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

  • George R. Baran
  • Mohammad F. Kiani
  • Solomon Praveen Samuel

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.

References

  1. 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. 2.
    Snow, C. (1959). The Rede Lecture: The two cultures.Google Scholar
  3. 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. 4.
    Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Board, N. S. (2010). Science and engineering indicators. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  6. 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. 7.
    Cobern, W., & Loving, C. (2001). Defining “science” in a multicultural world: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85, 50–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schmitt, N. (1976). Social and situational determinants of interview decisions: Implications for the employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 29, 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sutherland, S. (1992). Irrationality. London: Constable and Company.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mahoney, M. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brem, S., & Rips, L. (2000). Explanation and evidence in internal argument. Cognitive Science, 24, 573–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kolata, G. (2008, September 30). Searching for clarity: A primer on medical studies. The New York Times, New York.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldacre, B. (2008). Bad science. Hammersmith UK: Fourth Estate.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koen, B. (2003). Discussion of the method: Conducting the engineers approach to problem solving. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. 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. 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. 17.
    Hall, S. (2011). Scientists on trial: At fault? Nature, 477, 264–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hainey, M. (2012, December). All Eyez on Him. GQ.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • George R. Baran
    • 1
  • Mohammad F. Kiani
    • 2
  • Solomon Praveen Samuel
    • 3
  1. 1.College of EngineeringTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Orthopedic Surgery Bioengineering LaboratoryAlbert Einstein Medical CenterPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations