> Possibly it is an idea to have a place for
> conceptual scientific ideas.
> Such an idea only becomes pseudo science at the
> moment that there is solid evidence that it is
> wrong, and at the same time people still believe
> in it.
> As long as that is not the case, it can be part of
> a group of conceptual scientific ideas that some
> day in the future will lead to new scientific
> insights that can be proven. Connecting these
> conceptual ideas and looking for correlations can
> be a tool to learn something new.
> While for instance the universal law of gravity
> has proven to work quite well, it is still only a
> formula that includes a constant that has been
> found empirically. But the formula does not
> explain what is going on, at least not to me.
> So I am grateful for our current scientific
> understanding, but I think there is more out there
> to learn that we don't know yet.
No. Some ideas are so obviously wrong and/ or impossible, that they are not worth considering. Generally, these loony ideas are proposed by non-specialists with little to no knowledge of the subject. Were they to present these ideas in an appropriate scientific arena, they would be torn to shreds, once everyone had stopped laughing. I give you Electric Universe woo as a prime example.
Some ideas are fringe, but have scientific merit, and don't violate laws of physics, or contradict observations. MoND is one such collection of hypotheses. However, continued discoveries are reducing the likelihood that that particular hypothesis will ever become established.
As for gravity, what is your problem with it? Newton gets us most places we need to go. Einstein's GR and SR allows us to do other things, such as putting a GPS in your car. Can't see the problem with it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 23-Mar-19 13:47 by ianw16.