Di Zhu Second Paper Assignment Genuine Science And Pseudoscience

GENUINE SCIENCE AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE 1

Name: Di Zhu

Date: 27

July 2019

Topic: Genuine Science and Pseudo-Science: How Should We Demarcate Science from

Pseudo-science?

Given the practical implications in health care and education, it is crucial to differentiate

science from pseudoscience. Drawing a demarcation between the two sciences can be achieved

by evaluating factors such as their falsifiability, testability, characteristics, refutability, as well as

their assertions. Genuine science has valid scientific methods which can be tested using reliable

techniques, and it has supporting evidence to back its credibility (Pritchard, 2014). On the other

hand, pseudoscience cannot be verified or tested reliably. Pseudoscience does not have

supporting evidence, and it is thus not plausible as genuine science.

It is possible to demarcate between genuine science and pseudoscience based on the

falsification criterion. Whereas a pseudoscience seeks to be validated and confirmed, genuine

science seeks to be falsified. Pseudoscience is set up in a manner that it requires looking for

certain forms of evidence to support its claims. The claims made in pseudoscience mainly

composes of various imaginary sets of observations and outcomes. It is built on the need for

supporting the claims and give validation to the observations. On the contrary, real science is

portrayed in a manner that it is to be challenged. One is required to look for certain claims or

evidence that might prove it wrong. This implies that it is possible to conduct a test on real

science to prove that the scientific claim being made is false (Tavris, 2014). It is however

impossible to conduct a conceivable test on a claim that is pseudo-scientific to prove it false.

A demarcation can be made between genuine science and pseudoscience based on their

characteristics. Pseudoscience is known to have numerously exaggerated and contradicting

GENUINE SCIENCE AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE 2

claims, which are also unfalsifiable. As compared to real science, pseudoscience has claims

which have very little or do not have explanatory power. Whereas the claims made in science are

precise and have specific measurements, those used in pseudoscience are vague with no explicit

measurements. The notions used in pseudoscience are usually exaggerated, and they do not make

use of principles which have been proven scientifically (Lilienfeld, Ammirati, & David, 2012).

Additionally, a demarcation can be made between real science and pseudoscience based on the

controls and conditions depicted. Pseudoscience does not have effective controls in its

experimental designs. A theory that is scientific and well-supported with facts do have known

limitations, which act as boundary conditions and can result in predictable outcomes.

Demarcating science and pseudoscience can be done by analyzing the proclamations

made under their principles. The proclamations in pseudoscience mainly rely on the

confirmation, instead of depending on refutation. Pseudoscience assertions do rely on

testimonials as well as a personal experience rather than outstanding facts. Such evidence and

assertions can be beneficial when making discoveries but should not be relied on when making a

judgment, such as during hypothesis testing. Real science often places a burden of proof to be

established by those making a certain claim, but it does not affect the critics. The assertions and

arguments made in pseudoscience do not adhere to the burden of proof principle and require its

skeptics to validate beyond a reasonable doubt that indeed the assertions being made is true

(Tavris, 2014). In many scientific experiments, it is highly impossible to prove the possibility of

a universal negative. Unlike genuine science, pseudoscience highly relies on confirmation bias.

Genuine science can be demarcated from pseudoscience based on the ability and

openness to testing. Most of the pseudoscience is not open to being tested by experts in the

scientific field. Most of the facts which are pseudo-scientific do not undergo peer review during

GENUINE SCIENCE AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE 3

publication. The proponents of ideas and theories that do contradict the known scientific theories

avoid peer reviews since they criticize it at being biased towards some of its established

paradigms. Additionally, the proposers also avoid reviews with the notion that it is impossible to

evaluate assertions based on standard scientific principles and methods. Pseudoscientists insulate

themselves from peer reviews, and thus they do not receive corrective feedback from other

scientists. Pseudoscience lack openness since its proposers do not provide sufficient information

that can be analysed and even tested by other scientists or publication institutions.

The demarcation of science form pseudoscience has both ethical issues, political

implications, as well as philosophical issues. Most of the practices and knowledge in

pseudoscience are usually consistent with the normalities of common scientific research, but they

demonstrably fail to meet those specific norms. Science mainly gives further insight to

information obtained through various empirical testing. When demarcating between science and

pseudoscience, it is mandatory to determine whether the experimental result of the scientific

phenomena can be reproduced and thus verified by other people (Lilienfeld, Ammirati, & David,

2012). The basic principles that guide genuine science seek to ensure that the experiments done

can be reproduced when subjected under the same conditions and thus allowing for the testing of

a given hypothesis or phenomena. These standards and principles that allow reproduction of an

experiment can be used to demarcate genuine science from pseudoscience, as only the

phenomena of the real science can be scientifically reproduced.

Genuine science can also be demarcated from pseudoscience based on its set of norms.

Pseudoscience does not adhere to the norms presented in real science. For instance, real science

is characterized by its universality and equity. This means that no individual should be able to

obtain the information or results of a test with more ease compared to other people when

GENUINE SCIENCE AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE 4

subjected to the same conditions. As compared to pseudoscience, genuine science is not based on

anyone’s faith but facts (Lilienfeld, Ammirati, & David, 2012). A theory or practice that gives

room for skepticism is highly likely to be pseudoscience. A skeptical theory is one that is

primarily based on beliefs, and its claims have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt to be

true. Additionally, a real scientist’s reason for conducting an experiment or obtaining

information about a given test is for expanding their knowledge. Most of the pseudoscientists do

not detach themselves from their scientific claims, and they usually have personal claims for

expecting a certain outcome.

Form the analysis, it is evident that genuine science can be demarcated from real science

based on its falsifiability, testability, characteristics, refutability, as well as its norms. It is

essential to differentiate genuine science from pseudoscience since the assertions have various

implication in different sectors. Genuine science adheres to certain principles and beliefs and can

be tested. It also relies on refutability as compared to pseudoscience, which seeks affirmation.

One can differentiate the two based on their ability to be scientifically tested. Real science

experiments can be reproduced when subjected to the same conditions, while pseudoscience

cannot be reproduced scientifically. Most of the assertions under pseudoscience are exaggerated,

and its claims are vague. By telling the differences of what makes the two types of science, one

can clearly demarcate genuine science from pseudoscience.

GENUINE SCIENCE AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE 5

Reference List

Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & David, M. (2012). Distinguishing science from pseudoscience

in school psychology: Science and scientific thinking as safeguards against human

error. Journal of School Psychology, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 7-36.

Pritchard, D. (2014). What is This Thing Called Philosophy? Routledge.

Tavris, C. (2014). Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology. Guilford Publications.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."

Di Zhu Second Paper Assignment Genuine Science and Pseudoscience

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

Ian McGregor

Shannon Williams