Science vs. Pseudoscience
In order for something to be considered scientific - it must be observable, measurable, and testable. There are other criteria that we use as well, but those are the big three.
It can be said that EVERYTHING has a reason or is explainable. The goal of science is to find the best possible explanation and the most reasonable. This is not always possible - there are limits to what we can test. Technology and advances in technology allow us to constantly move beyond those limits - they open up new possibilities. I am getting philosophical here...kinda.
Science relies on evidence - physical observations of natural phenomena. These in a sense are facts...things that we observe happening.
Remember that a theory is an explanation for a set of facts - the stronger a theory - the more facts it explains and the better able it is predict the outcome of future events.
The difference between a theory and a hypothesis is that a hypothesis is an untested explanation for a set of observations or facts. Whereas, a theory is a tested and supported explanation.
When coming up with your hypothesis, it often best to go for the most logical and simplest explanation - it must also be testable and observable in order to be scientific.
Scientists often use a line of thinking called "Ockham's Razor". William Ockham was an English monk from the 1300's and he wrote the following: "assumptions are not to be multiplied beyond necessity." This is commonly restated as - the simplest explanation is probably the most accurate.
There are many claims that get made every day that claim to be scientific. There are claims from cleaning products that vaporize stains to crystals that cure cancer. Many of these claim to be supported by evidence. Just because something is "testable" does not mean it is accurate.
When looking at a statement that claims to be scientific - think to yourself,
http://www.chem1.com/CQ/clusqk.html
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/nov1/vh.html
http://www.stemwedel.org/Prophecy_case.html
(worksheet should have them pick apart the claim: statement or claim, evidence, explanation. Does this also line up with other current scientific understanding? Is there a simpler explanation? Check the Ockam's box: Are the assumptions of this claim "multiplied beyond necessity"?
This is taken largely and liberally from:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/conptt.html
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/conptt.pdf
It can be said that EVERYTHING has a reason or is explainable. The goal of science is to find the best possible explanation and the most reasonable. This is not always possible - there are limits to what we can test. Technology and advances in technology allow us to constantly move beyond those limits - they open up new possibilities. I am getting philosophical here...kinda.
Science relies on evidence - physical observations of natural phenomena. These in a sense are facts...things that we observe happening.
Remember that a theory is an explanation for a set of facts - the stronger a theory - the more facts it explains and the better able it is predict the outcome of future events.
The difference between a theory and a hypothesis is that a hypothesis is an untested explanation for a set of observations or facts. Whereas, a theory is a tested and supported explanation.
When coming up with your hypothesis, it often best to go for the most logical and simplest explanation - it must also be testable and observable in order to be scientific.
Scientists often use a line of thinking called "Ockham's Razor". William Ockham was an English monk from the 1300's and he wrote the following: "assumptions are not to be multiplied beyond necessity." This is commonly restated as - the simplest explanation is probably the most accurate.
There are many claims that get made every day that claim to be scientific. There are claims from cleaning products that vaporize stains to crystals that cure cancer. Many of these claim to be supported by evidence. Just because something is "testable" does not mean it is accurate.
When looking at a statement that claims to be scientific - think to yourself,
http://www.chem1.com/CQ/clusqk.html
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/nov1/vh.html
http://www.stemwedel.org/Prophecy_case.html
(worksheet should have them pick apart the claim: statement or claim, evidence, explanation. Does this also line up with other current scientific understanding? Is there a simpler explanation? Check the Ockam's box: Are the assumptions of this claim "multiplied beyond necessity"?
This is taken largely and liberally from:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/conptt.html
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/conptt.pdf
