Non Science Vs Religion

Distinguishing science from non-science or religion is generally a simple matter, as the two generally make no claims to be scientific. When they do make claims of being scientific, they become pseudoscience. Even so, it is useful to recognize the distinctions, as science doesn’t always specifically declare itself as such. For the boundary between science and religion, the verificationistic view works quite well in the majority of cases. Science deals primarily with empirical matters, while religion deals primarily with spiritual matters, which cannot be empirically and objectively observed.
When distinguishing science from non-science, it’s easiest to start by defining the core of what science is, and then define non-science as the fields …show more content…
Pseudoscience can be defined simply as something which claims to be scientific but isn’t. Classic examples of pseudoscience include astrology and the belief in extrasensory perception. The belief in the existence of extrasensory perception provides a good example of how falsificationism can work to classify it as pseudoscience. Since it’s impossible to analyze every event on earth taking place at any time in history, it would be impossible to prove that there isn’t at least one legitimate case of extrasensory perception. As such, it’s impossible to falsify it, so it’s …show more content…
Rather, a multi-criterion suggestion about demarcating science is the best avenue to take. All three criterions make valid arguments and each have their own criticisms. However, each seems to play a crucial role in distinguishing science for non-science, pseudoscience, and religion. That is why a single criterion is not sufficient in answering the whole demarcation problem. Therefore, a multi-criterion model would provide the best chance of demarcating science. However, if I were to create a criterion of my own, a theory can be scientific if it fulfills three conditions. Firstly, the auxiliary hypotheses involved in the testing of any theory should be independently testable themselves. In this case, if new questions arise from an accepted theory, these questions must be testable and falsifiable. Second, scientific practices are unified wholes, so a theory – if it is scientific – could be applied not only to some selected examples, but a wide range of cases and problems that fall under the same paradigm. A theory should be able to explain any complementary problems that branch off of it. Third, scientific theories must be fertile in the sense that they open up new areas of research. So if a theory doesn’t have any potential to make or to give rise to progress, it will not be seen as scientific. In other words, a theory should be capable of developing other research problems that can be