Is Science And Pseudoscience?

In Creation Science is not Science, Michael Ruse argues that Creation science is not science and in Science at the Bar- Causes for Concern, Larry Laudan opposes this view by arguing that Creation Science is science, but that it is false. In this paper, I argue that Michael Ruse had the better argument and that Creation Science is not science. First, I explain Ruse’s argument for why creation science does not meet the criteria for science. Second, I consider and explain Larry Laudan’s opposing view that creation science is false science. I then argue why I believe Ruse has the better argument.

Pseudoscience is when someone's beliefs or practices are thought to be based on a scientific method but in reality are not. Pseudoscience is different from science because science is set up in a way that any incorrect hypothesis is exposed and can be corrected if it conflicts with experiment. For example, Dalton's atomic theory said that all matter consists of indivisible particles called atoms, atoms of the same element are similar in shape and mass, but differ from the atoms of other elements, atoms cannot be created or destroyed, atoms of different elements may combine with each other in a fixed, simple, whole number ratios to form compound atoms, atoms of same element can combine in more than one ratio to form two or more compounds, and

Inductive inferences are judgments about the future- that the sun will rise tomorrow, that the hot stove will burn me, that the (properly functioning) airplane will stay aloft, that the piece of metal will expand if heated. Hume observes that such judgments are neither matters of fact nor relations of ideas and so concludes that they are not proper objects of knowledge- we cannot claim to know that the sun will rise tomorrow, that the stove will burn me, etc. We can’t even claim to know these things are probable; inductive judgments appear not to be justified at all! But we make them all the time in everyday life, and scientific practice seems to be based on them. How are we to make sense of our inductive practices? Hume suggests that the answer lies in our psychology, that regularities in experience give rise to habits of expectation. Popper and Goodman both argue that Hume’s solution is problematic, that we cannot explain our inductive practices simply by appealing to habits of thought. Popper goes on to conclude that what we take to be inductive practice is really just a method of conjectures and refutations and Goodman goes on to posit his new riddle of induction; what they have in common, though, is a concern about Hume’s psychological solution to the riddle of induction.

Pseudoscience was developing in the western world after the enlightenment movement. The term was developed in order to portray con artist. Pseudoscience was seen to be used first during 1844. By the twentieth century the term was extended further. The idea of pseudoscience was to give recognition to skeptical ideas and practicing scientist. Pseudoscience is an important when thinking rationally. It allows to determine the concepts behind extrasensory perceptions, as well as many other concepts. Pseudoscience is known to be involved with science. However, pseudoscience is actually based on theories, predictions and the human beings everyday thought and not as an actually

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.

Pseudoscience is a belief that is portrayed as scientific but fails to meet scientific criteria. Pseudoscience includes astrology, Young-Earth creationism, iridology, neuro-linguistic programming and water divining, to name but a few.

In this key examples pseudoscience is proved to have adverse effect to human kind by making them act irrationally and sometimes lead to dangerous results such as death. This proves that this bad science should not be advocated for human beings rather should be discredited as an illegal practise for the pioneers to face the law and stop deceiving

In the two articles “Science: Conjectures and Refutations” and “The Problem of Induction,” the philosopher Karl Popper expresses discontent with the way that he sees science operating. In the first writing, Popper criticizes contemporary thinkers for supporting their theories with positive evidence. The second article offers a broader critique of the emphasis on confirmation in science. Both present a position that falsifiability, or the potential to be refuted, is the basis of the demarcation between science and non-science. However, Popper’s claim is too narrow and imprecise, as it places too much importance on decisions made by testers, and also restricts the discovering and predicting powers of science.

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.

In this essay I attempt to answer the following two questions: What is Karl Popper’s view of science? Do I feel that Thomas Kuhn makes important points against it? The two articles that I make reference to are "Science: Conjectures and Refutations" by Karl Popper and "Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?" by Thomas Kuhn.

It seems radical and conformist to the point of truism to state that “science” was, historically, a definably romantic endeavour. The heroic, transcendent and improvement focused elements of scientific endeavour have been celebrated, but few sources directly acknowledge the conferred values of the romantic. The interdisciplinary overlap that existed before the lath eighteenth and early nineteenth century definition of scientific application, research, art and academia is rarely discussed in direct examinations of scientific methodology. Similarly, the embrace of the subjective, the social and the highly experimental amongst earlier natural philosophers sits uneasily within a thoroughly structural examination of science. It is subsequently difficult to reconcile enlightenment grounded assertions that the primary focus of science has always been the discovery of natural “rules” and their applications, through pure logic and reason.

Since the dawn of mankind religion has been one of the most significant elements of a society’s social and cultural beliefs and actions. However, this trend has declined due to the general increase in knowledge regarding our the natural sciences. Where we had previously attributed something that we didn’t understand to the working of a higher power, is now replaced by a simple explanation offered by natural sciences. While advocates of Religion may question Natural Sciences by stating that they are based on assumptions, it is important to note the Natural Sciences are based on theories and principles which can be proven using mathematical equations and formulas. Faith however contrasts from the easily visible feasibility of data

Non-Science : A body, set, or system of information, methods, beliefs, and hypotheses (such as astrology ) that does not use the scientific method as a basis for observation, or development of a theory. --wiktionary.org

However, a contemporary consensus has emerged in science studies that the demarcation problem is essentially irrelevant to the study of science. The demarcation problem has been called a pseudo-problem by those who argue that philosophically there is no reason to believe that it is possible to define necessary and sufficient conditions to separate the scientific from the non-scientific. (Laudin 1983) Gieryn proposed that instead of considering demarcation as a conceptual problem, the bounds of science should be reinterpreted as a practical problem faced by scientists who have a professional need to distinguish their work from other intellectual

I also tend to agree that underneath all claims to consilience among the disciplines, there lurks a tyrannical attempt to reduce all human knowledge to terms that we already understand. To think that science is the only way to get ‘real’ truth is analogous to thinking that English is the only ‘real’ language (and that all others are merely poor imitations).