The problem that plagues Sir Popper is the clear definition of science and pseudoscience. Though the empirical method is common to both, the level of inferential data varies greatly. One can amass large amounts of data by observing human behavior, but data alone is not the stuff of scientific theory. Theories must be assembled fusing factual data, and inducive reasoning. The point of induction seems to be where science and pseudoscience must part ways. A scientific theory will, after applying raw data, leave little room for inference. On the other hand, a pseudoscience allows the experiment to progress in any number of directions. Popper becomes quite aware of this dilemna of the social scientist when he applies both Freud and Adlers conflicting psychological theories to the same test case, and they perform equally well. This brings him to the question of whether social theories explain human behavior or simply adapt to it. Physical sciences, as the name implies, depend on physical eveidence to defend their theories.
According to the Webster dictionary, pseudoscience is defined as “a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.”(Merriam-Webster) There are actually many forms of pseudoscience that people believe are legitimate science. This is because they either want to believe something is true, or they just don’t know how to tell the difference between pseudoscience and real science. The most effective way to recognize pseudoscience is knowing the eight warning signs of pseudoscience. These warning signs allow for an individual to recognize when something might be pseudoscience, so they can look into it and decide whether it is or not. If anything contains one of the eight warning
Although the programs primary concern is to provide entertainment to its viewers with investigations rather than present viewers with clarification of the investigations made, the observations presented in Sci-Fi Investigates should be observed in a more skeptical matter, considering the themes are crucial to society. Viewers with little background on the topics covered in each individual episode of Sci-Fi Investigates may be tricked into believing the lies presented. Others who are somewhat educated on the topics presented may be confused as to what the episodes may be trying to achieve or what message the investigators are trying to convey. With a little logic, concern, and questions, viewers will be able to differentiate between actual science and pseudoscience.
Popper, Karl. “Science as Falsification”. Conjectures and Refutations, London: Routledge and Keagan Paul, 1963, pp. 33-39; from Theodore Schick, ed., Readings in the Philosophy of Science, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2000, pp. 9-13.
Alan Chalmer’s controversial description of scientific method is, in many ways, in opposition to Karl Popper’s hypothetico-deductivist account, otherwise known as falsificationism. In this essay, I will elaborate on the various conflicts that the Popperian view has with Chalmer’s account. I think that Chalmer and Popper have common ground on which they have built their views but that while each are imperfect, I support the Popperian hypothetico-deductivist account as the predominant view at present. I shall justify this in my proposed objections to Chalmer’s statements but also highlight the shortcomings of falsificationism. I will assume that science is rational.
Sir Karl Popper states in his treatise "Philosophy of Science: a Personal Report" asserts that "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability" (Popper 23). He claims that a 'good' scientific theory must meet a single requirement: its capability of being tested. In other words, a good theory predicts future observations, and the accuracy of the prediction supports or refutes it. If a theory can't be tested then it isn't scientific.
Pseudoscience is almost science, and presents its self as scientific but doesn’t have facts or proof that follows the scientific method. There’s very vague proof of some ideas and some are unprovable claims. Pseudoscience is common in many places and over a vast diversity of ideas and that’s why it’s difficult to understand the history of pseudoscience. It still survives although many ideas have unprovable claims.
... act unscientifically, to be dogmatic and dishonest. But the fact that one finds an occasional oddball in the history of science (or a person of integrity and genius among pseudoscientists) does not imply that there really is no difference between science and pseudoscience. Because of the public and empirical nature of scientific debate, the charlatans will be found out, errors will be corrected and the honest pursuit of the truth is likely to prevail in the end. This will not be the case with pseudosciences such as creation science, where there is no method needed for detecting errors (since it can't err) much
The way to demarcate between theories is to name those that are scientific with one or more falsifiers. “Formally, then, Popper's theory of demarcation may be articulated as follows: where a ‘basic statement’ is to be understood as a particular observation-report, then we may say that a theory is scientific if and only if it divides the class of basic statements into the following two non-empty sub-classes: (a) the class of all those basic statements with which it is inconsistent, or which it prohibits—this is the class of its potential falsifiers (i.e., those statements which, if true, falsify the whole theory), and (b) the class of those basic statements with which it is consistent, or which it