[quoting Reeves, 27 Oct 96.c] Even using Casti's list, I think Steve Tripp's study can be characterized as pseudoscience on at least three counts:
Tom, I'm beginning to lose my sense of humor.
Casti defines Anachronistic Thinking as: "Cranks and pseudoscientists often revert to outmoded theories that were discarded by the scientific community years, or even centuries, ago as being inadequate" (p. 57). I view Steve's ignoring of the conclusions of all of the major literature reviews of media research as an obvious sign of this hallmark of pseudoscience.
Tom, I did not "ignore" the conclusions. I refuted them. To worship these conclusions as unquestionable is not science; it is religion. You are the one who is guilty of pseudoscience.
Casti defines Spurious Similarities as: "Cranks often argue that the principles that underlie their theories are already part of legitimate science..." (p. 58) Pseudoscientists try to piggy back their research onto research in other fields which supposedly found the same results as their study. Steve's use of Furnham and Gunter's research that represent mass communications studies focused on memory to support his work which is supposed to be educational media research focused on learning is a classic instance of this flaw.
Good grief! Your argument doesn't even follow Casti's. Go back and read it again. Talk about pseudoscience! Also, are you arguing that memory is NOT a form of learning? Now, that would be a novel theory! I look forward to your defending it in future weeks.
Casti defines Refusal To Revise as: "Cranks and crackpots pride themselves on never having been shown to be wrong. It's for this reason that the experienced scientific hand never, under any circumstances, enters into a dialogue with a pseudoscientist." (p. 59). Given the tone of Steve's responses to criticism during the past week, I fear that my own inexperience has been demonstrated to the hilt.
Tom, I don't notice your admitting to being wrong very often. I guess we're both guilty.
Tom, let's face it. The use of words like "cranks and crackpots" is a tacit admission of the weakness of your position. Everyone reading this knows that if you had legitimate arguments to make, you would make them and not resort to name-calling.