Science and Pseudoscience - Falsifiability

2013

International Journal of Philosophy, 2021

The motivation to write a paper on the general nature of science comes from the scientific nature of Quran, which has been a guidance and help in revealing that science is an ontological and teleological construct which the Quran supports. A much-needed discussion of science had to be done because the trend among the people today suggest anything remotely sounding science has become a substituting value for religion and God. People have started believing rather blindly, in science without really understanding what it is, how it works and its limitations. What is science and what is the purpose of science? This paper explains the answers of the question and help reader understand the difference between science and pseudoscience which often people mistake as one. It explains the difference from example of macroevolution, single common ancestor and natural selection. The discussion also elaborates on the essential foundations of science that makes science, science. At the end, the paper elaborates why science cannot be used to ascertain moral truths. The discussion has been analytical in nature rooted in classic literature of philosophy of science and sociology. The readers will come to appreciate the fine principles of science and it’s limitations in revealing scientific truths.

Studies in history and philosophy of science, 2017

Science denialism poses a serious threat to human health and the long-term sustainability of human civilization. Although it has recently been rather extensively discussed, this discussion has rarely been connected to the extensive literature on pseudoscience and the science-pseudoscience demarcation. This contribution argues that science denialism should be seen as one of the two major forms of pseudoscience, alongside of pseudotheory promotion. A detailed comparison is made between three prominent forms of science denialism, namely relativity theory denialism, evolution denialism, and climate science denialism. Several characteristics are identified that distinguish science denialism from other forms of pseudoscience, in particular its persistent fabrication of fake controversies, the extraordinary male dominance among its activists, and its strong connection with various forms of right-wing politics. It is argued that the scientific response to science denialism has to be conceiv...

2013

ABSTRACT- This paper deals with the demarcation problem in philosophy of science. In this context, I look for answers from logical positivists to Popper and to nowadays philosophers to the following questions: What makes a text, a theory or a research scientific? How can we demarcate science and scientific views from metaphysical thoughts, ideologies, pseudo-sciences and conspiracy theories? What are the distinguishing characteristics of scientific method?

This paper deals with the demarcation problem in philosophy of science. In this context, I look for answers from logical positivists to Popper and to nowadays philosophers to the following questions: What makes a text, a theory or a research scientific? How can we demarcate science and scientific views from metaphysical thoughts, ideologies, pseudo-sciences and conspiracy theories? What are the distinguishing characteristics of scientific method?

The phenomenon of pseudoscience as a cultural-historic product has been the center of controversy since early 20 th century. In this essay, demarcation aspects between neuroscience and pseudoscience are explored in their relationship with scientific community & public and finally, contemporary cultural heritage. Firstly, the demarcation problem will be addressed with aspects of the Falsifiability concept in both science and pseudoscience conceptualization. The short essay closes with an account of pseudoscience violation principles and cultural-historic value.

Ceylon Journal of Science (Biological Sciences), 2009

Biology is generally accepted as a mainstream scientific discipline. However, philosophers of science have questioned the scientific method applied in biological sciences, specifically in evolutionary biology, ever since Karl Popper formulated his principle of falsification. Thus the only major theory in biology, Darwin's theory of evolution, was referred to by Popper as a metaphysical programme. He contended that the theory of evolution is a tautology and laws (if any) in the biological sciences should be unrestricted and universal. As biologists since then have pointed out, biology is a unique science, which requires unique methods to explain its phenomena. The principle of falsification and its application to biological sciences, the uniqueness of biology as a science necessitating different and equally valid scientific methods are discussed.

Turner, Bryan S. (ed.) (2017). The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Theory. Chichester, UK: Jon Wiley & Sons., 2017

In the context of evaluating the empirical adequacy of scientific theories and hypotheses, the term ‘falsification’ denotes having obtained a negative result when testing a comparatively more theoretical prediction against more observational data. The falsifiability and the empirical adequacy of hypotheses and theories remain central goals in all empirical sciences. Since falsification always pertains to directly confronting an applied theoretical hypothesis with data, to bring a falsification about ever presupposes the trustworthiness of various background assumptions.

The current study, aiming at investigating the perceptions of candidate classroom teachers for being scientific and examining the effect of the intervention comprising particular characteristics of demarcation on those perceptions, was interpretative in nature. Two data sources were utilized in order to determine their pre and post perceptions. Candidates performed poorly in the process of concluding on the status of pseudoscientific knowledge claims. But, after the intervention that based on pre-determined characteristics, the guided participants were seemed to reason more validly and able to evaluate the status of the cases they investigated for being scientific or not.

International Studies in the Philosophy of Science

on the author's definition of pseudoscience. Pseudosciences are doctrines. An epistemic discipline that is defined solely by its area of study cannot be a pseudoscience, but if a discipline is bound to a doctrine, then it will be pseudoscientific if that doctrine is a pseudoscience. Contrary to most other types of shortcomings in science, pseudoscience involves the sustained promotion of teachings that block or impede the self-correcting and self-improving mechanisms in science. What makes pseudoscience more dangerous than other types of bad science is its doctrinal resistance to correction.

In his book, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Karl Popper deals with the often called "demarcation problem", which consists in the question: what criterion (or criteria) differentiates scientific and unscientific knowledge? Popper answers by providing a logical criterion for demarcating proper scientific knowledge from pseudo-science: falsificationism.

Precision Nanomedicine, 2022

Science publishing has many problems today. Some of them are caused by external factors, such as the computer and internet revolution. Others are because of the publication explosion and the resulting imbalance between the interests of science, authors, institutions, and the publishing business. However, these pains are part of the overall growth, nothing more. Society needs science more than ever, but progress cannot be made without reliable communication in publications. Publications are not science; they are yesterday’s information and knowledge, which are organized, stored, and shared on various media. It is important to understand actual problems with publications and consider what you can do.