gross misunderstanding of the term, sad.

    • Apathy Tree@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Feel free to explain instead of being condescending for no reason, then.

      Like I said I’m willing to learn, but from wiki -

      Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.

      If you can tell me how the things I listed don’t fit into that definition, great. Please do so.

      • tburkhol@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, BMI was openly developed, is systematically calculated and described, has been open to evaluation by experts for decades, and has been part of hypothesis development for similar decades. It is, in fact that systematic study that revealed where its use as an estimator or predictor of health had been overstated.

        When science falsifies a model, it does not retroactively make the model pseudoscience.

        • Apathy Tree@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The ongoing adherence to it after being falsified, repeatedly through different studies, applies to BMI, which qualifies it as pseudoscience.

          So you are correct, falsification does not make something pseudoscience, but that’s not relevant in this case.