The increasing popularity of pseudoscience is quite alarming. Pseudoscience covers a wide array of topics ranging from Chinese concept of feng shui to homeopathy. Beyerstein (1996) describes pseudo sciences as, “fields that try to appropriate the prestige of genuine sciences, and copy their outward trappings and protocols, but fall short of accepted standard of practice” (p.3). According to Beyerstein (1996) scientific thinking is a systematic method of acquiring information. Science represent systemized information derived from observation, study and experimentation. Hence, the main difference between science and pseudoscience is the availability of empirical information to support scientific thinking. In scientific thinking, various experiments are carried out under controlled environments before a concept is considered scientific. The methods of research, findings and any form of limitations are made available so that other scientists, researchers and the public can challenge its premises. However, pseudoscience lacks empirical proof. Pseudoscientists can use a single incident to claim that their ideas work; they use psychological gimmicks to convince the public about the legitimacy of their ideas.
Unfortunately, people are drawn to pseudoscience more. Beyerstein (1996) notes that unlike real scientists, pseudoscientists focus more on persuading the public to believe their ideas. Pseudoscientists use science to mask their ideas and make extravagant promises to the public such that they are easily believed. Pseudoscience sells false hope to particularly vulnerable individuals who are more likely to give it a chance, for instance, the MMR-autism controversy is a form of pseudoscience which targeted mothers by linking autism to a childhood vaccine of MMR. MMR uptake declined drastically even from well-educated mothers who knew that MMR had no link with autism. Additionally, science fails to offer explanation for everything making pseudoscience more appealing.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Unwavering belief in pseudoscience can be quite dangerous. The MMR vaccine controversy was quite popular and yet it had no merit. Parents who believed that MMR vaccine was harmful failed to immunize their children, and yet lack of vaccination can result in disease or death of a child. There are many cases of terminally ill individuals who have failed to seek treatment in favor of homeopathy. While drugs do not always work, it gives patients a chance, unlike homeopathy which gives such patients false hope. Pseudoscience can be dangerous especially to vulnerable individuals who are willing to believe anything. Pseudoscience clouds a person’s judgment by new possibilities in the guise of scientific discoveries. This explains why well-educated individuals believe in quack nutritionists or “alternative” treatments that have not been corroborated by rigorous clinical testing.
Scientific theories/ thinking are considered scientific because they are falsifiable. Karl Popper introduced the concept of falsifiability in an effort to differentiate science from metaphysics. For scientific thinking to make sense, it must be possible to conduct an experiment to support or refute the hypothesis, otherwise science would be similar to religion. The principle of falsifiability is a guiding principle for scientific theories as it is a generalization of the scientific process. Scientific thinking applies both inductive and deductive reasoning to reach a conclusion, and can only be conducted on falsifiable theories/ideas. Bogus pseudoscientific ideas tend to be unfalsifiable, since they are not scrutinized like most scientific ideas. However, it is an oversimplification to say that pseudoscience is unfalsifiable. Pseudoscientific ideas such as homeopathy or astrology can be tested in an experiment only that the results might not support the ideas of those who believe in them. If science was unfalsifiable, it would mean that science is never wrong just like outrageous pseudoscience ideas, and yet, science is based on the need for constant experimentation and acknowledgement of limits and biases.
Reference
Beyerstein, B. (1996). Distinguishing science from pseudoscience . Simon Fraser University. Retrieved from: http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/revsalud/beyerstein_cience_vs_pseudoscience.pdf
