SCI2010 Lecture Notes - Lecture 6: Pseudoscience, Family Values, Scientific Method
25 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Week 6
Lecture 1 – Pseudoscience I
Bad/Poor Science
• Don’t follow pillars of science
• Fudge the data
• Don’t follow set method
• Come to their own conclusion – outside data (irrelevant)
Definitions
• Science
o A process, a technique but not a serioes of facts
• Pseudoscience
o Claim, belief or practice that is presented as science that:
▪ Promoting it as product or service
▪ Does not adhere to valid scientific methods
• Don’t to testing
▪ Lacks supporting evidence or plausibility
▪ Can not be reliably tested; and/or
▪ Otherwise lacks scientific status
o Why do pseudoscientific products bother pretending to be scientific?
▪ Scientists are credible
▪ Gives it credibility
▪ Can make more money
o Scientist have an obligation to
▪ Separate what you want to be true from what is true
▪ Report what the data tells you, not what your boss or anyone
else tells you
o Factors that influence our perception
▪ Cultural
▪ Previous education
▪ Gender
▪ History of exposure
▪ Negative experience with X
▪ Family values
▪ Religious values
▪ Socio-economic position
Hallmarks of Science Vs. Pseudoscience
• Hallmarks of science
o Based on empirical evidence
o Corrects and updates itself
o Embraces new results
o Is not selective
o Does not depend on authorities
o Welcomes testing and verification
o Is objective
o Can be expressed accurately
• Hallmarks of Pseudoscience
o Rarely modifies itself
o Relies on old data, if any (often very old data)
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Bad/poor science: don"t follow pillars of science, fudge the data, don"t follow set method, come to their own conclusion outside data (irrelevant) Fi falsifiable: devise a robust test to evaluate, must be possible to produce evidence, quantitative data that would prove a claim false, testing claims, pseudoscience can void falsifiability, undeclared claim, the multiple out, e. g. Vitamins and other supplements: no evidence to support claims. C comprehensive themselves of cancer: has all evidence been considered, the evidence offered in support of a given claim must be exhaustive, meaning all evidence must be analysed, cherry picking. H honest: all evidence must be evaluated without deception, dishonesty is pseudoscience, ignorance, belief systems, usefulness, anecdotal honest for oneself er replicable of error) Ufos and sufficiency: heaps of evidence relating to ufos, innumerable purported sightings, evidence is poor quality anecdotes, blurry photos. Salt lamps: are they pseudoscience: creates a need, misleading experimentation, science theory, how to use them, a doctor said so.
