Differences Between Science And Pseudoscience

What is the science? What are differences between science and pseudoscience?

The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge. Science attained through study or practice and can be rationally explained and reliably applied. Modern science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences, which study the material world, the social sciences which study people and societies, and the formal sciences like mathematics. The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical observations.[5] We have to keep in mind that science helps us describe how the world is, but it cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad and individual people must make moral judgments.

A number of basic standards for determining a body of knowledge, methodology, or practice are widely agreed upon by scientists. One of the basic notion is that all experimental results should be reproducible, and able to be verified by other individuals.[13] This standard aim to ensure experiments can be measurably reproduced under the same conditions, allowing further investigation to characterize whether a hypothesis or theory related to given phenomena is valid and reliable.

Philosopher Karl Popper (?) in one of his project attempted to draw the line between science and pseudo-science.
He thought there was something special on the science side of the line. Under the assumption that science has suitable methodology for avoiding false beliefs, one of the problems with pseudo-science is that it gets an unfair development by mimicking the surface appearance of science.

The big difference Popper identifies between science and pseudo-science is a difference in attitude. Popper believes while a science is set up to challenge its claims and look for evidence that might prove it false, a pseudo-science is set up to look for evidence that supports its claims. In general, science seeks falsifications and it is testable but pseudo-science seeks

In general term He doesn 't think we should dismiss pseudo-science as utterly useless, uninteresting, or false. It 's just not science. Also the difference is not a matter of scientific theories always being true and pseudo-scientific theories always being false. The important difference seems to be in which approach gives better logical justification for knowledge claims.

Medical sciences could be one example where the boundaries between science and pseudoscience are most confused. By the development and acceptance of complementary medicine, such as homeopathy and chiropractic, which are arguably pseudoscientific, yet they will be prescribed by conventional medical practitioners. The claims that are made for their efficacy are not based upon scientifically acceptable rationales (they do not fit into mainstream understandings of human physiology and biology) and they rely upon anecdotal evidence and personal testimonials rather than randomized