Science And Pseudoscience: A Comparative Analysis

Improved Essays
What is of greater value; scientific knowledge, or metaphysical beliefs? Science and metaphysics, or pseudoscience, are two different things that help us develop better understandings of the world around us. Should one hold more value than the other? Is there a scientific explanation for the human condition? Can science tell us our purpose in life? Is it foolish for an educated person to place their beliefs into myth? Where should we look for the meaning of human existence? Some of these questions have simple answers, others are more difficult. Throughout my life I have found myself walking a fine line that stretches between science and metaphysics, trying to find the balance between the two. At times I place more value into scientific …show more content…
Science deals with our understanding of the physical world around us. We use it to test theories that we’ve formed through observation. By actively testing the theories with the intent of disproving them, we gather more information that supports our idea. However, pseudoscience is a belief that is often presented as being scientific, but does not hold up against the scientific method because it cannot be tested or disproven. Popper discusses that it is an issue when someone considers pseudoscience to be a science. With pseudoscience, people often times support their theories by looking for confirmations instead of trying to test them for falsifiability. This happens because pseudoscience deals a lot with things that cannot be actively observed or measured. (199-202) Though these two are different, both science and pseudoscience hold great values towards an individual 's life. Nonetheless, I place more value in science than in myth. There is simply more information to support it. To explain, if I became sick and was given the choice of seeking medical treatment or relying solely upon prayer, I would chose medical treatment. Science gives me a factual understanding of my body. Therefore, with the information that science provides, I would have a more likely chance of being cured. Science gives us a great amount of insight towards understanding our biology, which can help …show more content…
Since science deals with the physical world, but can it explain the bigger questions of life? There is no scientific formula that can determine whether or not we as humans were placed on the Earth for a specific reason. So instead we turn to metaphysics to answer these questions. Sovacool and Brown noted that we use myths as a coping mechanism for things that we don’t understand. Understanding the reason behind the myth gives important insights to our society. For example, one myth that we have is that we will be able to find alternate fuel sources before we fully exhaust our own. Instead of dealing with the issue at hand and minimizing our energy consumption, we are trying to find new resources to support of lifestyles. (240-242) There are plenty of scientific facts that show how we’ve been depleting the Earth of its natural resources, but instead the problem at hand, we instead use the myth of finding alternate fuel sources as a coping mechanism. Sometimes it’s just easier to place your faith into something that may not be true. So is it foolish for an educated person to place their beliefs into

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    “The Mistrust of Science” by Atul Gawande is a commencement address at the California Institute of Technology. Atul Gawande calls upon the institutes graduates to take a stance and defend the common misconceptions and myths about scientific issues concerning today’s society. The commencement’s main goal was to use a logical thought process to defend the scientific evidence against common misconception. For example, Atul Gawande says “They deploy false analogies and other logical fallacies… when scientists produce one level of certainty; the pseudoscientists insist they achieve another.” Atul claims that pseudoscientists deploy a poor sense of logical reasoning to mislead the public, which cannot be backed up by hard scientific evidence.…

    • 366 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In modern times religion and science are increasingly becoming viewed as incompatible, or at least non-overlapping. Damien Keown states that “Scientific discoveries, and theories such as evolution, have challenged many traditional Christian teachings…” at the expense of making them appear “...dogmatic, irrational, and backward-looking” (119). Despite its brief history in the West, Buddhism has gained increasing popularity in part due to its frequent portrayal as an exception to the conflict between scientific and spiritual thought. Proponents of this view—deemed “Buddhist Modernists” or “Secular Buddhists”—argue that Buddhism possesses certain qualities which make it compatible with a secular view of the world, while providing a source of purpose…

    • 1050 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Kenneth Miller Critique

    • 484 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Kenneth Miller was the chief witness for the prosecution in the Dover Pennsylvania trial on the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) in the high school biology curriculum. Miller had many critiques against ID as a scientific explanation. Firstly, evolution binds science together and is a sign of the health of science. Secondly, the source of answers for questions about nature must come from nature itself. Thirdly, for an idea to be considered scientifically correct it has to be peer reviewed, but ID wants to skip the steps of making sure an argument is sound and instead make its idea true through the political system.…

    • 484 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Superstition In Dracula

    • 1546 Words
    • 7 Pages

    A large portion of the population base their entire lives and existence around the ideas discovered through science, doubting the supernatural or the possibility of higher life. What about the ideas science cannot prove or attest to? Sure, the Big Bang Theory is probable with the ability to potentially explain how the universe came to be, however it does not disprove a God or much else for that matter. Moreover, many previously widely believed scientific discoveries have proven to be incorrect. Who is to say that current theories will not be found as complete bogus?…

    • 1546 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Critical thinking is the ability to think about any subject or problem and improve the thought of it by analyzing, and evaluating it objectively. When using critical thinking one must be able to see both sides of issue and be open to new evidence. Decisions or claims made using critical thinking should be based on facts and evidence, and not based on emotions. In the book titled “The Scientific Endeavors” critical thinking is defined as determining if a claim should be accepted or rejected through deliberate determination. (Lee, 2000, p. 85)…

    • 647 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Nonbelievers argue that if you believe in science there is no way that you could possibly believe in God or religion. When the creation of the world as stated in the bible contradict that of modern science it is easy to see why there would be so few scientists who believe. According to pewforum.org, only 33% of today's scientists believe in a religion. However, it is possible to be knowledgeable in both science and still believe in God.…

    • 549 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Lauden suggested that the demarcation criterion results in a set of ambiguities surrounding the scientific status of almost all statements, while every improbable statement with certain degrees of falsifibility can win assent from the falsificationism demarcation criterion. Even the flat earth theory can be demarcated as scientific in the light of empirical observations. Critics may argue that the degree of testability is what differentiates science and non-science rather than the absolute ability to be verified. Apart from the fact that there is no such comparison between two claims as scientific statements should not entail any pseudoscientific claim, testability does not entail worthiness of the claim.…

    • 1587 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    The demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience is one of the Gordian knot problems in the field of philosophy of science. Several proposals have been made in this regard. Karl Popper proposes a ‘falsification principle’ that aims to test the scientific status of a theory. Kuhn has brought forward a claim against this principle that it is only applicable to occasional revolutionary parts rather than the most part of science. However, another attempt has been made by Lakatos in which a progressive research program draws the distinction between science and pseudoscience.…

    • 1504 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Falsificationism Karl Popper asserts that the scientific status of a theory is derived from that theories potential for refutation. Theories outlining experimental results that (if observed) could refute the theory are classified as scientific. Theories that lack this content are classified as pseudoscience. Popper uses this distinction to preface his scientific view: falsificationism.…

    • 820 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Science gives us opinions, not knowledge. The particular that believes science provides knowledge surely would dispraise this belief solely. Those are who reckon with the idea that “science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge…

    • 852 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Science is completely about inquiry and with that said, nothing supernatural can ever be proven. Although science is very powerful in how we interpret our beliefs, it is entirely up to the individual on how they want to perceive the information that is relayed to them. Like I said before, scientist are not responsible for how we use their findings. I like to think of it as some research being an act of temptation from God to know what is right and what is wrong, especially when talking about how we came about this earth and the whole topic of evolution. Overall, I think the moral concept involved in science is important because it influences us to be more rational about our moral speculations and overall…

    • 763 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Religion answered these questions with make-believe stories of gods and goddesses and other ‘supernatural forces’ beyond human understanding. Science is able to explain these ‘supernatural forces’ with proof and evidence. Science and religion have always been at war. Science is based on observation and what we can explain using formulae and theorem. Religious arguments on the other hand, are questionable in nature and require faith.…

    • 1018 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The most noticeable differences between science and pseudo-science are whether or not the theory has the ability to be scientifically tested. Non-science is evidently not in the domain of science. Some examples could be the disciplines of history or the theory of ethics/morality. As distinguished earlier, there may be 3 main reactions if a scientific justification conflicts with a pseudo/non-scientific justification. But there is no all-encompassing answer that says whether we should completely support the scientific justification or the non-scientific justification, under the circumstances of each independent case.…

    • 1344 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    What does science mean to you? To me, science is everything. Not only is it the normal biology or psychology, it is everything that surrounds us, or is in us, even the things we ourselves do not know about. The Webster definition is “a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws” which for me that definition encompasses everything we know and learn every day.…

    • 1204 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Science Vs Pseudoscience

    • 1202 Words
    • 5 Pages

    In conclusion, there are differences between science and pseudoscience, or metaphysics. Science is testable, and metaphysics aren’t. I place more value in science because of the factual knowledge it provides, but I don’t solely rely upon it. Understanding what makes me the way that I am gives me more of an ability to define myself and to understand the human condition.…

    • 1202 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays