Science Vs Pseudoscience

Great Essays
First and foremost, we will need to establish the differences between science and pseudoscience. Science and pseudoscience are two completely different things. Science deals with our understanding of the physical world around us. With science, we make observations that cause us to form theories as to why certain things happen. We then actively try to disprove or falsify those theories. By actively testing the theory with the intent of disproving it, we further support the theory. 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. …show more content…
Winter explains that the Bible isn’t entirely fictional or historical, but it still serves as a timeless embodiment of the truth that is available to those who believe in it. Winter struggled internally because he felt that not believing the Bible the literal truth of the text he was causing him to turn his back on Christianity. It’s possible to believe that the text embodies the word of God and at the same time understand that it has some infallibility. It would be foolish not to question the Bible because in doing so you would negate what history and science have shown us. Just because something is said doesn’t make it a fact. Instead the Bible should be interpreted as an expression of the ideas that God wanted to be portrayed, sometimes in non-factual ways. Living in our modern day society we need to understand that these thoughts were better displayed through stories than they would have been through factual reports. Winter also says that some parts of the more profound parts of the Bible would lose their power if they were based upon observable facts, such as the story of creation. (29-37) Believing in the supernatural helps us to cope with our everyday lives. By doing so it makes it so that we can focus our concerns on other questions that we can derive scientific answers from.
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. However science has its limitations when it comes to dealing with ultimate truths, so I rely on

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    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.…

    • 1523 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Philosophers continue to revisit these ideas, supporting their initial claims and making counter arguments to rebuttals. While realism supports the idea that science is based on facts and the truth, using scientific theories to accurately depict the world, anti-realism claims that the purpose of science is to find theories that are empirically correct due to one’s own observations of the physical world. Ultimately, the debate of realism and anti-realism concern the aim of science, trying to discover why scientists perform certain actions opposed to others as a result of their individual beliefs. It comprises of the nature of scientific knowledge, how we can attain and are limited by it, and the overall interpretation of the scientific enterprise. Inconsistencies can be highlighted in both arguments, however, both embrace a certain truth if observed through an unbiased perspective.…

    • 1509 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Scientists still praise Popper because of his belief that scientific theories should be constantly tested. All theories are tested and the results are analyzed by the scientific community in order to determine whether the results can be trusted or not. Some scientists believe that theories can never truly be proven but testing is necessary in order to differentiate between incorrect theories and theories that do a better job at explaining physical phenomena. According to some, a theory cannot explain the truth behind phenomena but it can highlight a…

    • 1594 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    For example, when a theory is evaluated, and the prediction does not match the results, we use deductive logic to declare the theory false. However, when a theory is evaluated, and the prediction does match the results, we would typically use inductive logic to affirm the theories truth. However, Popper claims that science can only falsify theories, theories that make correct predictions can never be affirmed. Instead, scientists must assert (when met with correct predictions) that they failed to refute the theory. Popper insists then that the proper scientific method is as…

    • 820 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Science involves systematic inquiry into the natural world which aims to organize, predict and explain empirical data. One strength is that this definition not only defines science, but mentions what science aims for. A weakness this definition has is it is too broad with the term "the natural word". Scientism says that unless one can test it scientifically then its not worth anything. Many people affirm this way of thinking because maybe like skeptics they seek certainty in their beliefs and they feel security in this way of thought.…

    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    According to Popper, any theory can be proven false through empirical evidence or experimental data but cannot be proven true. In this view, any theory is always in the state of being not yet disproved. However, Kuhn thinks that in normal science the theory is not questioned until “the crisis stage” in the Kuhn Cycle. Kuhn claims that scientists does not try to refute their theories instead they try to prove them and seek evidence for their theories whereas Popper claims that scientists try to…

    • 944 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It is vital to remember that scientist are fallible human beings just like us, they are not some unbiased enlightened people in white coats. Science, the ability to know from observation, is limited. Therefore, if individuals believe that scientific claims are conclusive, they will construct pillars of fake laws and a foundation of fabrication which will crumble future generations. In a place and time where many individuals take the word of scientists as law, we must be careful to remember this fact. We cannot assume that because a teacher or scientist or uses the statement “science…

    • 714 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Karl Popper Falsification

    • 1527 Words
    • 7 Pages

    This allows for science to produce errors and mistakes, certainly not a negative thing in the eyes of every true scientist. Popper and the scientific community of all eras would argue that it is necessary to find falsifying evidence in order to more efficiently progress in the field. With all this said, a frequent criticism of this doctrine claims that the assertion that Popper is making cannot itself be subjected to falsification. This renders the need for it to be applied to suggested scientific theories as hypocritical and invalid. However, from the conception of the doctrine, through the evolution that…

    • 1527 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Philosopher Karl Popper suggested that it is impossible to prove a scientific theory true using induction, since it is hard to find evidence that will assure us that contrary evidence will not be traced. To argue this, Karl Popper suggested that proper science is accomplished by a method he referred to as deduction. Deduction involves the process of falsification. Falsification is a particular specialized aspect of hypothesis testing. The falsification process generally involves the process of stating some output from a particular theory form and then researching using conflicting or incompatible cases using experiments or observations.…

    • 1356 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The aims of this essay are to establish the differences between science, pseudo-science and non-science, before then examining the appropriate categorization of “creationism science”. Science, pseudo-science and non-science do have there own characteristics. Sciences’ goal is to discover what our universe beholds and define why it is and how it is (Curd and Cover, 1998). One of science’s most substantial characteristics is the formation of theories. Scientists mostly use a general theory to explain their observations and experiments rather than simply recording the results.…

    • 1344 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays