PSEUDOSCIENCE

COURTNEY ZAHN

Imagine that you are a pseudoscientist. Clearly describe the steps you would take in
researching your topic and making and sharing your conclusions. In your answer, describe
at least three ways that the scientists approach differs from the pseudoscientists approach.
As a pseudoscientist, my first step would be to find a component of my topic
that conflicts with a personal emotion, or to just find something about my topic that
I do not like or want to accept (Simanek, 2009). I could use my Catholic background
as a reason for my wanting to be right, and wanting others to see that. As a
Catholic, I could state that divorce is a sin, so the effect it has on adolescents
involved and their relationships with their parents is always negative. I could go on
to research the problems associated with divorce and adolescents. I would search
for an article that proposed divorce negatively impacts the relationships of divorced
parents and adolescents, and then find a way to expound on the article to make my
thoughts sound like fact. I would find specific passages from the Bible that talked
about divorce in a negative manner. Then I would begin reporting what I had found
as fact, and get angry if people did not believe what I reported. I would justify
everything by repeating that if the Bible says it is true, it is, and that the article I
found is further proof.

There are many differences between the scientists approach and the
pseudoscientists approach. A scientist uses observation and
experimentation to test a hypothesis and studies all evidence closely. The
results of experiments must be reproducible. Oppositely, a pseudoscientist
only searches for evidence supporting their hypothesis, and completely
ignores or argues against any conflicting evidence. Pseudoscientists often
avoid experimentation, or perform experiments with results that cannot be
reproduced. Scientists do not use personal stories or experiences as
evidence, and use a common language understood by members of the
scientific community. Pseudoscientists use personal experiences as
evidence, and often make up vague words and phrases which are only
understood by a select few. The literature and findings of a scientist is
mainly written for other experts of their field, and expressed through peerreviewed scientific journals. The literature of a pseudoscientist is written for
the general public. Accuracy and honesty are not reasons for concern for a
pseudoscientist, so their literature is not peer-reviewed. Another key
difference between the research of a scientist and the research of a
pseudoscientist is the progression of the topic of interest. A scientist is
always learning new things regarding the topic being studied. The topics of
pseudoscientists do not progress, because nothing new is learned (Coker,
2001).