"Nothing against pseudosciences pls - Einstein's theories are probably also pseudosciences" - and I was shocked. (The post referred to the effect "you think about a person, and then he or she calls you", and claimed that this is causally connected).
In my understanding, we have roughly three classes of systems (or sciences):
- Superhuman systems as, e.g. fundamental science, e.g. particle theory -
no individual could produce it alone. Mathematics (or computer software of large complexity) is the glue,
- Human systems of varying stability and hardness (established or under construction),
- Pseudosciences (besides science or in contradiction to science).
To have a simple index, I propose to have a hardness scale, similar to the Mohs hardness for minerals, with:
- positive values: scientific statements
- zero: neither scientific nor obvious nonsense
- negative: non-scientific (para or pseudo).
This gives my proposed scale "Scientific Hardness Index" from +3 to -3:
+3: Fundamental science (superhuman), e.g. fundamental physics
+2: Science established, probably high precision, e.g. astronomy, evolution
+1: Scientific theory under investigation e.g. extended longevity
0: Neutral -neither scientific nor obvious nonsense e.g. visitors from other stars
-1: Beside science but not hard contradiction (e.g. astrology)
-2: Hard contradiction (e.g. predictions, telekinesis)
-3: Proven wrong (or obsolete) (e.g., "earth is a hollow sphere")
These numbers cannot show the tremendous nonlinear difference in the system strength of these levels: I would like to compare
- a level 3 - area with a world class building with concrete and steel,
- level 2 with a solid house,
- level 1 with a play with Lego blocks to try what is fitting,
- level 0 with a heap of cotton balls,
- negative levels just with rings of smoke (more or less hazardous)