The Pros And Cons Of Pseudoscience

It is important to appreciate the current nature and status of the world because there are individuals who laid the appropriate foundation for it. As Michael Specter’s TED Talk on The Danger of Science Denial, he outlined the challenges that might emanate from science denial. There are reason that ought to be checked critically since they affect the current and future generation and these include health, wealth, mobility, opportunity and declining rates of diseases. It is critically clear that Specter performs a very relevant and excellent job to the desired audience by discussing emphatically on important issues that affect the current world. He poses a challenge to the audience to basically look at the world at its normality despite looking at it from skepticism side of it. The skepticism tend to affect the smart decision technique in the modern society as it relates to The Danger of Science Denial. He logically asks the Americans and international TED talk fans to analyze effectively the desired big picture besides both logical and ethical picture. He asked the audience to emphatically compare the pictures broadly and identify the worst picture. This could assist the audience to come up with the right decision regarding their perception of current world to the future generation.

Pseudoscience is a claim or belief that does not conform to the scientific method. Generally, pseudoscience will have a lack of scientific evidence and will seem almost as an exaggeration. The evidence that is there to support it is not heavily supported or seems to be conforming to fit the “hypothesis”. In the article I found, James Cameron dove by himself to the deepest part of

No one can lay claim to the past. The past belongs to everyone. Its remains are to be explored, analyzed, shared, and documented so as to remain available for future generations. By delving into its research, we are able to further understand those from whom we descended and more accurately place ourselves within the timeline of the Earth. We are able to better comprehend how we have evolved as a species every time we find new clues. While this information may be controversial to the few of the religious extreme, it is invaluable to the entirety of the human race. In the conflict of science and belief systems, preferential treatment should be given to advancement of scientific inquiry and of our pool of knowledge as this has benefits for all, and to make exceptions based on belief is unjust.

In the first part of this article it explains how dogma has trumped science. Through the couse of this first section it explains the idea of the Bering Strait theory. This is a highly controversal theory that states that Paleoindians walked from Asia over an anciant land bridge about 15,000 years ago. To many people this theory is rock solid but to some it is an insult. There are some breaks in the theory, one being that there is a gap in time that is unaccounted for. Some say that they settled into the land bridge then once again moved, but this is not for certian. There was even a term coined for die-hard archaeologists who insist upon Clovis as representing the earliest culture of North America. They were called the "Clovis Police". The

If we refer back to Gawande’s, Mistrust of Science we can predict that not all “science” is reliable science. There have been instances where we believed that “the sun moved across the sky” and that when being out in the cold, we have a greater chance of getting sick. These are all said to be facts, and they were even said by scientists. Though, we have to look deeper into the facts and the knowledge, because these statements are just hypotheses. They have yet to be proven. So when is science factual? When can we take the word of science and use it to gain more knowledge? This article suggested that “all knowledge is just probable knowledge. A contradictory piece of evidence can always emerge.” This is, in fact, true. Knowledge is just what you find to an answer once. Just because that specific question has been answered does not mean that it is the one and the only answer, there could be and probably are much more. For example, medicine. Medicine was once said to be all we had. There was once a time where if you got cancer you were bound to pass, or if you got AIDs or even HIV, there was no chance of survival after a short amount of time. Today, these answers have changed, due to the never-ending search for more knowledge in these

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

In his argument, Michael Ruse defended the science communities’ position that creation-science was not a science. He claims that it is a pseudo-science. His main argument against creationism was based on the lack of support from the established view of real science. Ruse laid out what he believed the criteria for real science should look like. He then, expanded on several parts of scientific activity which included the role of prediction, explanation, testability, confirmation, falsifiability, tentativeness, and integrity. Ruse presents these as the absolute necessary empirical and social fundamentals for determining whether observable theories are scientific.

In the article “ The Scientific Quest for Physical Culture and the Persistent Appeal of Quackery” by Donald J Mrozek a Professor of History in Kansas State University argued that Obedience to the regimen allowed one to fulfill the nineteenth

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.

Unlike inductivists, falsificationists believe that there is no way to conclusively prove that a theory is true. Consequently, they will resist stating that they’ve proved a theory to be true. Instead, falsificationists will consider a theory to be true so long as it has not been proven to be false. Unlike the strict five-step process held by the inductivist account of science, falsificationists hold that scientific progress comes about “by trial and error, by conjectures and refutations” (Chalmers 60). In the falsificationist picture, theory change happens constantly, and this process is what constitutes scientific progress. “It can never be said of a theory that it is true, however well it has withstood rigorous tests, but it can hopefully be said that a current theory is superior to its predecessors in the sense that it is able to withstand tests that falsified those predecessors” (Chalmers

Falsification is the act of discussing theories through a group discussion or synthesis. By doing so, theories that are not plausible can be eliminated. Hopefully using these paragraphs I can demonstrate why Falsification is important; How falsification is important for the advancement of science and the more ethical choice .

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.

As people, we come with earlier knowledge and understandings on subjects and topics of study, “Science” being one of them. We make presumptions, based on either reasonable evidence or that our thoughts and ideas are known as true by others. Through this we have come to understand and define science as its aims, leaving its definition, whether consciously or unconsciously, unchallenged. We have taken advantage of the label that we have set for science, as well as its goals, and failed to look at them further.

The nature and process of science are a collection of things, ideas, and guidelines. “The purpose of science is to learn about and understand our universe more completely” (Science works in specific ways, 3). Science works with evidence from our world. If it doesn’t come from the natural world, it isn’t science. You need to be creative and have flexible thoughts and ideas if you want to be a scientist. Science always brings up new ideas and theories and if you aren’t flexible to those ideas you can’t be a scientist. Science has been in our world for a long time. It is deep into our history and our cultures. The principals of science; are all about understanding our world using the evidence we collect. If we can’t collect evidence on something we simply cannot understand it. If we don’t understanding something about our world, science says that we can learn about it by collecting evidence (Science has principals, 4). Science is a process; it takes time. You don’t immediately come to a conclusion for your hypothesis a few minutes