How can you tell science from pseudoscience?
How do you, as a layperson, decide what you think is science and what you think is pseudoscience?
Of course, there are elements in science that fit well into common technology that we prove daily (no one denies the existence of microwaves or the legitimacy of aspirin, for instance); but I’m curious about the things scientists know but can’t prove to the general public (either because it’s not applicable to technology, because the proofs require extensive educations to understand, or both).
How do you separate the astrology from the astronomy, the chemistry from the alchemy, the cutting edge from the science fiction? If someone tells you about a spectacular new medical technology, how do you decide if it’s a great breakthrough or a snake-oil health fad?
I work in physics (quantum and particle physics), and I’m curious about perspectives on this matter from people who aren’t scientists; I’m curious how everyday people decide what to trust as legitimate and what not to trust.
S A: I hope you don’t think I’m that incapable of detecting blatant plagiarism. Even if a copy-and-paste of an encyclopedia article on “pseudoscience” would answer the question (which, in this case, it doesn’t), it would be legally advisable to cite the source of such an article, like so: http://www.unprovenconcepts.com/Pseudoscience/encyclopedia.htm
- CAustin
