Skip to main content

Science, Pseudoscience, and Not Science: How Do They Differ?

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

  • Global Warming
  • Higgs Boson
  • Intelligent Design
  • Welfare Recipient
  • Irradiate Food

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, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-8541-4_2
  • Chapter length: 39 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-1-4614-8541-4
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 2.1
Fig. 2.2
Fig. 2.3
Fig. 2.4
Fig. 2.5
Fig. 2.6
Fig. 2.7
Fig. 2.8
Fig. 2.9
Fig. 2.10
Fig. 2.11
Fig. 2.12

References

  1. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Snow, C. (1959). The Rede Lecture: The two cultures.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fairfield, H., & McLean, A. (2012, February 4). Girls lead in science exam, but not in the United States. The New York Times, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Board, N. S. (2010). Science and engineering indicators. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cobern, W., & Loving, C. (2001). Defining “science” in a multicultural world: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85, 50–67.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. Schmitt, N. (1976). Social and situational determinants of interview decisions: Implications for the employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 29, 79–101.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Sutherland, S. (1992). Irrationality. London: Constable and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mahoney, M. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 161–175.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. Brem, S., & Rips, L. (2000). Explanation and evidence in internal argument. Cognitive Science, 24, 573–604.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. Kolata, G. (2008, September 30). Searching for clarity: A primer on medical studies. The New York Times, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Goldacre, B. (2008). Bad science. Hammersmith UK: Fourth Estate.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Koen, B. (2003). Discussion of the method: Conducting the engineers approach to problem solving. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jha, A. (2012, December 27). The F-word: Father of Higgs Boson calls out Richard Dawkins for ‘Fundamentalism’. The Guardian, London.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Henry, R. (2012). Rep. Paul Broun’s Service on House Science Committee Questioned after Comments on Evolution. The Augusta Chronicle, Augusta, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hall, S. (2011). Scientists on trial: At fault? Nature, 477, 264–269.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  18. Hainey, M. (2012, December). All Eyez on Him. GQ.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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)