DIstingulshing Sclence from Pseudo-sclence

DIstingulshing Sclence from Pseudo-sclence (see your textbook page 86, “interpreting science and …

DIstingulshing Sclence from Pseudo-sclence (see your textbook page 86, interpreting science and pseudoscience. Much of what

Tries to explain why symptoms appear Choose] [Choose ] Takes anecdotal evidence as support for its theory Pseudo-science Scie

DIstingulshing Sclence from Pseudo-sclence (see your textbook page 86, “interpreting science and pseudoscience.” Much of what we think we know is felt through lived experience and is not as a product of science. So much of what we feel that we know is neither science nor pseudo-science Science has a reputation that other disciplines envy. So pseudo-science is defined as any discipline that claims to be science–but that does not adhere to the ideals and standards of science It might be possible to turn pseudo-science into science by defining its terms operationally: that is, by making its hypotheses testable, and then by testing to see if its theoretical claims hold up It is also possible that a discipline assumed to be science, upon critical evaluation, might be found to harbor elements of pseudo-science The ideal criteria for science contrast with pseudo-science (false science) in the following ways: Scientific theories (1) change as more evidence accumulates. Science (2) tries to explain publicly observable symptoms, how things work, and other observable events. Science (3) Acknowledges its fallibility. (4) Explores anomalies. (5) Requires principled explanations. (6) Values interpretive flexibility versus Theories of pseudo-science tend to (1) stay the same: for instance, astrology’s system of observation and interpretation has remained the same for thousands of years. Pseudo-science (2) often invokes unobservable entities to explain unobserved events. Pseudo-science (3) Claims to be infallible. (4) Supports its theories with anecdotal evidence (5) Explains away anomalies with ad hoc explanations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis (Links to an external site.JLinks to an external site. This is like, shifting the goal posts in the middle of game like, changing the rules so a loss is a win. (6) Inflexible, dogmatic interpretations. (7) Conflict of interest: for instance Lysenkoism in Stalin’s Soviet Union fostered top down support for theory and ignored evidence in biology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site Match the following to be conslstent with the distinctlon descrlbed above:
Tries to explain why symptoms appear Choose] [Choose ] Takes anecdotal evidence as support for its theory Pseudo-science Science Its explanations change over time. Further inquiry tends to correct earlier theories I Choose ] Explains away anomalies with ad hocIChoose 1 explanations Holds its theories to be infallible I Choose ] Investigates anomalies [Choose ] Its best evidence is anecdotal IChoose ] Claims to be infallible IChoose ] Defines its terms operationally to test its ideas IChoose ]