What+is+Pseudoscience?

= What is Pseudoscience? =


 * Instructions**

After reading the article I would like you to post your thoughts and comments to it here for us to read and discuss. I would like you to address the following items in your comments:

1. What is your general reaction to this article? Do you agree? Disagree? Do you have questions or comments. Essentially, just react to the article.

2. Find an example of something that is considered pseudoscience and, using the article, explain as to why it is considered such by most people. Do you agree with this assessment?

Place your comments in the space below in __**alphabetical order (last name first)**__ following the format shown with my example. Feel free to comment on other people's comments but just be sure to use a different color font and sign your name after your comment(s).


 * Christopher, Zach **


 * 1) 1. I felt this was an interesting article and agree with most the main points. Science is based on how we perceive the world and do experiments to prove and disprove theories. Pseudoscience is more theories based on little to no evidence. It was especially interesting when the article explained that Fraud's theory couldn't be disproved or proved because there was no testable hypothesis. I think ideas will continue to grow from pseudoscience because people can continue to claim a practice or a theory, however, this doesn't mean that any progress will be made unless scientist can create an experiment to test the theories of pseudoscience. One interpretation I had from this article is that those studying pseudoscience are just trying to make money off of a theory without proof while scientists do true experiments on real objects, particles, environments, etc. that can benefit the world and help the future of science.

#2. A major example of pseudoscience is ghost hunting. There is no way to prove there are ghosts roaming the earth. However, ghost hunters and those studying pseudoscience try to create devices that can sense a ghost. Scientists don't acknowledge these theories because they have no way of proving their theories to be true. To a true scientists these ideas are unconventional and unreliable. It seems to me, the main reason people perform pseudoscience is because of entertainment, money, large imagination, or because they want to believe something that the scientists simply cannot prove because there is no evidence.


 * DiBartolo, Nick**

1. I agree with what this article is saying and I find it interesting about the boundaries between science and pseudoscience. Pseudoscience can't make any definitive predictions, while


 * Godnik, Olivia**

1. I agree with most of this article. I find it interesting the way that the article determined and explained the differences between pseudoscience and science. Science can be proved and disproved, while pseudoscience tries to prove theories, but lacks evidence. I also find it interesting that something considered pseudoscience today, can be considered science sometime in the future. I think that the way Michael Gordin talked about how no one identifies themselves as pseudoscientists is interesting. He says that scientists only call their ideas pseudoscience when they think they are threatened by what their ideas represent.

2. An example of pseudoscience is astrology, which is the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial bodies interpreted as having an influence on human affairs. It is impossible to prove that celestial bodies can influence human behaviors. Much of astrology is disproved by physics, and astrologers can't show that their theories make more sense than physics, so their claims about astrology can't be accepted.


 * Han, Harriet**

1. I agree with some parts of this article. I find the difference between science and pseudoscience to be very interesting. For example, science is something that has to be proven; however, pseudoscience could just be told to be true. Before I read this article, I assumed that all types of science had to be proven through labs or other various activities. Another thing I found very interesting was something Karl Popper said. He said that theories discovered even years ago might never be proved false; nevertheless, how do we know that those theories have to be proved false? Overall, this was a great article that helped to expand my understanding of what the actual word "science" really refers to.

2. I believe fortune tellers are examples of pseudoscience because there are no proven notions that those people can really predict another citizens future. Many believe it to be false; however, I'm sure a number of people also believe it to be true, but because there are no proven theories, I believe it to be false. If a handful of humans were able to predict another persons life, people wouldn't have to question where their life stands 20 years from now. But because there is no proof, that just stands to be my opinion and point of views.


 * Grdinic, Marcel**

1. I believe that this article raises some interesting philosophical questions about the nature of science. Trying to determine what is and is not science really can be a tricky question. I like the falsifiable criteria suggested by Karl Popper and how if something is immune to being proven false than it most likely a pseudoscience. But there are problems with this approach as just because we can't prove it false now doesn't mean we will always be in that situation. However, some issues do seem to be intuitively unscientific now and forever.

2. Chiropractic medicine is one area of alternative medicine that is classified as a pseudoscience. This treatment approach was created by a grocery store owner in the late 1800s who claimed that all of the diseases of man are the result of misalignments and so-called subluxations in the spine. However, modern controlled experiments have shown that there is no basis to this theory and that in many cases chiropractors do much more harm than good. Most studies show that the only thing chiropractors can help with is a specific type of low back pain. But even here the chiropractic treatment was no more effective than those in a study who received massage therapy and even those who were just given an informational packet on stretching. Why people continue to spend large amounts of money on an unsubstantiated claim is confusing to me.


 * Hensel, Daniel**

1. I believe this article leads people to think about what science is, and how we can distinguish classifications. I think "science" is a subjective term, and we can't really classify something as truly science. For example, we place the word science after concepts were clearly don't classify as science, such as political science. There really isn't a universal qualification for science, so such discussions turn out to be a waste of time. In addition, any classification that seems to solve this problem turns out to be very arbitrary, such as falsifiability. Does this lead us to believe that if something is falsifiable, is it not science? What happened to theories and error potential? What this means is we can never define what science is. We just know it, and, in the end, whether or not studying aliens or Freudian theory is classified as actual science, it doesn't matter, because it doesn't deter people (as opposed to "scientists") from studying it.

2. Discovering medieval health methods are considered pseudoscience by many, because many find it difficult to believe that odd neck braces and "bloodletting" is true science. These methods don't work every time, and there is some falsifiable data. As stated above, I don't agree with this method of classification, and classification as a whole, because in the end, it doesn't matter what the classification is. If the methods work, they work. Giving them the name "pseudoscience" does not affect the effectiveness of the methods.


 * Hirshman, Rachel**

1. I agree with most of this article and find it interesting that there is not a specific distinction between science and pseudoscience. I think distinguishing the two is very arbitrary and many people can have different reasons for their characterization. While little evidence is a reasonable distinction between the two, other scientists that have evidence but not a logical argument are hard to characterize in science and pseudoscience. I think the idea of whether the science is useful or not is too arbitrary and there is no way to measure that. I believe if there is not enough evidence for the contrary, one should not be able to declare something “false” because they do not have sufficient proof themselves.

2. One example of pseudoscience is Lunar effect which is the belief that a full moon influences human behavior. I think the reason this is considered pseudoscience is that there is no way to take an accurate sample of the population of the world and there is no way to control the sample because each individual is unique. Also, it is difficult to measure if there are behavior changes because there is only a full moon for a limited amount of time. I agree with those who believe this is pseudoscience because I do not think there is an accurate way to measure the behavioral change and they cannot get an accurate sample. However, I do not know enough of their experimental practices to judge them right away.


 * Kim, Yery**

1. I also agree with this article on many points. I always wondered if some things should be considered as "science" or not. But after reading this article, I started to question my understanding of the definition of "science" and what studies should fall under that category. "Psuedoscience" is considered something that "strays far from the scientific mainstream". Things that cannot be proven, but at the same time, cannot be disproved. But if you think about it, science in itself is a theory. Things that we just put out there, to make things make sense. We don't know if what we claim to be true, is in fact, true. That is why it confuses me a bit on what should be considered "science" and what should be "psuedoscience". But then again, I think a lot of other people are too.

2. One example of pseudoscience is tarot cards. The reasoning behind that is because there is no evidence at all that tarot cards (predicting the future/telling things about yourself) actually work. People may think tarot cards actually work because of one coincidence that they believed to be evidence that the tarot cards will tell you your future. I think some people, in fact, try forcing what the cards came out as to be their future, or something that defines them. But I think most people will disagree that they actually work because, well first of all, tarot cards aren't magical. They are just cards. And second, there is no actual machine/object/person (yet) who could tell the future and give strong evidence for it.

**Lee, Becky** 1. I agree with the article that it's very difficult to distinguish science and pseudoscience, that what is considered science to someone can be psuedoscience to someone else. a quote I liked was "no one in the history of the world has ever self-identified as a pseudoscientist. There is no person who wakes up in the morning and thinks to himself, ‘I’ll just head into my pseudolaboratory and perform some pseudoexperiments to try to confirm my pseudotheories with pseudofacts.’" by Michael D. Gordin, and this was a funny, but accurate way of describing the process to determine what "real" science is. I agree with the falsifiable rule, but there are obviously, like the article said, problems with that because many sciences are non-falsifiable, but I think that the falsifiable rule is a good guideline to begin with. One question I have is that if so many science things are non-falsifiable, why do we still consider to be true science and not just random ideas, and believe in them? Is it because of our own convenience or because we need to believe in some way to explain something, because many non-falsifiable claims are not reliable, and that would change the way we look at the world as a whole. 2. A type of pseudoscience would be the study of psychics because they claim to be able to do things with only the power of their minds, like read peoples' thoughts and levitate things. This is pseudoscience because of psychic abilities did truly exist, that would require scientists to change the way they view the world, and the forces. It can bring in elements like "super powers" that would also bring into the mix " higher beings" and the power that they "have" and how it influences the earth. I agree that it's pseudoscience because there is no way to test if someone's mental ability or some higher force or being is making something happen.

1. I agree with this article and it interests me. I enjoy how it talks about the different forms of sciences, yet, we cant be certain how different they are. Science is one thing, and then there is pseudoscience. Scientists have good hard facts and they can prove their work. However, pseudoscience is sort of like science without evidence. Truthfully, I like pseudoscience, but i think people take advantage of it. For example, so many tv shows are about aliens and ect. Though, some people might not like it, because sometimes, the might have to change our thinking on ideas. This new science can lead us to a whole other world, but only if we are ready.
 * Nediyakalayil, Shane**

2. One type of pseudoscience is ghosts. Like i mentioned earlier, people take advantage of it. There are many shows that talk about people who have encountered them, or people who try to find them. Ghosts can not be proven scientifically yet, and there is no evidence of them ever, so we have no reason to actually believe in them. Overall, both these sciences have very different characteristics, however they also have many similarities as well.


 * Ott, Tommy**

1. I agree with the ideas presented in this article. This article explains that there's no true defined line between science and pseudoscience. Both terms are applied to studies often without true distinction that would make it fall under one of those two categories. This article also got me thinking about what scientists are studying and the importance of what they're studying. Controversial ideas now such as the string theory may seem radical to some, but also the key to connecting the universe to others, for example. Pseudoscience seems to consist of ideas that are not connected to other ideas commonly accepted by the scientific community. Are these ideas unimportant? Or are they ideas we have to greet with open arms because they could open new realms of science?

2. The study of possible extra-terrestrial beings could definitely be classified as pseudoscience. We have no evidence to prove that there is in fact sustained life on other planets in our universe, but we can think about that chances of it. There are trillions and trillions of planets in our ever-expanding universe, the idea that we are the //single// //one// that can sustain life is a bit unlikely to me.

1.I agree with this article to a very great extent. One thing that I really took from it was the distinction of pseudoscience and science. Science is when there are revolutionary new ideas that can generate any interest on the part of working scientists for adoption in their research programs, produce any new lines of research, lead to any new discoveries, or influence any existing hypotheses, models, paradigms or world views. Pseudoscience is basically anything that does not apply to these constraints. I found this to be very interesting as it really limits times that pseudoscience is used as actual science is seemed to be used way more than pseudoscience.
 * Pozin, Jake**

2.An expample of pseudoscience is

Ruben, Ali I liked this article because it really showed the e ffects of pseudoscience and how people react to these theories that have absolutely no evidence behind them. Pseudoscientific theories are looked at more as “how do you know it’s not true” as opposed to scientific theories which are looked at as “th i s specific evidence and these tests proves that it’s true”. I think people like having answers to things they do not know and theories to believe just to make them think deeply into unknown concepts. In conclusion , I think these theories can definitely be understood and considered, but they should not be accepted because there is no evidence to prove their validity.

2. One type of pseudoscience is called physiognomy, which involves a conclusion drawn by assessing one's personality from looking at their face. Some "research" suggests that traits in face can measure a person's trustworthiness, aggression, and social dominance. Recently, universities such done studies on the faces of political figures, and they personalities. Although they argue this accuracy, there really is no proof whatsoever to show that this theory is legitimate. 1. I can see why Popper's theory of falsifiability makes sense, but it's got some flaws. Those things that are considered pseudosciences might not have evidence to prove it, but that might just mean that we don't have the tools to find such evidence yet. Science has always been changing over the years, like the atomic models we've learned in class. Better technology has allowed us to discover flaws in theories and allowed us to modify them. We can't be completely sure of these so-called pseudosciences, but since we have no such evidence of them right now I think pseudoscience is an accurate label of these theories.
 * Qiao, Victor**

2. Faith healing is a good example of pseudoscience. There is no evidence that shows that it's possible to heal oneself that way, and it sounds completely absurd to many people. However, our current technology cannot prove such a thing, and there have been many cases in history where the impossible became possible. In the meantime though, calling it a pseudoscience is appropriate.


 * Shapiro, Daniel **

1. This is the first time that I've seen or read an article that explains the whole "science vs pseudoscience" in such an understandable way. I agree with Michael Sherman on everything he says - There isn't a discreet difference between "Science" and "Pseudoscience"; it seems that where the study of" whatever" is placed on the "science" - "pseudoscience" spectrum is completely subjective. Studies such as Anatomy and Chemistry may seem to be true science, as there are heaps of evidence that show that the respective study is "true". On the other hand, stuff with Quantum mechanics and atoms may be closer to the middle, as although the theories all make sense and there is lots of experimental data, there is no conclusive evidence (Dealing with quantum mechanics, and that I know of) that gives validity to the study, nor can the results of Quantum Mechanics or just plain atoms be seen to the naked eye. This lack of __ observable __evidence always appeals to the skeptics. I read some of the comments on the article, and one talked about the approach to the "science" made all the difference. I agree with him or her: True science involves a beginning question or theory, but then goes on with experiments, and the scientists work on the theory, trying to prove it true or untrue with conclusive, rock-hard evidence. Pseudoscience just begins with a Theory, but stops there. no evidence. 2. I believe that "Energy Healing" or "Psychic Healing" and stuff of that sort is most definitely a pseudoscience __at best__. This is a pseudo science because there is no conclusive evidence that Energy Healing helps or doesn't help, but no real, controlled experiments have been run (to my knowledge) that give any credibility to this. To be honest, I can't imagine why this would appeal to anyone, now that we're in the age of new technology and top-notch medicine. Maybe certain people doubt new medicine and believe in the "natural energy" that runs through our bodies that we can control, and would only go to Energy Healers for treatment. Personally, I think it seems to be a 100% placebo effect.

1. I agree with this article because it is very understandable, and it clearly explains the differences between science and pseudoscience. I agree with the article's definitions of science as something that is proven and pseudoscience as something that is said to be true without any evidence.
 * Spitz, Jacob**

2. I believe that faith healing is a type of pseudoscience because there is no evidence backing up its validity. Faith healing is the act of praying for yourself or someone you know in order to influence that person's health. This isn't a science because it hasn't been proven yet to be an effective way of healing. This is a pseudoscience becasue some people claim that it has worked for them, but scientists haven't proven it to work because it is more spiritual than physical.

1. I agree and disagree with certain aspects of this article. I think that the idea of falsifiablilty helps a great amount in determining science from psuedoscience, but it still has loopholes. The article itself gives the examples like string theory and neuroscience surrounding consciousness. This also questions everything in the universe. Is anything really what we say it is? just because we think we find evidence of something being true, doesn't mean that it can't be proven wrong. My interpretation led me to believe that everything could be called pseudoscience simply because we have no set standard for the entire universe. Also, Michael D. Gordin says that no one goes into a pseudolaboratory to try to confirm my pseudofacts. But doesn't every scientist do that to make sure of their findings?
 * Stoehr, Ben**

2. Colon cleansing (colonics, colon hydrotherapy) – encompasses a number of alternative medical therapies intended to remove fecal waste and unidentified toxins from the colon and intestinal tract. Practitioners believe that accumulations of putrefied feces  line the walls of the large intestine and that they harbor parasites or pathogenic gut flora, causing nonspecific symptoms and general ill-health. This "auto-intoxication" hypothesis is based on medical beliefs of the Ancient Egyptians and Greeks, and was discredited in the early 20th century. My cousin's neighbor used to sell Colon-Blow, a "colon cleanser" and he used to make a good amount of money doing this. Since many people use a product like this and they think it works for them, even if experiments disprove it, people will still believe in this. Because of that, I think that is a pseudoscience.


 * Tashma, Josh**

1. I tend to agree with Popper's theory describing how falsifiability should determine whether something is a science or a pseudoscience. First, it provides what in my opinion is the best way to determine if something is a science. If there is data that has been collected by many scientists that tends to agree with a hypothesis, then that hypothesis is most likely true. In addition, his method provides the most accurate way classify things as pseudosciences. There are thousands upon thousands of theories in existence that could possibly be true, but chances are that they are false because there is no way to test the validity of the theory. For example, the concepts surrounding Freudian psychoanalysis cannot be proven wrong; no technology exists that can confirm that there isn't an "unconscious" and "preconscious" part of the mind. However, this shouldn't automatically qualify as a science because some guy (Freud) believes that it is true based on the justification that it cannot be proven to be wrong, while it also cannot be proven to be correct. While Popper's method isn't perfect, as there is a chance that something non-falsifiable could actually be a reality (i.e. just because we have never encountered aliens doesn't mean we can be certain that they don't exist), a vast majority of the time his classifications seem to me to be correct.

2. (see psychoanalysis example above) In addition, hypnosis would be an example of a pseudoscience. It is classified as a pseudoscience because no evidence exists that explains how hypnosis works (Popper's theory) and there is not a consensus among scientists about the validity of hypnosis (if anything a consensus that it is not a science) or any practical application for any research regarding hypnosis (Shermer's method). I believe that hypnosis is a pseudoscience as it has no data supporting it and is non-falsifiable.

1.) I agree with the premise of what Michael Shermer says. It is hard to identify whether some branch of studies is actually a science or pseudoscience. Whether someone thinks another scientists studies are a pseudoscience can be prejudiced, if not biased. What one considers science, another might consider the data to be useless. It is all a matter of perspective. I disagree with Shermer's statement in which he says that something with no definitive usefulness is probably a pseudoscience. Just because someone can't find a use for certain knowledge at the time, doesn't mean that the knowledge wouldn't help. In many instances, ideas were known but had, until then, had no scientific value and were thus discarded. They were later found to be very useful. Many drugs used today were considered useless until they were discovered to have properties that heal sicknesses.
 * Volpyansky, Andrew**

2.) UFOlogy is a pseudoscience because the people who study it usually use the principles of science but they have no real data or set scientific methods. This is the study of data or reports of evidence associated to UFO's. UFOlogy is pseudoscience because there has been no progress since the 1950's and that the assumption on which most of the UFOlogists base their research is often very unlikely to be true. I agree that it's a pseudoscience because there is no proof that UFO's exist and, though falsifiable, the pseudoscience has no use to people as of this moment. UFOlogy may become an actual science some time in the future in the event of an extraterrestrial ever coming in contact with humans but until then, the studies are useless and thus a pseudoscience.

1. I’ve never really understood what the difference between science and pseudoscience was, but after reading this article I was able to get a better understanding of what’s what. I definitely agree with Popper’s theory, where if a science is falsifiable, then it’s a pseudoscience. It makes sense that there's a distinction between science, where there are provable theories, and pseudoscience, where there are attempts at proving theories, but no evidence. These two are not the same thing, and until now, I didn't really understand which was which. I think that this article showed an easy way to differentiate between what’s classified as a science vs. a pseudoscience. It helped me to understand the topic much better.
 * Westel, Emily**

2. One example of pseudoscience is fortune telling. Some people consider it to be a science, but there’s no way to prove whether or not the events will come true. Some fortune tellers use the stars and planets to explain events that will be happening. While astronomy is a science, using these things to predict the future is not. The events predicted could come true, but there’s no way to prove it either way. This is definitely a pseudoscience.