I really hate to do this (especially since I am not an expert in this field), but this really seems like a philosophical argument against scientific theory rather than one actually backed by evidence. No offense to the author, he just goes into some sort of superficial argument that thermodynamics doesn't apply to black holes because the analogy doesn't really make sense for what looks to be personal issues with how certain things are defined. Honestly, it's great and all that there are people willing to exercise caution about our current models, but I'm not seeing anything to back Callender's views here and his viewpoint comes across as pseudoscientific.
>I really hate to do this (especially since I am not an expert in this field), but this really seems like a philosophical argument against scientific theory rather than one actually backed by evidence.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
Science is "philosophical arguments" (epistemological axioms, assumptions, theories, etc) + evidence, so attacking the first still makes sense.
Evidence alone is just objects / the world unfolding, not science.
The very idea of a "scientific theory" is a philosophical concept, and your implicit assertion that empiricism trumps abstract reasoning (which I am here neither agreeing with nor opposing) is in itself a philosophical position.
Pseudoscience refers to activities that superficially have the aesthetics of science but do not follow its constraints. For example, homeopathy is pseudoscience. They dress in white coats and use chemistry lab equipment, but they do not test their ideas with experiments that could falsify them. This has nothing to do with reasoning with the current scientific theories. What do you think theoretical physicists do?
I say this because more and more I notice people using "pseudoscience" in a sense similar to "heresy", and treating philosophy as some sort of inferior system of knowledge that is bound to be replaced by science. These people misunderstand both science and philosophy, and would benefit from a bit more of reading and thinking outside of their comfort zone.
> I say this because more and more I notice people using "pseudoscience" in a sense similar to "heresy"
I think that for some people science has replaced religion as a belief and social control system
For these people science defines what is possible within reality and how the world works in a fundamental way; but they don't really understand how these scientific theories work, they just accept them.
I am not saying that science is a religion (they do work under different constraints), I am just saying that science has started to serve a similar role within our civilization, like religion did back in the "dark ages"
I'm not sure that calling science "social control" in any context is fair. It's certainly replaced religion as a tool for explaining things, but that's what it's for.
Your wording makes it sound like there's only one "scientific" belief system, but It's in my view really only a component of one. I think constructing your worldview around at least theoretically verifiable claims is a definite improvement over religious dogma, but most important is the scientific mindset of accepting uncertainty and "I don't know" answers (until you figure them out).
I also think it's valid to trust experts, but extraordinary claims will still require extraordinary evidence.
Now, the social structures around science aren't perfect and bad science can definitely be used to mislead people. That's just another problem to solve.
This is the whole point of Philosophy of Science. The 'givens' for a scientfic theory are assumptions that everything else rests on. Quantum Physics, in particular, has lots of room for debate on what its various equations actually mean.
