Comparing Feder's Science And Pseudoscience

A team of researchers are working on a project to make a new kind of airplane fuel. During their experiment, there was an explosion that destroyed the lab. While they were cleaning up the debris, they discovered a number of pieces of frozen metal. The scientific community was amazed. The researchers were so excited to report that they had discovered a fuel that burns so hot that it becomes cold. They were not sure of the true importance of their discovery but they knew it was something that had never been seen before. The researchers quickly wrote up a report, created a press release, and applied for a patent. The news spread quickly through the world wide scientific community and soon other scientists were trying to replicate their experiment. Much to the relief of the original team or researchers, no other scientist could ever replicate their find.

Archaeologist study of the past human culture and behavior through the examination of material remains. They study fossils of humans, food remains, the way buildings look and items such as tools, pottery and jewelry. The Mayan's and Mali's have similar artifacts that they could almost be mistaken for one another's culture artifacts. Sociocultural anthropologist would be the second best theory next to archaeologist because socio actually goes into these cultures natural habitats and see exactly how they live and live it with them. They get to have one on one situations with either the youth of the adults in these villages and this how they see similarities or differences between cultures. Socio anthropologist would know once they enter these

What causes humans to act the way they do? How do we grow and change throughout our lives? These types of questions and many others are exactly what scientific theories try to answer. A Scientific Theory is a proposed answer to a scientific question that is backed by experiments, research, and other data.

The history of archaeology plays an important role in the controversial issues surrounding the science. Archaeology has only recently become a concrete science. Although mankind has always had an interest in the past, the root of archaeology is believed to have started in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. During this time period, artifacts were mainly sought after for collecting. The upper class of the Renaissance period collected artifacts from places such as Rome and Greece to display in their homes as art. As time went on, the lure of historical art and artifacts increased. “Classical archaeology” is the direct result of this curiosity. The “classical archaeologists” were mainly wealthy men that collected artifacts for their homes and studied where they

Charles Krauthammer writes an excellent article by attacking the debate over climate change in “The Myth of “Settled Science””. He opens up the article stating that he takes a neutral stance and that neither those who agree or disagree with climate change are right. His main go to target is President Obama. Charles believes that the global warming debate can never be settled. This is because, science is always changing. Based on support of Richard McNider and John Christy, science and technology cannot prove that climate change is a fact or doesn’t exist. With examples of unnecessary mammograms that cause harm rather than good, he questions how can science predict the future based on certain events. He proves that Hurricane Sandy wasn’t the

One of the interesting things I have learned from Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science is how significant it is to know the difference between science and pseudoscience. As Goldacre discusses, most people see science as an authority not a method (Goldacre, page 3); so they mistakenly confuse market-based pseudoscientific products with science. Science is about experimental methods and testing specific hypothesis by controlling conditions to see the effects of studied factors. Pseudoscience, in contrast, ignores experimental methods, takes advantage of the science name, and justify its findings by shifting into untestable positions (Goldacre, page 7). The emergence of detox products (Goldacre, page 4), brain gym (Goldacre, page 15), homeopathy (Goldacre, page 30) and other types of alternative therapies are good examples. One key point here is the importance of experimental methods. One way to find out the basic of science, we need to disprove pseudoscientific claims (Goldacre, page 3) and it is done thorough experimental methods.

The field was quickly gaining new interest and experts. The newest undisputed authority in the field was determined to ruin any other scientific evidence. This new expert did however take a big part in clearing up much of the unknown that American paleoanthropology was known for. In the year 1949 the British Museum put to use the new way of testing the age of bones using fluorine. This help to expose a human skull fitted to an ape's jaw. This exposed certian frauds but did set science back in some aspects. Durring an excavation near mississippi many animal bones of extinct animals were discovered, along with the pelvis of a human. The scientific community was shocked. This was extrordanary because the time lines did not match up. When the bones were given the flourine test it showed that all the bones had similar antiquity. Some people soon after this began to question the validity of the test, but to this day people still use flourine to radioactily date new discoveries. This also had a significant impact on the future of paleoanthropology across the world and opened the gateway to numerous other discoveries. Although i was not aware before reading this passage of the issue of people faking finds. I dont think that it is right for someone to fit an ape's jaw onto a human's skull for the sake of fame or money. That act did nothing but set

When we do anything, it is influenced by our past and the people around us. If we walk across the street or play a game, we are consciously or subconsciously motivated and swayed by the lessons and suggestions from people around us to walk or play a certain way. This is the same case for reading or listening to scientific concepts and theories as we try to compare and test them against what we have learned before, even if neither of them are factual or heavily supported by others. For example, when my family and I were visiting an apartment, the landlord kept talking about the benefits and advantages of Vitamin C, referencing a novel he read as a child; however, once we left the complex, my father told us that this was not completely true,

There are some demarcations to science from pseudo-science and non-science (Hansson, 2008). Science aims to unravel the way the natural world is and explain how it is and why it works in a particular manner (Hobson, 2001 & Bunge, 1982). It answers few of these questions by demonstrating the cause and the effects of various actions by presenting in descriptive and explanatory claims (Parse, 1995). Scientists prove their findings by explaining

Unlike the fictional tactics that movies such as Indiana Jones and The Mummy portray, archaeologists utilize meticulous and methodical strategies when studying archaeological sites. Rather than simply stumbling upon a glorious treasure out of the blue, archaeologists tend to have a reason to explore a specific region for historical artifacts. Moreover, the process of digging up these sites is extensively regulated so that the integrity and value of these sites are kept intact. Over time, the methods that archaeologists implement has evolved greatly, as observed by comparing the techniques of Heinrich Schliemann, Howard Carter, and Kenneth Feder. It can be observed that as time has progressed, these archaeologists have become more tentative

The Faustian Bargain That Made Us Rethink Pseudoscience: Alchemical Attributes in Faust and Aspects of Life

In Medieval science lab, everything was about what people believed was not always right by science. Many historical movements such as alchemic rituals performed by old scientist, crude surgeries performed by plague doctors and many of the other cases were considered primitive, which was against what we believe because of science today. However, some of these primitive sciences, called “pseudoscience” (Molumby and Murray, 2007, p.28), have persisted the scientific method, in other words people still believe in false happenings in society even though they are scientifically wrong.

Science and Pseudoscience differ in many ways. Science uses experimentation to accept or reject the hypothesis being tested while pseudoscience only looks for evidence to support the hypothesis often ignoring conflicting evidence. In science reproducible results are required before coming to a conclusion while in pseudoscience will often fail to successfully reproduce similar results. Science also argues with scientific information based of experimentation while pseudoscience lacks scientific evidence when supporting ideas. All and all the two contrast in many ways these being some of the most prominent.

A scientific method is a method of investigation where a problem is first identified and observations, experiments or other relevant data/findings are then used to construct or test hypotheses that serve to solve it (https://www.collinsdictionary.com). Originally the scientific method was actually called the experimental method and the method of science. When the word scientific was come up with in the 19th century, the most widespread term applied to the method became known as the scientific method (scientificmethod.com). One difference between specific science and pseudoscience is how they start. Specific science involves careful observation and experimentation to establish or deny a hypothesis. Evidence against a theory and law are searched for and studies closely on the other hand pseudoscience starts with a hypothesis and looks only for evidence to support it, there is little or no experimentation. Evidence against the hypothesis is hidden, excused or ignored. The original hypothesis is never abandoned (http://physics.weber.edu).

In this essay I will argue that science and pseudoscience cannot be clearly demarcated: rather that there’s great difficulty and complication on the fringes when asserting strict criteria that distinguishes the two. I will give a brief overview and draw on the arguments made by philosophers of science throughout history and explain why perhaps their criteria are problematic. I will look in depth into ‘creation science’ and why we strongly consider this as pseudoscientific and analyse the more ambiguous peripheries of science such as Freudian psychoanalysis or even economics.