Science+vs.+Pseudo-science

=== Some activities, disciplines, and claims are scientific, others are pseudo-science and some others still are neither. Biology as a study is science because it meets the criteria for being science (primarily that it its claims are testable), whereas [|Astrology], [|Intelligent Design], or [|Dowsing] are considered pseudo-sciences because they don’t meet the usual criteria for science though each makes claims to being science. Cooking on the other hand is an activity that is neither because it makes no claims to being science. ===

It is important to note that not being a science does not mean that a claim or discipline does not work or isn’t useful, though this can be the case, it means that it is not science.
media type="custom" key="14030724"

Read [|Michael Shermer]'s Guidelines on **How to draw boundaries between science and pseudoscience**

= **CARL SAGAN'S BALONEY DETECTION KIT** = **Based on the book** [|**The Demon Haunted World**] **by Carl Sagan** The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments: **Additional issues are**:
 * Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
 * Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
 * Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
 * Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
 * Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
 * Quantify, wherever possible.
 * If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
 * "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
 * Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
 * Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
 * Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

**Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric**
 * //Ad hominem// - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
 * Argument from "authority".
 * Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
 * Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
 * Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
 * Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
 * Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
 * Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
 * Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (//President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!//)
 * Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
 * //Non sequitur// - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
 * //Post hoc, ergo propter hoc// - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
 * Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
 * Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
 * Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
 * Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
 * Confusion of correlation and causation.
 * Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.
 * Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
 * Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "//An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public//"

= The table below briefly contrasts some general differences between science with pseudoscience: =

Science || ====== Pseudoscience || Source: Dr Rory Coker, Professor of Physics, University of Texas at Austin, [|What is Pseudoscience?]
 * ======
 * Their **findings are expressed primarily through scientific journals** that are peer-reviewed and maintain rigorous standards for honesty and accuracy. || The **literature is aimed at the general public**. There is no review, no standards, no pre-publication verification, no demand for accuracy and precision. ||
 * **Reproducible results are demanded**; experiments must be precisely described so that they can be duplicated exactly or improved upon. || **Results cannot be reproduced or verified**. Studies, if any, are always so vaguely described that one can't figure out what was done or how it was done. ||
 * **Failures are searched** for and studied closely, because incorrect theories can often make correct predictions by accident, but no correct theory will make incorrect predictions. || **Failures are ignored**, excused, hidden, lied about, discounted, explained away, rationalized, forgotten, avoided at all costs. ||
 * As time goes on, **more and more is learned about the physical processes** under study. || No physical phenomena or processes are ever found or studied. **No progress is made; nothing concrete is learned.** ||
 * **Convinces by appeal to the evidence**, by arguments based upon logical and/or mathematical reasoning, by making the best case the data permit. When new evidence contradicts old ideas, they are abandoned. || **Convinces by appeal to faith and belief**. Pseudoscience has a strong quasi-religious element: it tries to convert, not to convince. You are to believe in spite of the facts, not because of them. The original idea is never abandoned, whatever the evidence. ||
 * **The Scientist does not advocate or market unproven practices or products.** || **The Pseudoscientist/Quack generally earns some or all of his living by selling questionable products** (such as books, courses, and dietary supplements) and/or pseudoscientific services (such as horoscopes, character readings, spirit messages, and predictions). ||

media type="youtube" key="7OMLSs8t1ng" height="315" width="560"