Download Assignment 2

Assignment 2 - Demarcation of Science and Pseudo-science
Christoffer Larsson
Civilingenjörsprogrammet i Datateknik
[email protected]
1. Please give a short summary of all three articles [1-3] taken together as a discussion of
the difference between science and pseudo-science in general, and particularly
astrology as example pseudo-science.
Pseudoscience is non-science posing as science by trying to create the impression that its
proof is scientific. The only logical reason to why pseudoscience exists is because people are
often seeking confirmation rather than refutation. People want to believe in horoscopes and
such.
The demarcation between pseudoscience and science is important to distinguish the both. For
someone who is not expert in the area it can sometimes be hard to judge if it’s real science or
not. In those cases it is good to judge the material critically and find more sources or other
reports. To make things more complex there is science that could be misinterpreted for
pseudoscience. If a scientific paper is falsified because a scientist made a mistake in his
research does not make it pseudoscience. That is just plain bad science since he didn’t double
check his work.
Something classified as science must have relevant evidence that can be reproduced under the
same conditions to be able to determine if a hypothesis or theory is valid and reliable by others.
The scientific method must be bias controlled. All gathered data is expected to be documented
and so others can confirm or falsify the results.
Science evolves all the time. What used to be called science may change in the future by
improvements through empirical testing, criticism and exploration. Creationism and astrology
might have been seen as science by some people a long time ago.
Astrology is a good example of pseudoscience. There are no proofs what so ever that astrology
or its predictions are real. The horoscopes you read in the news paper are very general and
could basically fit anyone. It also draws your attention when you read it and it fits your
personality, but when it doesn’t you tend to ignore and forget about that prognosis.
Unfortunately many people believe that astrology is real and scientific, so articles like [3] are
very good to show people that every astrologer seem to have different view on how to interpret
this “science”. Their guesses seem to be completely random.
2. Why is it important to distinguish science from non-science? Describe the problem of
demarcation and its significance for science according to Sven Ove Hansson’s article [1]
We have to demark science from non-science because since science is our most reliable
source of knowledge. Some people try to make a profit from pseudoscience by selling
nonsense healthcare products that are claimed to work better than proved scientific ones.
Some are also claimed to be healthier.
The problem with demarcation is that all non-science is not pseudoscience, and science has
borders to other areas such as metaphysics and religion which are not scientific. Parascience is
said to cover non-scientific practices that are not pseudoscientific. Demarcation in real science
is also need to distinguishing between good and bad science.
Pseudoscience like creationism and intelligent design are being taught in some schools. Thus
we have to criticize look-alikes that claim to be scientific even though there is no proof that they
are. People are very easily fooled so good arguments are needed to falsify pseudosciences and
explained to people that those are not to be trusted.
3. What are the characteristics of pseudoscience according to [2]
Pseudoscience is belief that is made to appear or claimed to be scientific. But in reality it does
not fulfill normal scientific methodology like evidence and plausibility. The prefix pseudo comes
from the Greek and it means false or pretending.
”Pseudoscience has been characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims,
over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other
experts, and a lack of progress in theory development.” [2]
4. Give a short account of astrotest [3] and its results.
50 astrologers were given background information about 7 volunteers. The astrologers were
supposed to match each participant’s birth date with the correct background information. Of
course most astrologers were having different opinions and guesses about which person was
born that date. When looking at the table it looks like they have just been guessing. The data is
not consistent what so ever. After the test many of the astrologers came with bad excuses to
why this was the case although a few admitted that the possibilities of astrology are probably
more limited than what they thought from the beginning. Even if the questions where wrong the
astrologers should have come up with the same results, but they didn’t.
5. What are your conclusions on science contra pseudo-science discussion?
Pseudoscience must be criticized and arguments must be solid to prove that it’s not correct.
Sometimes it’s hard to prove a pseudoscience wrong i.e. when astrologers use statements that
cannot be falsified such as information about inner life, hidden potential, unconscious fears and
future possibilities. The test that was described in [3] is a very easy way to prove that astrology
is not real science. Most other pseudosciences are also easy to prove wrong with just some
common sense.
However it is not always that easy to see if it’s pseudoscience or not for a normal person.
People tend to trust material that looks scientific as long as it is not obviously made up.
A lot of people still believe that astrology is real and scientific so it obviously still needs to be
said and explained why it isn’t. According to the wikipedia article [2] there was a survey in the
United States saying that in 1988 50% of American adults rejected evolution and 88% believed
astrology is a science.
REFERENCES
[1] Hansson, Sven Ove, "Science and Pseudo-Science", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/pseudo-science
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
[3] The Astrotest A tough match for astrologers (Rob Nanninga), http://www.skepsis.nl/astrot.html