How can you differentiate science from pseudo science in your social and academic life?
Scientific methodology is paramount.
There are many interesting research topics.
Empirical evidence is decisive.
Assess if the work was done with the scientific rigor - example following all the steps of the scientific experimental methods. If there is too much hand waving going on, no clear references to similar work that may be scientific in nature and poor explanation of cause and effect then it is probably not a truly scientific paper.
The first thing to do is to check the source of a claim. Where was it published? If it’s in a news article, does the article give a citation to a reputable journal? Then it’s probably reasonable to accept it r they’re published. If something is really really important to you, that’s the point at which you ask an expert.
Pseudo-science seeks confirmations and science seeks falsifications. Also, Sciences are testable and gives better logical justification for knowledge claims but pseudo-sciences are not.....
It is difficult to identify it sometimes, but when you discover the science that it is pseudo, stay away from it because it is the beginning of the road to the abyss.
Let me clearly say, at the outset, that I don't believe in pseudoscience. The word "SCIENCE" should never be prefixed with the word "pseudo"........
We simply can't do that. Rather, there may only be non-science, and never be a pseudo one.
Science essentially relies on wise hypothesis-based visionary objectives, sound methodology, accurate observation, rational interpretation and a concrete powerful conclusion out of the whole. Meanwhile, in between this whole journey there are numerous historical literature, facts, logical understandings to study subjectively, to understand whole heartedly, to scan comprehensively and to perceive objectively.
Our good thougts, our brain, heart and senses are more than enough to differentiate science with non-science, if any.
Thank you.
Dear Dr. Sharangi,
If we can observe critically, ee can understand deep trust of many people ( some are having top level degrees) on many customs, practices ans taboos as ethnic or advance science. These are related with religious practices, social customs etc. Many of these apparently may be considered as scientific or at the past days, these were considered as scientific ideas or with scientific notions. Nobody want to analyse such trusts in the light of present stage of scientific developments.
As example, many Indian trust that the Indian caste system is scientific. There are many reports against such idea from the angle of genetic studies, but these reports are not considered as correct or important.
Many religious leaders/ prophets said or performed something which was necessary at his/ her/ their time. These can not be considered significantly correct now, but people do not want to listen.
Example : Marriage between close blood relatives.
There are so many examples.
Science relies on—and insists on—self-questioning, testing and analytical thinking that make it hard to fool yourself or to avoid facing facts. Pseudoscience, on the other hand, preserves the ancient, natural, irrational, unobjective modes of thought. Check out the following thread:-
https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
I agree with most of my dear friends and colleagues, it is not easy but not be impossible as Pseudoscience includes beliefs, theories, or practices that have been or are considered scientific, but have no basis in scientific fact . I recommend these attached files .
Best wishes
Dear Dr. Ziarati,
Thank you for supplying good source articles.
All responses have their own value. I agree that it is not so easy to differentiate science from pseudoscience. Regarding academic life, a published paper in a journal of low level quality may be a sign of pseudoscience. As for social life, both common sense and experience matter.
In my field of science, in a narrow specialty in which I am good and for many years I observe the development of research, I can distinguish science from pseudoscience, but in other areas of research probably I could not make an unequivocal assessment.
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.
It is not an easy think but i agree with most of my dear RG colleagues comments
Following more comments
I think it is difficult at the first instance to identify Science from Pseudoscience.How the results are corroborated at the end will make the things clear
Pseudoscience mimics aspects of science while fundamentally denying the scientific method.
About the same way as to find a difference between an honest, truthful person and a liar and scammer.
First, reputation follow those people as a personal shade.
Second, those people are trained to reply standard questions - changing the conversation protocol with intelligent questions reveal them almost instantly.
Third, their certificates, credentials, recommendations ought be tested thorough, as well as their publications.
Fourth, certainly, when it comes to a serious investigation, experts in the pertaining fields ought to be present to distinguish systematically false publications from a single random honest mistake.
Find the etiology of the science and differentiate belief from evidence. It is a slow and difficult process.
A science must focus on the object and the object needs to be clarified. One step: How many people does a science employ?
My sincere congratulations for this very pertinent question.
In my understanding, pseudo-science is an artificial construct that exists just for itself, i.e., it is enclosed in itself, because does not respect the scientific method, and so does not work in the real world. A metaphorical example: an essay about hunting imaginary dragons. Does not seem rare nowadays, perhaps due to the pressure of novelty and rankings .
See the definition in https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pseudo-science :
“A system of thought or a theory that is not formed in a scientific way”
Sometimes something appearing pseudoscience today may be proved scientific with expansion of knowledge and technology
In the medical field in which I research until the middle of the last century bloodletting was still very occassionally employed and still considered a genuine scientific approach, as it had been for several millennium. Its results were recorded and justified. Justification of results in medicine is today surrounded by reward, class entitlement and well simply money-lots of it.
The process involved for methods or approaches being considered scientific has social and political roots and ramifications and not just the rediculousness of research. Ideologies can motivate sciences as much as politics. Careers, rewards can instill longevity into sciences corrupting their value.
i am not qualified to argue this issue so I just read the comments !!
Even though the demarcating line between science and pseudoscience may appear blurred, any claim which is not fully supported by strong scientific evidence will qualify as pseudoscience. At the same time, myth and superstitious claims may become reality due to the power of science and technology.
Am agree with Prof António Manuel Abreu Freire Diogo
Dr Kamath Madhusudhana
If a science appears to serve the needs of a group or profession and not the object, which might be abstract, then it is a pseudo science. In my field, it might be a new hypothesis on human personality. If the hypothesis is defined according to one viewpoint but becomes dominant in the field and as a result certain groups within that field prosper through status or monetary gain, it thereby may serve the subject-the originators of the hypothesis. If in addition the proof of the hypothesis is solely provided by the group who provided the hypothesis, then a shrewd eye should be placed on its claims.
If in any case the group providing the hypothesis benefit, the hypothesis needs to be checked.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Research Papers