Difference between Science, Conscience and Pseudoscience - Essay Example

Difference between science, conscience and pseudoscience Science, non-science and pseudoscience are common concepts that revolve around the field of science, the applications of science and emerging areas in science. Despite sharing the science prefix or suffix, the three have distinct definition and refer to areas that have correlation with science as a field. Science is the systematic process of gathering information and using the same to advance various aspects of human life. Science is based on the assumption that various processes in the world follow a certain code established by principles and processes (Sugarman, Impey, Buxner & Antonellis, 2011). These principles are not directly obvious, but can only be identified through observation and experimentation in different scientific setups. Pseudoscience is false science that uses true principles and concepts of science to develop fringe ideas that are either impossible in the current setup of exaggerated. Non-science, on the other hand, is enquiries or academic processes that have no scientific concepts or principles employed in the evaluation of specific subjects (Gordin, 2012). A number of disciplines exist that have no direct correlation with scientific concepts and applications including art, religion and philosophy. They adopt abstract reasoning devoid of any scientific methods, applications and processes and this makes them real in their own way, but not scientific. Pseudoscience and non-science have been comparatively been lumped together, but the two are distinct in several ways as will be demonstrated in the paper. While science is based on facts that can be supported with empirical data based on actual information, pseudoscience is mere preposition that is most of the time over inflated to make them actual. Isaac newton’s theory on gravity remains relevant more than four decades since its development due to the information that supports it. In the contrary, pseudoscience borrows a number of scientific theories to inflate credential and make them factual without any evidence of their presence (Shermer, 2011). Pseudoscience is supported by false arguments and based on creationism constructs rebutted several times by the originators to make them sound real. Pseudo is a Greek word to mean false and nonfactual, which makes the arguments presented in pseudoscience false from the basic arguments. Though presented as scientific arguments, pseudoscience lacks supporting evidence to make them valid and follows nonscientific methods, which cannot be verified. Pseudoscience, just like non-science is exaggerated, vague and most of the time falsified claims aimed at achieving individual goals. The confirmation of scientific facts is done from a refutation basis in which a researcher adopts a null hypothesis. This is not the actual process that is done in pseudoscience, which is more guided by the desire to confirm claims using positive hypotheses (Shermer, 2011). Pseudoscience and non-science adopt vague positions that are impenetrable theoretical stances that are only common among the people that subscribe to the same ideology. In most instances, pseudoscientists attempt to post scientists as narrow minded positivists that rely on the need to show that the null hypothesis is not accurate. The separation of science and pseudoscience is quite easy and distinct though both are multimillion industries. Though academic intellectuals in science view pseudoscience as harmless comic, that is aimed at making people relax and enjoy nonexistent facts. However, pseudoscience is dangerous in various aspects and can affect the normal development and coexistence within the society. For example, pseudoscience has been used to justify a number of atrocities that have been committed in racial parity systems. In the event that pseudo and non-science notions are allowed to penetrate the educational system, they can affect the stability within the education system and drive out the basis of science and sensibility. In health, the emergence of pseudoscience can lead to unnecessary death and suffering to patients due to lack of factual basis for treatment and medical care. In religion, pseudoscience can be basis of fanaticism, intolerance and holy war, which can affect the stability of the society and governments. In communication and mass media, pseudoscience can be used to misguide voters to make wrong political decisions and enable tyrants to ascent to power (Impey, 2013). Are nonscientific explanations correct? Nonscientific explanations are common in various art, philosophy and religious disciplines and have been used to develop different positions by academicians. The accuracy of the information presented by nonscientific explanations depends on the position of the argument. To believers, a supernatural being who commanded different things into existence created the world. This, just like the slavery of the Israelites in Egypt cannot be proved right or wrong using any scientific tools (Bauer, 2014). However, the faith of Christians is not based on seeing to believe, but rather the ability to believe in power of unseen God and live by his means. In philosophy, the concept of right and wrong is too abstract to be based on belief on even visibility if the arguments by john Stuart mills are anything to go by. Philosophers argue that the presence of cold hard object used as a table with different colors does not actually make a table existent in real sense. This is known as the conscious fragments of the mind and the non-conscious fragments are considered to include the ability of the brain to process stimuli and different levels of emotions unconsciously (Dijk, 2011). The body is however constructed based on the laws of physics with components that strictly follow the physiological discourse. The determination to solve the characteristic difference of the two is responsible for the body and mind problem as highlighted by Descartes works. This position is more of scientific as everything is doubted until reasons beyond doubts are presented to support different positions such as death and the existence of a supernatural human being. Though philosophy and religion are based on nonscientific grounds, the positions on various areas differ and this empowers the use of science to solve the difference through the provision of facts and observed evidences. Nonscientific explanations are therefore correct based on the arguments and wrong in instances where the arguments made cannot be supported using facts and figures (Kubitskey, Rutherford, Wylo & Liggit, 2011). Conflict between science and non-science The growing strength of nonsense arguments presents a situation where a conflict between the two will be highly possible. Science and non-science are significantly different from each other but has the potential of causing confusion and conflict. In such a situation, the development of an abstract position will be essential to differentiate the two positions in support of science (Impey, Buxner & Antonellis, 2012). Confining ourselves only to matters of feelings leaves us greatly limited to our knowledge and understanding and this hampers our judgment of people around us. Past experience in love affairs teaches us a lot about the experiences and problems we have to encounter by entering into such relationships. However, there is no basis to suppose that experience will mound our future approach to falling in love again and meeting new people that can increase our experiences (Laprise & Winrich, 2010). Pseudoscience, just like non-science is exaggerated, vague and most of the time falsified claims aimed at achieving individual goals. The confirmation of scientific facts is done from a refutation basis in which a researcher adopts a null hypothesis. This is not the actual process that is done in pseudoscience, which is more guided by the desire to confirm claims using positive hypotheses. All our affectionate feelings arise from the small ideas that we develop towards the people we meet daily and the impression they leave on us. Therefore, this make feelings that we have and cherish emanate from the experiences we have been exposed to in our lives by loving other people and in explaining this, Stendhal uses the concept of time, space and mathematics. An individual must experience a concept for it to have any meaning in their understanding; therefore, our feelings and/or impressions cannot be considered infinitely divisible (Novak, Wandersee & Mintzes, 2005). Science has a number of references that can be made to support its argument due to the empirical and actual observations made in support of any position. In the event of a conflict between science and non-science, different past observations and evidences can be used to support the arguments presented by scientific positions. Just like in the distinction that has been made in the body and mind by Descartes and Plato, the issues associated with science and non-science can be distinctly solved. The common solutions that have attempted to provide logical explanations to the problem are the dualist solutions which highlights the distinction that exist between the body and the mind but fails to address their interactions. The component of the mind is also considered as part of the body and mind problem as the mind is considered to be made up of both conscious and non-conscious components (Rowe, 2006). While science advocates for going out and finding the real information to support a position, non-science positions as witnessed in philosophy believes in other approaches such as meditation. It is inaccurate according to Searle to advance this argument by dividing things in the world into physical and mental as everything that actually exists is considered to possess the physical qualities. Searle thus argues that mental is also physical and the two cannot actually exist in isolation, a theory that contradicts Descartes notion on dualism and the distinction that exist on the body and mind (Lilienfeld & Landfield, 2008). The common solutions that have attempted to provide logical explanations to the problem are the dualist solutions which highlights the distinction that exist between the body and the mind but fails to address their interactions. The idealist solution highlights the presence of only the mind and argues that the body is only a manifestation of the presence of the mental being itself. One argument that has completely discredited Rene Descartes hypothesis on dualism and the distinction that exist between the body and the mind is the idea of materialism. Under materialism, it is believed that all that exists does so only as matter and all the others are actually things made from matter whose roles are dependent. As a result, the materialism theory argues that the mind cannot be separated from the body as other immaterial entities does exist that are distinct from the brain itself. References Bauer, H 2014, Shamans of Scientism: Conjuring Certainty Where There Is None, Journal Of Scientific Exploration, 28, 3, pp. 491-504. Dijk, E 2011, Portraying real science in science communication, Science Education, 95, 6, pp. 1086-1100. Gordin, M 2012, How Lysenkoism Became Pseudoscience: Dobzhansky to Velikovsky, Journal Of The History Of Biology, 45, 3, pp. 443-468. Impey, C 2013, What Students Know about Science, International Journal Of Science In Society, 4, 3, pp. 167-180. Impey, C, Buxner, S, & Antonellis, J 2012, Non-Scientific Beliefs among Undergraduate Students, Astronomy Education Review, 11, 1, pp. 1-12. Kubitskey, B, Rutherford, S, Wylo, B, & Liggit, P 2011, The Accreditation Process for Science: The Path Leads to Unintended (Positive) Consequences, Journal Of College Science Teaching, 41, 1, pp. 46-53. Laprise, S, & Winrich, C 2010, The Impact of Science Fiction Films on Student Interest in Science, Journal of College Science Teaching, 40, 2, pp. 45-49 Lilienfeld, S, & Landfield, K 2008, Science And Pseudoscience In Law Enforcement: A User-Friendly Primer’, Criminal Justice & Behaviour, 35, 10, p. 1215. Novak, J, Wandersee, J, & Mintzes, J 2005, Teaching Science For Understanding: A Human Constructivist View, Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press. Rowe, W 2006, White Racial Identity: Science, Faith, and Pseudoscience, Journal of Multicultural Counselling & Development, 34, 4, pp. 235-243. Shermer, M 2011, What Is Pseudoscience?’ Scientific American, 305, 3, p. 92Alcock, J 2001, Science vs. Pseudoscience, Non-science, and Nonsense, Sceptical Inquirer, 25, 3, p. 50 Sugarman, H, Impey, C, Buxner, S, & Antonellis, J 2011, Astrology Beliefs among Undergraduate Students, Astronomy Education Review, 10, 1, pp. 1-9. Read More