Science Versus Pseudoscience : Science Vs. Pseudoscience

The scientific method is a process that is used to answer questions and solve problems. Although there are different variations of the scientific method, it contains 5 basic steps. (1) Recognize a question or an unexplained occurrence in the natural world. Once this question has been developed examine scientific literature to determine what is already known about the subject matter. (2) Develop a hypothesis. A hypothesis is

Questions 4 through 8 are based on Figure 9.17 on page 208 of your lab book.

2.) Answer the following questions based on a reading of the above document and material from your textbook.

After reading the course resources, answer questions 1-10. (10 points each)
Please take time to answer each question completely.

The questions in the complete section are directly related to the textbook. You will likely not answer the question correctly if you do not read the textbook and obtain your answers from this source. The terminology in the textbook should be used in your responses.

Read through the questions below and respond in the answer box provided. Incomplete of incorrect responses will be returned for further work; your tutor will supply guidance through feedback.

Instructions: Read chapter 3 in your textbook and review the lecture notes and study resources provided by your instructor. Type your answer in the answer block provided for each question. Answer blocks should expand as you type. If you experience difficulty typing in the provided answer blocks, you may type your answers in a new document. Save a copy of the completed activity to your computer for your records. Although this activity is not graded, your instructor reserves the right to require students to submit their completed work at any time throughout the semester.

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

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.

The scientific revolution had arisen new ideas to the scientific community that would have an impact to many religious communities. The creation of new tools allowed human to test ideas and theories that would confirm or deny previous assumptions. Pseudoscience was a form of science that would introduce many absurd ideas that could be denied with current evidence. However, many scientific theories and assumptions are fallible and could be disproven and thus created pseudoscience. Michael Shermer wrote an article that explains the main problem with pseudoscience as he states, “The boundary problem between science and pseudoscience, in fact, is notoriously fraught with definitional disagreements because the categories are too broad and fuzzy

Pseudoscience could be beliefs, theories, or practices that have been or are considered scientific, but have no basis in scientific fact. This could mean they were disproved scientifically, can't be tested or there is a lack of evidence to support them. Usually, a pseudoscientist would reverse the scientific process by thinking of their desired conclusion in the beginning and then searching for evidence that supports their desired conclusion while ignoring evidence and arguments to the contrary. Using such a biased and backwards approach, it makes it possible to prove anything, including some of the most absurd nonsense imaginable. These beliefs are considered to lie outside of science because they have not received support from the scientific

In the following pages I will argue that Karl Popper’s falsification principle, when used as the criterion for demarcating science from non-science, cannot in all cases establish definitively whether a theory is scientific, and thus at the very least cannot be the sole method of distinguishing science from non-science. My argument is as follows: For any criterion to serve as the principle of demarkation, it must describe how, for any given hypothesis, that hypothesis can be evaluated as scientific or not. Furthermore, that procedure should be consistent with the way established “good” science is done in practice. Popper’s falsification principle is, in at least a few cases, inconsistent with the way science is done in practice. Therefore, falsification cannot serve as the principle of demarkation.

Once you have read the textbook chapter and the Reading, answer discussion questions 1, 3- 5 (ignore questions 2 and 6).

“Mankind’s imagination has always been excited by the possibilities of unknown regions” (Nickell, 109). In the article “Mysterious Entities of the Pacific Northwest Part 1”, Joe Nickell explains the possibilities of pseudoscience, a presented scientific belief that is not yet scientifically valid, as well as the possibility of hoaxes. While there have been many claimed sightings of paranormal activity such as Bigfoot, Ghosts and the Loch Ness Monster, there has not been evidence to prove these claims as real. Almost everybody has heard their share of ghosts stories and the myths behind Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. These stories are universally shared, and recently, people have provided evidence claiming to have seen such mysterious

Laudan (1983) claimed that the problem of demarcation can be traced back to ancient Greece and Aristotle. Aristotle asserted that from general laws one can deduce scientific theories that are consequently truthful statements. Pseudoscientific theories according to Aristotle are not deductively formulated and therefore cannot be considered scientific. However this method of demarcation is flawed: pseudosciences such as astrology can be vacuously true and most are reluctant to say astrology is scientific. We can already see from this early stage that the distinctions between science and pseudoscience are murky and the formulation of demarcation can be challenging.