Neil deGrasse Tyson, the astrophysics genius, speaks on discrimination.

[sukumvit boy]

Just thought of some counter examples to my last post. Homeopathy and some similar movements related to the medical sciences might be considered successful (but not by any scientific measure) para-schisms.

With regard to Homeopathy , imho , nothing more than the placebo effect and great for folks who , for a multitude of reasons , are afraid to go to a real doctor.

[fred41]

With regard to Homeopathy , imho , nothing more than the placebo effect and great for folks who , for a multitude of reasons , are afraid to go to a real doctor.

Pseudo science - lots of examples in the medical field...acupuncture, chiropractic medicine...some are even accepted by insurance companies...
...but, to me, junk science is more closely tied to religion than any form of modern science, since it seems to me, to be nothing more than faith healing.

[broncofan]

Just thought of some counter examples to my last post. Homeopathy and some similar movements related to the medical sciences might be considered successful (but not by any scientific measure) para-schisms.

This and other examples are put forward out of fairness. But what do the majority of scientists think about their methods? For instance, if homeopathy really only produces a placebo effect, then one would not expect it to fare well in a placebo controlled trial. So, these end up being minor splinter sects...more like cults than religions. Their methods really do violate the tenets of the religion of science and they can be likened to heretics.

On the other hand, with religion you have a self-contained document. And yet for every religion you have dozens of competing interpretations. One could forgive a religion for having a spiritual leader who is a self-aggrandizing charlatan because you could say he is not practicing "true religion". He is a fraud in the same sense as someone who commits scientific malpractice. But what about the serious people who act earnestly from a plausible interpretation of the text? Their actions might be objectionable from a secular standpoint. And they may be viewed as heretical by someone interpreting the same doctrine.

[broncofan]

What I tried to say above and don't think I did very clearly is this: when there is a schism within a religion there is not much basis for saying who is right. And if you figure out whose interpretation is more faithful to the text, they still might be advocating something all non-adherents to the text think is dangerous. Then you will have members of the faith who will say this latter group are too literal and that's why their views have deleterious social consequences. So nobody is right and nobody is practicing the one true religion.

But when someone advocates junk science, you have well-defined methods you can look at to see where they went wrong. As a result, the schism is more likely to be much smaller. You will have a body of scientists who take their discipline seriously and a smaller group of people who either act in bad faith, are sloppy, or are somehow prone to quackery.