Is the EmDrive Pseudoscience? |

Shopping Cart -

Your cart is currently empty.
Upgrade to today
for only an extra Cxx.xx

You get:

plus This issue of xxxxxxxxxxx.
plus Instant access to the latest issue of 300+ of our top selling titles.
plus Unlimited access to 27000+ back issues
plus No contract or commitment. If you decide that PocketmagsPlus is not for you, you can cancel your monthly subscription online at any time. Auto-renews at $14.99 per month, unless cancelled.
Upgrade Now for $14.99 Learn more
This website use cookies and similar technologies to improve the site and to provide customised content and advertising. By using this site, you agree to this use. To learn more, including how to change your cookie settings, please view our Cookie Policy
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
   You are currently viewing the Australia version of the site.
Would you like to switch to your local site?
Read anywhere Read anywhere
Ways to pay Pocketmags Payment Types
Trusted site
At Pocketmags you get
Secure Billing
Great Offers
Web & App Reader
Gifting Options
Loyalty Points

Is the EmDrive Pseudoscience?

The question of demarcation is an interesting and important one in the philosophy of science. It is, essentially: What is science? Where do we draw the line between science and pseudoscience? I think that question is based on a false premise, namely that a sharp division exists. I don’t think there is a sharp line but rather a gray area. On the other hand there are clearly some things that are pseudoscience and others that are science. So, in the cases where the distinction exists, how do we tell them apart?

David Koepsell, in the adjacent article, has given one suggestion: The pursuit of a claim moves from science to pseudoscience when the claim has been falsified. So far, so good. Clearly, if the claim is capable of being shown false and then has been demonstrated to be false, any continued pursuit is problematic at best. But does this test always work? Alas, the answer is no.

Let’s take the EmDrive as an example. Looking at the most recent publication mentioned by Koepsell from the group in Germany (http://arc.aiaa. org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2015-4083), we see in their abstract an observed thrust of about twenty micronewtons (μN). This is the force of gravity on a mass of about two milligrams, or the weight of a small mosquito. In the abstract of the paper we read: “. . . we do observe thrusts close to the actual predictions after eliminating many possible error sources that should warrant further investigation into the phenomena.” Looks good, doesn’t it? But take another look at that excerpt from the abstract. We’ll start with the preceding sentence, which says:

Purchase options below
Find the complete article and many more in this issue of Skeptical Inquirer - November December 2015
If you own the issue, Login to read the full article now.
Single Issue - November December 2015
Or 449 points
Getting free sample issues is easy, but we need to add it to an account to read, so please follow the instructions to read your free issue today.
Email Address
Annual Digital Subscription
Only $ 4.33 per issue
Or 2599 points

View Issues

About Skeptical Inquirer

The Man Who Solved the BERMUDA TRIANGLE ‘MYSTERY’ LARRY KUSCHE Looks Back on His Classic Investigation BIOCENTRISM: A Curious ‘Me’ Universe The Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming and much more....