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 350+ of our top selling titles.
plus Unlimited access to 30000+ 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 €10,99 per month, unless cancelled.
Upgrade for €1.09
Then just €10,99 / month. Cancel anytime.
Learn more
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
   You are currently viewing the Italy version of the site.
Would you like to switch to your local site?
Leggi ovunque Read anywhere
Modalità di pagamento Pocketmags Payment Types
Trusted site
A Pocketmags si ottiene
Fatturazione sicura
Ultime offerte
Web & App Reader
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 Digital Issue
November December 2015
This issue and other back issues are not included in a new Skeptical Inquirer subscription. Subscriptions include the latest regular issue and new issues released during your subscription.
Annual Digital Subscription
Only € 3,16 per issue

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....