To be able to demarcate science from non-science is immensely important, for our society, and its individuals. Science is our main source of knowledge and as such has many applications in our daily lives, and we need to be able to distinguish scientific findings and information from the many ideas and unbacked theories which are presented to large parts of the population, appearing as if they are fact. This may include something as fickle as weight loss plans that use diction not easily understood by the public to make the product appear authorized, certified and scientifically sound, when really the product is not scientifically tested, or trials not done in a credible manner. Another, possibly more serious scenario is in education, particularly science, many supporters of creationism and other pseudo sciences incorporate these teachings in schools, teaching them as if they were approved scientific theories to impressionable children, some who grow up retaining those beliefs, they were wrongfully taught, as fact.
Also, being able to demarcate between science and non science and pseudo science is part of being scientifically literate, to not only be able to read and understand scientific findings and journals but to be able to critically distinguish between valid, trustworthy findings and theories or ideas presented in a scientific format without actually adhering to the scientific method and other requirements for scientific research.
Demarcation between science and non-science or pseudo science is particularly important in scientific education, as it determines, for almost every member of our society, what they will accept as true regarding science, particularly creationism and evolution. Having public ...
... middle of paper ...
...owever I do not agree with his views on how to look at theories once they are falsified, when a theory is proven to vague or has a discrepancy with the paradigm its currently in, I do not concede that the theory should always be thrown out, perhaps it should be revisited and evaluated to adapt to the problem, puzzle solve as Kuhn's principle describes, explore science objectively, not in the shadow of the preset laws of a paradigm, solving the puzzles that appear within a theory and treating them as authentic, taking seriously the possibly of the new theory being correct and the taking advantage of the ability to challenge and old paradigm.
Works Cited
Jerry Bergman. "Acts and Facts." Institute for Creation Research.1980.Web. 11/20/13
A.J. Ayer, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn. "Science and Non science: Defining the Boundary." Part 1. Pages 6-19. [...]
1. Video “Here Be Dragons” by Brian Dunning (4/15/14) is a fresh and critical overlook on the huge variety of so called “dragons” which exist in abundance even in our civilized society. This video promotes critical thinking and demonstrates the “red flags” that one has to look out for in order to detect pseudosciences. A pseudoscience is an idea that claims to be real but is not backed by any real science or evidence. For instance, hair analysis, feng shui, psychokinesis, homeopathy, numerology, aura analysis, the list could go on forever. The warning signs for such “sciences” are - appeal to authority, ancient wisdom, confirmation bias, confuse correlation with causation, red herring, proof by verbosity, mystical energy, suppression by authority, all natural and ideological support. The one “red flag” I have always been skeptical about and this video confirmed it for me is “appeal to authority”. It is hard for me to understand how people actually trust advertisements that are simply screaming “we are specialists, look at our white lab coats and and all the certificates and the celebrities that support our product”. It is simply pathetic. As Brian says - “Good science presents good data, it does not aim to impress”. However, the one “red flag” that I have to be careful about myself is confusing correlation with causation. It is the natural human tendency to assume that, if two events or phenomena consistently occur at about the same time, then one is the cause of the other. Our weakness for this tactic is often exploited by scammers and bogus scientists when they want to persuade us that a relationship exists between two variables without providing supporting evidence. In order to secure ourselves from falling for all the nonsense...
Books that promote pseudoscience are often popular and profitable. Much less marketable are those books which promote skepticism (Nickell 106). The underlying theme in the first part of Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark is that there can be overwhelming harmful effects if science is not used as a way to observe that which is not completely understood. This means that people should study everything objectively and let popular beliefs interfere when drawing their conclusions. In the last part of the book Sagan emphasizes that education is a tool which is much too rarely utilized (Sagan 351).
Robert Root-Bernstein and Donald L. McEachron, “Teaching Theories: The Evolution-Creation Controversy,” The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 44, No. 7 (Oct…1982). This article, written by Robert Root-Bernstein and Donald L. McEachron sheds light on the controversy of evolution vs creationism in schools and the validity of each being called a scientific theory. The work was created to answer the questions, “Which of these theories is truly scientific and which is a religious belief? Which should be taught in schools?” The article concluded in favor of evolution as a valid scientific theory that should be taught rather than creationism, but also mentioned the worth of understanding the latter.
Science on the other hand takes a testable hypothesis and is tested in controlled experiments with something measurable and or recordable. You can repeat the test to get the exact same results, whereas in pseudoscience, tests would never be the same.
It also clarifies any doubts about science not having its own authority and that its allowed to do whatever they want
disbelief’ on the part of its readers by utilizing an atmosphere of scientific credibility for
Messenger, E., Gooch, J., & Seyler, D. U. (2011). Arguing About Science. Argument! (pp. 396-398). New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill Co..
Pseudoscience is a set of claims that seems scientific, but isn’t. In particular, pseudoscience lacks the safeguards against confirmation bias and belief perseverance that characterize science. Any 100 level psychology student should be able to tell you that, but so many times we forget its application (Lilienfeld). We hear Billy Mays rave about the wonders of Oxy-clean, or see that Shakira lost 60 lbs in one week from the miracle drug and all sense is lost. Perhaps the same can be said for hearing a tall tale in a book, spun by the main character. Merriam Webster’s definition of credibility is as follows: the quality of being believed or accepted as true, real, or honest. Throughout this paper I would like you to keep that definition in
Since the time that teaching evolution in public schools was banned as heresy and taboo for contradicting the Bible, most public school systems today take an opposite approach in which creationism is seldom ta...
... a theory should be able to explain a wide variety of things, not just only what it was intended to explain.
In conclusion, the view of Chalmers would be falsified and against to Popperian's hypothetico-deductive method. I agree with Popperian's view and objected the definition of science which defined by Chalmers because science knowledge is not always reliable. Also, individual opinion and personal speculative imagining and have a place in science. Finally, the science should be partially subjective and partially objective.
Karl Popper was a 20th century Austrian-British Philosopher who authored the paper Conjectures and Refutations, The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. In this paper, Popper discussed several questions and issues that he had with the philosophy of science. He first discussed the difference between science and pseudoscience. He defined science as using an empirical method (induction) that follows observations or experiments. Pseudoscience (metaphysics) also relies on observational methods, but does not meet scientific standards. Pseudoscience also relies on the interpretation of an observation. An example of this would be the study of astrology, which relies on horoscopes and biographies. In distinguishing the differences between science and pseudoscience, Popper
Dr. Michael Shermer is a Professor, Founder of skeptic magazine, and a distinguished and brilliant American science writer to say the least. In His book The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People he sets out to embark on the daunting task of convincing and informing the reader on sciences’ ability to drives the expansion of humanity and the growth of the moral sphere. Although such a broad and general topic could be hard to explain, Shermer does so in a way that is concise, easy to understand, and refreshing for the reader. This novel is riddled with scientific facts, data, and pictures to back up shermers claims about the history of science, humanity and how the two interact with one another.
The issue shall discuss the various differences between science and other types of knowledge and discuss the argument whether the science can rely without the separate theories posted by non-scientific educational bodies. ...
Public understanding of science is considered to be one of the most important issues facing educators in today’s technological world. It is see...