More handpicked essays just for you.
Explain the scientific method essay
Science, non science and pseudoscience
Science, non science and pseudoscience
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
This homework is worth 25 points of the 800 points available in the course.
Please use the textbook, the PPT lecture handout of Chapter 1, and internet to answer the following six questions:
1) What are the steps of the scientific method? (4 points)
The steps of the scientific method are as follows: Observation, Question, Hypothesis, Prediction, Experiment.
2) Explain the difference between science and pseudoscience. (4 points)
To me Pseudoscience is a hypothesis that just has information added to it over time. There would be no actual data that proves something. What I understand is that it is built off the beliefs of people and there is absolutely no way to prove if the suggested hypothesis or theory actually is relevant.
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.
3) List three examples of pseudoscience (other than astrology). Explain in 1-2 sentences why you c...
There are many companies and individuals that make pseudoscientific claims. A pseudoscientific claim is when a company or individual makes a claim, belief, or practice and presents it as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A good example of a pseudoscientific claim is when a company states that taking their product results in rapid weight loss or rapid muscle gain.
Answer the following questions with information you learned in the document , your book, and through Internet research:
Although Science and Pseudoscience are evidently two completely different topics, what is considered to be classified as a Science or Pseudoscience is a controversy topic that’s still being debated today. While science builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world through the scientific method, pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is presented as science, but lacks support of evidence and cannot be reliably tested. Hypnosis is one topic several psychologists and those in the field of science are seemingly still debating today, in result to its several different uses. Although hypnosis is shown to work when dealing with certain phenomena’s like stress, there are several uses it is considered to be very ineffective and simply not a science.
In today’s world, where every person has an outlet to voice their opinion, the public often falls prey to a practice that is known as pseudoscience. Pseudoscience can be defined as a belief or process which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms. Another thought that comes alongside of the belief in pseudoscience is naïve realism which is the belief that we see the world exactly as it is (CITE BOOK) If a person believes in a scientific product or belief not proven true by science, then they have become subject to naïve realism. These two work together to endeavor to convince the consumer of their false hypothesis. Many people fall into
Thesis: The use of alternative medicine in autistic kids should include medical supervision in order to avoid overdosing, internal bleeding, and organ failure.
Do you ever feel you have everything under control when you really don’t? That’s Kristina Georgia Snow’s memo about meth, as her journey is followed through the Crank series. Crank is about a innocent, 17 year old girl named Kristina, who is on her way to graduating early when she has to go spend one month in the summer with her estranged father. While visiting her father, she falls in love and tries meth for the first time. The book follows her experience being addicted to the “monster” and the consequences that come with it such as hurting her friends and loved ones. The book ends with the teen becoming pregnant due to a product of rape. Glass, the second book in the series, starts off with Kristina, also known by her "alter ego" Bree, has the baby. She names her baby Hunter Seth. Kristina being clean during her pregnancy, quickly relapses and her life slowly starts to crumble around her. Ellen Hopkins own experience dealing with her daughter’s meth addiction influenced her theme of a life spiraling out of control shown through character, style and imagery in Glass.
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
“Properly open mind is just the most enjoyable way to live” Ronald Geiger said in his article about skepticism. Skepticism is one of the first steps on the road to open, creative and critical thinking that young people should take in their lives. It is important for the people in adolescence period, like high school students, to learn how to think properly and be critical toward some of the aspects in society. The course in skepticism in high school will allow students to have positive effects on their intellectual level, ethical standings, physical conditions and psychological status. Skepticism should be included in high school curricular and be one of the requirements for graduation because of its tremendous amount beneficial factors in
Pseudoscience has long since been a nuisance of real science, even today in the 21st century some people believe in it because it can offer an easy solution to an extraordinary claim. But easier doesn’t always mean right. Basing things off ancient traditions, false causation, the mass media, misunderstood science, and ignorance can lead to this belief in pseudoscience. Lunar effect or lunar madness is a pseudoscience thats was once widely accepted. Think about it, the word lunatic, describes a crazy person, luna being after the roman goddess of the moon. Lunar Madness is a pseudoscience because it is based on ancient traditions, misunderstood science, and false causation.
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.
Prior to the 1990’s, the problem of scientific objectivity was a question many philosophers tried to grapple with. Initially, the Logical Positivist’s view of scientific objectivity was most popular. They held to the belief that science was overall objective because of the distinction between the “context of discovery” and “context of justification,” which still allowed for science to contain some subjective elements (Longino 172). Basically, Positivist’s allowed for subjective qualities, such as mental makeup of scientists and values scientist brought in to their scientific work, by stating that the initial formulation or “discovery” of hypothesis/theories included subjective qualities. However, these subjective characteristics were negated by the fact that when investigating theories scientists focused on comparing their hypothesis to observable consequences in an empirical and objective manor (“context of justification). Thus, this allowed the Positivist’s to “acknowledge the play of subjective factors in initial development of hypotheses and theories while guaranteeing that their acceptance [is] determined not by subjective preferences but by observed reality” (Longino 172). However, although this theory was popular for some period of time, a philosopher by the name of Helen Longino approached the problem of scientific objectivity in a different way. She believed that science was a social practice that involved the inevitable input of various subjective factors such as scientist’s values, beliefs, etc… when performing their work. However, she goes on to say that what made science objective was the process in which scientist performed their work. She essentially thought that if the process in which scientist gained knowledge wa...
This is what causes there to be difficulties with human scientists trying to explain their science. They lack the definite, and factual ground on which the natural sciences are based. When a natural scientist hypothesises that when he heats some water to 100 degrees, it will boil. And then after an experiment, it is shown that it does, one can not argue that perhaps on another day the water wouldn’t feel like boiling at 100 degrees, or that perhaps it was only boiling at that temperature because there were people watching. Water boiling at 100 degrees is a scientific fact. It will occur every time the experiment is carried out. However, in the field of human sciences, these facts do not exist, and this makes it very difficult for a human scientist to prove any of his theories, or speculate on situations with any authority. The reason for this is that the study of human sciences involves, obviously, human behaviour. Human behaviour does not follow the same patterns that are observed with particles of matter, or certain metals, it is almost totally unpredictable.
What is the main difference between science and other types of knowledge? The answer to this question is simple: methodology. Science is not the usual techno-electronic and green-blue colored liquids that one perceives when hearing the word “science” but it as simple as a method. The method of scientific logic, deduction and logical reasoning is what classifies knowledge into science. All other types are known as non-scientific bodies of knowledge, some types of which are unorganized and unrelated to the natural world.
Natural sciences is a “science or knowledge of objects or processes observable in nature, as biology or physics, as distinguished from the abstract or theoretical sciences, as mathematics or philosophy.” (dictionary.com) Natural sciences explores in four broad fields, physic, chemistry, biology and earth sciences. Knowledge in natural science are generally inductive reasoning which are more defined and often derived from multiple research and experiments. To the scientists, evidences should be preferably gathered by many different people, as it play a huge role in the natural sciences. There is the need for scientific knowledge to be justify with evidence and natural science experiments are often the systematic study or detailed research of something related to science. Knowledge in natural sciences are heavily based on our five sense, smell, taste, touch, sight and sound which contributes to the empirical evidence. Therefore, empirical evidence is needed before the scientist can formulate a law and subsequently a theory in the construction of the knowledges (weebly.com). Furthermore, the certainty of scientific knowledge could be based on the empirical evidences that are presented. For example, physics is very different from mathematics as we cannot make our own method and play around with it (physics.stackexchange.com), it requires theories. This
Pseudoscience, also known as black magic , in contrast to good science, often involves hand-picking and careful selection of words, events, and other information given to them they in turn make evidence that enables someone to believe them. This happens, for example, when a psychic offers a client a list of a dozen impressive predictions but carefully fails to tell them all the hundreds of failures. Any person or psychic who makes enough predictions (especially ones of a general nature) What’s needed when examining the evidence for psychic powers is the entire data set—all the predictions made, whether they turned out to be right, wrong, somewhere in the middle, or inconclusive—and establishing a success ratio. If the selection criteria are valid and the rate is significantly above