Revision as of 16:38, 2 February 2024 view source JMF (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 53,713 edits →‎Relationship to science: very apposite quote Tag: Reverted ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:25, 2 February 2024 view source Biogeographist (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 15,475 edits Undid revision 1202377994 by JMF (talk): reverted addition of quote: this is already better described in the #Falsifiability section; the Stemwedel quote seems to conflate falsifiability as a demarcation criterion with falsifications—a hypothesis can be falsifiable and yet still be confirmed/corroborated, and it's fine for scientists to seek confirmations/corroborations as long as they use sufficiently severe tests Tags: Undo Reverted Next edit →
Line 28: ==Relationship to science== Pseudoscience is differentiated from science because – although it usually claims to be science – pseudoscience does not adhere to scientific standards, such as the [[scientific method]], [[Falsifiability\|falsifiability of claims]], and [[Mertonian norms]]. {{blockquote\|The big difference [[Karl Popper\|Popper]] identifies between science and pseudo-science is a difference in attitude. While a pseudo-science is set up to look for evidence that supports its claims, Popper says, science is set up to challenge its claims and look for evidence that might prove it false. In other words, pseudo-science seeks confirmations and science seeks falsifications.\|source=Janet D. Stemwedel, ''[[Scientific American]]''<ref>{{cite magazine \|title=Drawing the line between science and pseudo-science. \|magazine=Scientific American \|date=October 4, 2011 \|url=https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/doing-good-science/drawing-the-line-between-science-and-pseudo-science/}} </ref>}} ===Scientific method===

Pseudoscience: Difference between revisions