Abstract
Many news stories related to health and the environment introduce and describe scientific concepts which may be unfamiliar to the reader. Often, the stories draw conclusions based on the scientific or technical concepts that were presented, with the result that the reader is left to rely on a correct interpretation of the concept by the writer. Similarly, many marketing and advertising claims for health-related products rely on anecdotal evidence, rather than on the outcomes of controlled research.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Osborne, J. (2010). Science for citizenship. In J. Osborne & J. Dillon (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching (pp. 46–67). Maidenhead, UK: McGraw Hill Open University Press.
Snow, C. (1959). The Rede Lecture: The two cultures.
Fairfield, H., & McLean, A. (2012, February 4). Girls lead in science exam, but not in the United States. The New York Times, New York.
Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Board, N. S. (2010). Science and engineering indicators. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2010). How science works. In J. Osborne & J. Dillon (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching (pp. 20–45). Maidenhead, UK: McGraw Hill Open University Press.
Cobern, W., & Loving, C. (2001). Defining “science” in a multicultural world: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85, 50–67.
Schmitt, N. (1976). Social and situational determinants of interview decisions: Implications for the employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 29, 79–101.
Sutherland, S. (1992). Irrationality. London: Constable and Company.
Mahoney, M. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 161–175.
Brem, S., & Rips, L. (2000). Explanation and evidence in internal argument. Cognitive Science, 24, 573–604.
Kolata, G. (2008, September 30). Searching for clarity: A primer on medical studies. The New York Times, New York.
Goldacre, B. (2008). Bad science. Hammersmith UK: Fourth Estate.
Koen, B. (2003). Discussion of the method: Conducting the engineers approach to problem solving. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Jha, A. (2012, December 27). The F-word: Father of Higgs Boson calls out Richard Dawkins for ‘Fundamentalism’. The Guardian, London.
Henry, R. (2012). Rep. Paul Broun’s Service on House Science Committee Questioned after Comments on Evolution. The Augusta Chronicle, Augusta, GA.
Hall, S. (2011). Scientists on trial: At fault? Nature, 477, 264–269.
Hainey, M. (2012, December). All Eyez on Him. GQ.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Baran, G.R., Kiani, M.F., Samuel, S.P. (2014). Science, Pseudoscience, and Not Science: How Do They Differ?. In: Healthcare and Biomedical Technology in the 21st Century. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8541-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8541-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-8540-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-8541-4
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)