Prediction Is Type of Pseudoscience

History is flooded with scenarios in which people claim to make predictions. Some ancient prophetic examples include Toledo in 1184 and Nostradamus in 15555. The latter was an astrologer in France who worked for the Queen and prophesied that her rival the Queen of England would die. Additionally, he wrote a series of other predictions in a very popular book that has remained in print to this day (Boese 6). Many modern followers have read his book and used it to make predictions about modern-day living. They strongly believe that he was gifted and further strengthened his affirmations through the use of astrology. Toledo was also an astrologer who lived in Europe. He made predictions about the end of the world through the use of a letter. He asserted that the world would experience famines, storms, drought, earthquakes, and other similar disasters. Toledo-based his affirmations on the alignment of the planets in the sign of the Scales and the tail of the Dragon (Boese 2).

Such predictions continued into the twentieth century where persons such as Raffaele Bendani predicted that a swarm of earthquakes will destroy the Italian capital of Rome (Bressani 3). He based his predictions on the alignment of planets about the moon and the earth, and the effect of gravity. The individual even added the tenth planet after his hometown Faenza to explain the presumed patterns of the earthquakes. (Bressani 15). An earthquake did occur in the same year of his prophecy although it missed his prediction by two days. Furthermore, the earthquake was quite minor and its magnitude was nowhere near what Bendani predicted. In recent times, doomsday prophecies have been flouted. A community of believers cited 21 December 2012 as the end of time. They attribute it to the alignment of a foreign body  Planet X- which will pass by earth and create a polar shift that will cause devastation. (Wong 37). The followers also use ancient Mayan calendars to validate their claims. The Mayans chose this date as the end of a cycle in their calendar. It was a time when the sun, the earth, and the galactic equator would come into alignment in a Milky way band. (Wong 38) The proponents argued that a dangerous polar shift would occur because of the magnetic activities and solar energy from the alignment.

While most of the above followers may appear to contain reasonable arguments, especially in ancient times, their assertions fail to hold water when analyzed through a scientific lens. The most immediate negation of these claims is the fact that most of their claims rarely came true. Some, like the Bendani earthquake prediction of the 1920s, might appear true, but they missed the mark about precise details on the events. Furthermore, the premises of these believers are mostly founded on other fallacies of logic and argument like the use of opinion as a substitute for truth, anachronistic thinking, and the lack of evidence.

Whyte (55) claims that pseudoscience is characterized by a shift from evidence and reason to human rights. Individuals who believe in predictions often argue that they have a right to hold their opinion. While there may be nothing wrong with this statement, it becomes a problem when an entitlement to have an opinion is just as important as knowing the truth. Scientists are entitled to have an opinion that the force of gravity causes objects to fall. However, this does not in any way testify to the objectivity of the statement because ones opinion may be wrong or right. Therefore, one must rely on sound logic rather than the popularity and acceptance of the issue among the masses. In the world of prophecies and predictions, many individuals claim that they have a right to hold an opinion about the end of the earth; however, this claim has little to do with whether their claims are true. They have gone off into a tangent by focusing on something other than the validity of their claims.

Members of this pseudoscience community usually depend on anachronistic thinking to validate their assertions. In other words, an idea holds more water when it gets older. With time, one is unlikely to witness any progress in the theory, as well. This is often true regardless of whether the scientific community abandoned it or not. For instance, the Italian, Bendani, used a theory of earth movements that was later disproved by geologists in the next decades. They found that it was not plausible to predict earthquakes using his method because it was not supported by experimental evidence. However, followers would still hold on to his ideas because they are older. Additionally, believers in the 2012 doomsday prediction used ancient Mayan teachings to come up with a date for the end of the earth. These followers still held onto those ancient teachings as true even though modern science has disapproved of them. The Mayans and 2012 doomsday followers do not know that polar shifts are quite a natural phenomenon. This arises out of the magnetic and solar energy that stems from alignments. While the polar shifts do take place, their effect is not as dire as members of these communities predicted. For the solar shift to upset the planetary balance, it needs to have an amount of energy that is a hundred times more forceful than the one people know about (Wong 38). Ancient thinking may be quite sentimental, but it is often non-factual, as is the case with Mayan astrology. Members of this community are holding on to ancient wisdom and thus failing to progress or develop their ideas. One is unlikely to get new information from this school of thought as followers rarely modify old concepts. This explains why people living in the 21st century still hold onto ancient beliefs about the Mayans. When something does not develop or progress, then its falsifiability is often illuminated (Carroll 9).

Prophets, astrologers, and other individuals who make predictions often do so from a point of ignorance (Coker 14). They are not willing to subject their assertions to the rigors of scientific research, yet they make their claims based on partial information. Science has methodologies and procedures that can be used to refute many claims made about the future. All that one requires is a simple and well-constructed experience to establish whether the assertion is true or not. Wong (38) explains that The planet X is twenty times the size of Jupiter and it would be easy to observe in the sky with the naked eye. Therefore, astronomical evidence firmly disputes this theory amongst its followers. If the prophets were committed to the truth, then they would let their opponents subject their theories to rigorous testing to validate their affirmations. When a claim lacks information, then it is not possible to verify it. This means that those who claim to support it are evading the truth. When believers in prophetic predictions are asked whether they have considered the possibility of certain information, many of them will argue that science cannot prove or understand their affirmations. However, in most instances, scientists refrain from topics about the end times because minimal evidence exists to support the phenomenon. Those who can demonstrate that evidence exists to disprove the pseudo scientists theory will often be ignored. For instance, when the 2012 doomsday adherents used the polar shift as a basis for their prediction, they did so from a point of ignorance. They should have done a lot more research on the effects of polar shifts in modern times. They should also have known that Albert Einstein supported the theory of the Hapgood polar shift to explain this spinning of the Earth. It had no dire consequences at the time and would not do so under any foreseeable circumstances. Those prophets used only partial truth to propagate their claims (Braithwaite 15).

Prophets and other predictors of events use astronomic alignments and other similar phenomena to validate their claims. However, these assertions are usually done from a point of ignorance. Many of them do not research the facts around the assertions and are unwilling to get tested. They also use anachronistic thinking by giving ancient assertions more weight than new findings, so progress is never made. Lastly, they use their right to hold an opinion as a substitute for thinking.

References

Boese, Alex. 2011. Pseudoscience hoaxes. 2011. Web.

Braithwaite, Jill. Critical thinking, logic, and reason, a practical guide for students and academics. Birmingham: Birmingham University Press, 2006. Print.

Bressani, David. 2011. 2011. Web.

Carroll, Rota. The skeptics dictionary. New Jersey: John Wiley, 2003. Print.

Coker, Rory. 2011. 2011. Web.

Whyte, Jay. Crimes against logic. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005. Print.

Wong, Katrina 2011, Science, and pseudoscience behind the 2012 doomsday prophecy. 2013.

Pseudoscience  Creational Science

Introduction

Pseudoscience refers to a set of theories, methods, or beliefs that are based on authoritative text yet wrongly considered as scientific facts. There are several examples of pseudoscience and among them is creation science (Kaiser 9). This paper is, therefore, an in-depth analysis of creation science as a pseudoscience by looking at the various fallacies that encompass it.

Creational Science

George Mc Cready Price is the first propagator of creation science. Gideon Henry Morris, a civil engineer, is referred to as the father of creation science (Kaiser 9). The latter further developed the theories of creation science. Concisely, creation science is a pseudoscientific notion that the creation of the entire universe, which is done by a supernatural being, can be proved scientifically.

Creationists dispute the following theories: mutation and natural selection as origin of life, the fact that man evolved from apes, theories of geology, and the big bang theory.

They try to connect the science theories to that of creation. The bibles book of Genesis claims that God called everything into existence and, on the sixth day, He created man from clay. Woman was later created from the mans rib.

It is a theory supported by both Christians and non-Christians who, by faith, believe that there are supernatural gods that control and are responsible for all human existence.

The creationists seek to connect this theory with science by connecting experiences from the Bible with the ideas in the evolution and big bang theories. The fossils that Darwin discovered are as a result of the flood that God commanded during Noahs time to punish sinners.

Only Noah survived in the ark that he built. He is, therefore, regarded as the ancestor of the Earths generation. In the rebuilding after the floods, God created one nation that spoke one language and lived together. However, in a form of punishment for ganging up against Him during the building of Babels tower, God changed the languages of every one.

This, therefore, explains the origin of languages (Kaiser 10). In Darwins theory of natural selection, creationists claim that the samples he used to carry out his experiment were available because God himself commanded their presence in the first place.

They claim that evolution cannot be used to explain the idea of right and wrong, eyes, emotions, and development of lungs, irreducible complexity, and the bombardier beetle. The creationists insist that the reason there is no valid explanation is because God did all these things with knowledge beyond human understanding and only He has the answers to the nature of his creation (Kaiser 9).

Creation science as a pseudoscientific notion that has no scientific evidence to support its basis lacks empirical evidence and has no valid hypothesis. While a scientific theory can be proved and at the same time disapproved, creation science can neither be proved nor disapproved.

The existence of the God who created all flora and fauna can neither be seen nor heard. It is not easy to prove His existence or disapprove the same. Creation science is, therefore, not a scientific theory, it only seeks to dispute and oppose evolution theory instead of proving its own ideas and beliefs.

Creationists pick specific issues in other scientific theories while ignoring others. For example, they do not explain topics like chemistry and chemical reactions, meteorology and medicine. Some of the fallacious reasoning of this pseudoscience community are explained below (Shermer 109).

Eight Fallacies of creational science

Genetic fallacy

Creationists are creating assumptions based on the source of information rather than the context or exact meaning of the assumption. They are forcing ideas into the world just because the idea comes from the Bible or from God himself. The Bible says that God called on the existence of everything in this universe.

There is no physical evidence that justifies creation. That He created a woman out of the mans rib also sounds ridiculous (Hanen et al. 76). A rib being a bone is hard to comprehend how a human being could be molded from it. However, the creationists expect us to believe because it is written in the Bible as unbelievable as it sounds and they therefore force the presumption on all of us.

The story of the origin of languages is true because it comes from the Bible, and even though it stands to be criticized, creationists believe it is true because it is in the Bible. The fossils found by Darwin according to creationists based on biblical evidence came from the aftermath of the flood during Noahs time.

Irrelevance

An argument is said to be an irrelevant fallacy when the person is trying to prove or disapprove the wrong point. Instead of justifying their own ideas, creationists tend to concentrate on refuting the evolution theory. They have opposed the fossils evidence that Darwin found, explaining that it came from the floods in the Noah era (Hanen et al 76).

They insist that evolution cannot explain the notion of what is right and what is wrong, the eye, and the development of lungs. The law of thermodynamics has also been under debate. Creationists are dwelling on opposing evolution theories and proving them right or wrong instead of defending their own theories independent of what evolutionists might think.

Appeal to many

Just because the creation theory has been accepted by many people across, the world does not make it a fact. Half of the worlds population believes in the existence of a God regardless of the religion or denomination (Hanen et al 79). Therefore, the belief in the existence of a supernatural being cannot be refuted.

However, creation science is a completely different aspect of looking at it. An attempt to explain this belief in a scientific way is very different from what the people believe in. Creationists have taken advantage of the number of people who believe in creation to try to impose their ideas on others.

They claim to have outnumbered the evolutionists forgetting that what matters is the validity of their theories and not the number of supporters. Most people might not support evolution, not because they do not believe in it but because they do not understand the concepts involved.

Appeal to pity

They use phrases and statements that stimulate emotions. Creationists use emotional appeal to plead with the masses not to adopt the evolutionists ways, by claiming that they (evolutionists) seek to completely shadow and remove the creation theory while concealing the many shortfalls of evolution.

The use of the word, remove is used to stimulate an emotion of pity. They gain pity from the masses who think it is unfair that their ideas be completely suppressed by the evolutionists. This is a pathetic attempt to gain support by portraying the other party as the bad one instead of letting the theories speak for themselves.

Appeal to force

Fear is also instilled in people through quoting Bible verses, for example, the one that says that we should not question the word of God. This is meant to be a warning to those who have doubts about the various issues in the Bible.

All human intelligence comes from God, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1), therefore, no human being is smarter than God himself is (Hanen et al. 76).

Instead of proving to the people reasons why they should adopt and follow creation science, these creationists use their positions as church leaders and the bible to intimidate people through instilling fear of this God.

The Bible stories on the Noah era and the Sodom and Gomorra story show that God will eventually punish all those who did not believe in his word and chose their own ways of life. This is meant to force people to accept the creationists ideas for fear of Gods wrath lest they choose the evolutionists path (Muller and Harmund).

Appeal to authority

By providing just a single source of their evidence and, at the same time, denying any evidence that the source could be wrong, the creationists are lying to us. Since there is a supernatural being who controls all human existence, then this being should not at all be doubted ( Shermer 65).

Creationists use the Bible to quote God, Jesus and insist that it was true because Jesus the son of God said so, or because God himself said so. God and Jesus being in authority here are not at all to be questioned in their statements or presumptions.

Creationists impose these facts on people and justify them by saying God/Bible/Jesus said so. They refute all evolution theories using the Bible as authority and the final say as the only source to explain their argument (Smith 56).

Reification fallacy

Anthropomorphic description of God in the many evidences presented by creation scientist raises the question of reality and ambiguity. Science focuses on the realities of life things we see, feel, and can used to draw conclusion. God revealed himself through nature.

When creationists assert that a big flood destroyed the entire universe it raises doubt. We see that God commands everything in the universe into life and He is still the one in control of evolution we wonder where is this God.

He commands all nature and prophets in the Bible never really got to see Him, but still delivered messages for Him to His people. Other abstract stories are Moses encounters a talking burning bush and Elisha is flown to heaven.

All these anthromorphic stories by creationists create a lot of doubt since they are abstract things that cannot be validated or explained. Creationists claim that it is really true that God created the Earth in six days (Hanen et al. 84).

They explain that the ancient people concentrated more on bringing chaos to order in contrast to the current society (Wolters 45). However, it is illogical to think that in approximately one hundred and forty four hours God had created the whole universe and all its life. This is another anthromorphic description of God by scientist, which is totally abstract and unreal (Kaiser 9).

Circular reasoning

Most creationists used conclusions to explain events that happened. They evaded questions of how and instead answered with eventually we see. Their ideas and beliefs lack concrete explanations since they are based on ambiguity and anthromorphism, which was hard to explain (Walters 33).

In their defense, they claimed that God himself says in the Bible: thou shall not question the name of the Lord. Their circular reasoning only proves their inadequate proof on the theories they intend to defend (Walters 33).

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is clear that creation theory should be separated from science. The power of the supernatural being is beyond all human understanding and no amount of science can disapprove or prove Gods work in creation.

Creationists should, therefore, focus on the spiritual part of the creation theory and stop trying to compete with the science world on theories and concepts of the origin of earth (Cioffi 210). They should instead focus on nurturing the souls of these scientists and giving those reasons why they should believe in God and His creation.

Denying the existence of God knowing that He exists is itself one huge mistake made by most scientists. Coming up with theories to prove their belief is even worse. Imposing scientific explanation to spiritual matters only pushes the believers further from religion and deeper into science. Creationists should instead focus on ways to merge with scientists to explain that the two are not enemies (Cioffi 210).

Works Cited

Cioffi, Frank. Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience. Chicago, Ill: Open Court, 1998. Print.

Hanen, Marsha et al. Science, Pseudo-Science, and Society: Essays. Waterloo, Ont: Published for the Calgary Institute for the Humanities by Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1980. Internet resource.

Kaiser, Christopher. Creational Theology and the History of Physical Science: The Creationist Tradition from Basil to Bohr. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Print.

Muller, Tibor, and Harmund, Muller. Modelling in Natural Sciences: Design, Validation and Case Studies; with 16 Tables. Berlin: Springer, 2003. Print.

Shermer, Michael. The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2002. Print.

Smith, Jonathan. Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinkers Toolkit. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print.

Wolters, Albert. Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 2005. Print.

Pseudoscience by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Analysis

It is important to note that practices and treatments based on pseudoscience can be highly damaging and potentially detrimental to human health and wellbeing. Understanding the key principles of ethical conduct and practice codes is of paramount criticality in order to ensure the safety and effectiveness of care delivered to patients. The given assessment will comprehensively analyze pseudoscience, facilitated communicator, and rapid prompting method with respect to the Scope of Practice and Code of Ethics as set forth by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA).

Any collection of practices and beliefs, which are not based on the scientific method, can be regarded as pseudoscience. In order to properly investigate such treatment modalities, it is relevant to present ASHA’s official position of them. For Facilitated Communication (FC), it is stated that “FC is a discredited technique that should not be used. There is no scientific evidence of the validity of FC, and there is extensive scientific evidence” (ASHA, 2022, para. 1). In the case of the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM), “RPM is not recommended because of prompt dependency and the lack of scientific validity … should not be assumed to be the communication” (ASHA, 2018, para. 3). In other words, both methods are not considered scientific, reliable, valid, or effective, which means that they should not be used by people seeking to address their issues with these means. It is stated that “FC was widely dismissed by the professional communities and became a history lesson on the dangers of credulity, pseudoscience, and the importance of evidence-based treatment” (CITE, para. 3). Therefore, both FC and RPM belong to a pseudoscientific domain of discredited practices with potential harm and risk.

It should be noted that the dangers of FC practice cannot be overstated. One FC almost ruined a family, where a father was accused of sexually assaulting his autistic daughter because a facilitator typed it (Berman & Balthaser, 2012). If the facilitator were an SLP, the type of professional misconduct the SLP would have been guilty of in this scenario is the Rules of Ethics K of the Principle of Ethics I. The Rules of Ethics K of the Principle of Ethics I states that “individuals who hold the Certificate of Clinical Competence shall evaluate the effectiveness of services provided, technology employed, and products dispensed” (ASHA, 2016, para. 42). In addition, it mandates that SLPs “shall provide services or dispense products only when benefit can reasonably be expected” (ASHA, 2016, para. 42). In other words, competent professionals can avoid employing treatment methods that are potentially harmful to a client or family by ensuring that there is a scientifically evidenced basis. For prevention, SLPs should consult or refer to ASHA for guidance on whether or not a specific treatment has approval or science behind it.

In conclusion, pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on the scientific method, and both FC and RPM are pseudoscientific practices. SLPs should always be mindful of novel treatment modalities or practices which lack a scientific basis. If confused or unsure, it is critical for competent professionals to use ASHA’s Code of Ethics and its statements in order to ensure adherence to proper standards, practices, treatments, and patient safety mandates. The dangers and harms of pseudoscientific practices are significant, and the use of FC or RPM violates The Rules of Ethics K of the Principle of Ethics I.

References

ASHA. (2016). Web.

ASHA. (2018). Web.

ASHA. (2022). Web.

Berman, T., & Balthaser, J. (2012). ABC News. Web.

Science vs. Pseudoscience: Finding the Difference

Anytime when one tries to differentiate between ‘science’ from ‘pseudoscience’, there is a reference to the Merriam Webster Dictionary. “Pseudo” translates to mean fake and the easiest way to identify something fake is to investigate more about that which is real and this scenario underscores what is popularly known as ‘science’. In pseudoscience, a hypothesis is the starting point and conflicting evidence is not accepted. I concur that pseudoscience has a clear-cut definition as compared to science, which has numerous definitions. With proper strategies, pseudoscience cuts down absurdity. Ziman, Popper, and Fereabend all have different views in terms of differentiating science from pseudoscience. In science, the expression of findings mainly is in peer reviewed scientific journals and has a high standard for accuracy and honesty. However, in pseudoscience, there is no review, no mandatory accuracy, and the public is the main target. Another difference emerges in the results whereby in science, results are mandatory and so experiments have to be accurate in order to make a duplication or improvement. On the other hand, in pseudoscience results, there is no verification or reproduction, which means that studies done produce vague information, which is not good for any qualitative or qualitative study.

In my opinion, science shows more mature and accurate information particularly in studies seeking to come up with serious results particularly in medicine. However, pseudoscience information is not very reliable. Pseudoscience can be quite dangerous, as it often paints rationality and education as irrelevant aspects. Therefore, I would advice on using Ziman and Popper’s description of science especially when conducting a quantitative study whereby accurate results are compulsory for their descriptions provide good information to make the best studies.

Pseudoscience and Its Positive and Negative Roles

Introduction

Fake science or pseudoscience is a collection of practices, claims, or beliefs that comment on real science and related scientific information through claims that represent the latter as being subjective rather than objective. In this regard, fake science sets the stage for a critical evaluation of the assertiveness of the state of real science. Through fake science, skeptics raise counter-arguments that seek to correct facts as stated in real science.

They support their counter-arguments using subjective opinions or real scientific facts. A good case in point is the case of solar panels where real science presents these sun-powered devices as being more environmentally friendly in comparison with other forms of energy such as coal, petroleum, and wind among many others, even though this perspective may not hold. Solar panels have a very low energy conversion rate (less than 30 percent) relative to other forms of energy.

Also, the little amount of convertible energy sourced from solar panels can only cover a limited area. This situation makes the use of solar panels in large production firms redundant. Moreover, this form of energy consumes many resources to make it available. As a result, it leads to the production of considerable toxic waste products. Such evidence or information makes the power provided by solar panels insufficient to make up for the pollution and energy consumption it creates.

Since the arguments from my survey do not represent or support ideas put up by real science, they can be regarded as part of fake science. Although real scientists regard fake science as being unconventional or exerting a negative or bad influence on the society and the scientific world in general, this paper argues that it may serve to offer a basis for an objective reflective review of facts claimed by real science through challenging its accuracy and genuineness with the intent of its overall improvement.

History of the Concept

Since its detection, fake science has sparked enormous criticism due to its claim of scientific authority where science does not apply as purported. Pseudoscientists have speculated science through a conjuncture of its proclaimed authority and misguided their audience through the selective use of scientific or non-scientific evidence. Historically, scientists, science teachers, and science believers have relentlessly promoted real science through the creation of awareness to protect society from adopting the concepts derived from fake science. For instance, Schutte affirms that fake science contributes to unreasonable stereotypes and false conjectures of how real science works (381).

Science promoters and educators have historically tried to antagonize such stereotypes or misconceptions. For example, in the context of solar panels, the notion that the devices are not environmentally friendly as they have always been thought to be or promoted to be may be regarded as quite farfetched, misconstrued, or false and hence dismissed as fake science. As a result, the ideology may spark counter-arguments by promoters of solar panels to defend the concepts that the society already believes in. As a result, they will claim to be trying to adopt a friendlier source of energy.

According to Schutte, the problem of demarcating between real science and fake science has not only historically been a philosophical issue but also a social and political subject (65). Moreover, fake science brings with it misconceptions that threaten to divide religious beliefs, political convictions, families, and other fundamental social structures. In this sense, pseudoscience exerts a negative influence by threatening the current political and social stability.

Consequently, it needs to be antagonized. To apply this concept in the current geopolitical world, developed countries have continuously pushed forward the adoption of affordable and environmentally friendlier sources of energy, including solar panels in Sub-Saharan Africa, to aid in fueling economic and social development in the region (Labordena et al. 52). They have accomplished this goal through political bodies such as the European Union and the United Nations.

Therefore, an argument against the known science of solar panels would be highly alienated by the political class since it would jeopardize the opinionated and social campaign towards the adoption of sun-generated energy in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Gordin describes fake knowledge as a doctrine of non-science that is falsely represented as methodical (2). As a result, it intrudes into the knowledge of science and hence the reason why it should be regarded as a bad idea. For instance, my argument that solar panels are not environmentally friendly may be perceived as being an intrusion to the development of sun-powered energy. Historically, the term fake science or pseudoscience has metamorphosed in its intended meaning, from being initially used to refer to alchemy, later blazonry, and currently ‘pretended science’ as per the Oxford English Dictionary.

Yet, one thing that is common to all definitions is that both the society and scientific class have shunned the concepts of pseudoscience and declared them incorrect or inaccurate scientific theories. A common premise that has been used to ostracize fake science is the claim that it lacks substance.

Counter-Arguments

Despite claims that fake science is misconceived or stereotypic, most arguments levied against it lack a concrete scientific or factual backing. Contrary to such beliefs and notions, fake knowledge only seeks to validate real science by providing a basis for objective evaluation of the issue or subject at hand (Essien and Umotong 31). Such validation can be done through the identification of any inadequacies in the concerning science, including performing a re-examination of the set of indigenous analogies such as the existence of scientific backing that solar panels are not environmentally friendly or efficient, as they have been promoted to be.

For example, through my survey, I have come to identify how solar panels can be detrimental to the environment through the discharge of toxic wastes. My survey and pseudoscientific argument against the general science of solar panels may shed more light on the subject that may even be used to improve the efficiency and environmental friendliness of solar panels by providing a platform for further scientific research.

On the argument that fake science is non-scientific or not factual intrudes into the knowledge of science since such a view is not universal. The term “fake science” may not have a unified doctrine at all. Historically, certain scientists have subjectively and selfishly used it as a tool to express hatred towards fellow experts in the field. To such extent, the term fake science is highly dogmatic (Gordin 2).

To illustrate my position, I will use a historical example in the era when the Catholic Church enjoyed political and social supremacy. During this time, the church taught the scientific notion that the earth was the center of the universe. Thus, it was very antagonistic when Copernicus disputed this argument using his theory. The implication here is that what people regard as scientific maybe only true within a particular context such as the complexity of scientific tools that are used to verify the claims. In other words, with the advancement of technology and knowledge, many concepts that had been viewed as scientific, even though quantum physics, maybe proven as fake or wrong science.

The church even went ahead to ban the theory through claims that it was fake. Therefore, in this regard, despite Copernicus’ theory being highly scientific, factual, and true based on today’s scientific knowledge, during the 17th Century it was regarded as pseudoscience. To this extent, the term “fake science” is skewed to the extent that it may lack a unified or universal doctrine. Additionally, my argument towards solar panels not being environmentally friendly could be pseudoscience in today’s world but a realistically applicable science in tomorrow’s world.

Using the example of Copernicus theory, the realization of the veracity of the presumption against previous convictions as taught by the Catholic Church sparked a scientific revolution that has positively influenced the modern world. The scientific revolution ignited several ambitious individuals to begin to observe their surroundings in a more liberal, scientific, and secular way. This revelation led to the development and the adoption of many fake technical ideas by scientists, including Isaac Newton’s law of gravity. Newton is also said to have been a devoted Christian whose creative and scientific mind was independent of the Church (Keizer 14).

It suffices to regard the impression that fake science exerts a negative influence on society as biased and untrue (17). On the contrary, fake science opens up a Pandora’s Box for the improvement of the existing scientific ideas. Similarly, if in any case it is found that indeed solar panels are not environmentally friendly or are detrimental to the environment, the argument could save humanity and the society the probable harm that may result from solar panels.

Opinion

In this segment, I will embark on illustrating how fake science occupies an essential role in society contrary to what is portrayed by the defendants of real science. My survey-backed argument reveals that solar panels are not environmentally friendly, as they have been depicted by science. To support the claim that solar panels are inefficient, Jacoby highlights that despite the progress in the technology of solar panels, the conversion rate or efficiency measured from the ratio of light or solar energy to electricity remains considerably low, between 12 for dye-sensitized solar panels and 46 percent for arsenide-based panels (30).

This figure is relatively low compared to 95 percent for electric oil generators, 90 percent for large electric motors, 65 percent for small electric motors, 85 percent for steam boilers, 90 percent for batteries, and 100 percent for electric heaters (Kanoglu et al. 55). Therefore, in this regard, it would prove uneconomical to use solar panels to generate energy for large production firms that consume enormous amounts of energy. Such firms would rather opt for more efficient and practical sources of energy, as opposed to solar panels.

Concerning environmental pollution, Zehner points out that the manufacture, maintenance, and disposal of alternative clean energy sources such as solar panels amount to the pollution of the environment (1). This pseudoscientific spectacle creates a conflict among environmental scientists who believe and advocate solar panels as being exclusively clean renewable sources of energy. To have a better grasp of the extent of pollution caused by solar panels, one can review their manufacture and production in detail. The science of solar panels recommends them to be constructed through the spread of layers of silicon (both n-type and p-type) onto substrates.

The complex process involves the polymerization of organic silicon materials to form silicon sandwiches that allow the flow of electricity. However, when these materials are disposed to the environment in their unnatural polymerized form, they do not decompose. Thus, they are potentially harmful to the environment. Moreover, waste products containing such polymers are also detrimental to the environment. This factual argument alone is enough to dispute that solar panels are exclusively friendly to the environment (Zehner 7).

Conclusion

Based on the expositions made in the paper, fake science plays a more positive and essential role in society and hence not a bad idea as Gordin (2) claims. However, it should be embraced and/or used positively to seal any gaps that may exist in real science. For instance, rather than dismissing the idea that solar panels are not environmentally friendly, scientists can use this information to improve its products through finding more environmentally friendly ways of manufacturing and disposing of toxic wastes that result from solar panels. Such a move would be beneficial to society. Fake science can also be seen to evolve following the advancement of technology and consequently knowledge.

Additionally, from a historical perspective, shunning fake science may be regressive towards scientific progress as witnessed in the Post-Roman Catholic Era. Therefore, scientists should aim at objectively evaluating criticisms about fake science rather than dismissing it. In conclusion, counterfeit science should be viewed as a positive force aimed at challenging and validating current scientific ideologies to fill in the inadequacies or gaps that exist in real science.

Works Cited

Essien, Ephraim-Stephen, and Niobong Umotong. Elements of History and Philosophy of Science. Lulu Press, 2013.

Gordin, Michael. The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe. University of Chicago Press, 2012.

Jacoby, Mitch. “The Future of Low-cost Solar Cells.” Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 94, no. 18, 2016, pp. 30-35.

Kanoglu, Mehmet, et al. Efficiency Evaluation of Energy Systems. Springer, 2012.

Labordena, Mercè, et al. “Impact of Political and Economical Barriers for Concentrating Solar Power in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Energy Policy, vol. 102, no. 1, 2017, pp. 52-72.

Schutte, Peet. How to Swindle by Faking Science. Author House, 2012.

Zehner, Ozzie. Green Illusions. University of Nebraska Press, 2012.

Prediction Is Type of Pseudoscience

History is flooded with scenarios in which people claim to make predictions. Some ancient prophetic examples include Toledo in 1184 and Nostradamus in 15555. The latter was an astrologer in France who worked for the Queen and prophesied that her rival the Queen of England would die. Additionally, he wrote a series of other predictions in a very popular book that “has remained in print to this day” (Boese 6). Many modern followers have read his book and used it to make predictions about modern-day living. They strongly believe that he was gifted and further strengthened his affirmations through the use of astrology. Toledo was also an astrologer who lived in Europe. He made predictions about the end of the world through the use of a letter. He asserted that the world would experience famines, storms, drought, earthquakes, and other similar disasters. Toledo-based his affirmations on the alignment of “the planets in the sign of the Scales and the tail of the Dragon” (Boese 2).

Such predictions continued into the twentieth century where persons such as Raffaele Bendani predicted that “a swarm of earthquakes will destroy the Italian capital of Rome” (Bressani 3). He based his predictions on the alignment of planets about the moon and the earth, and the effect of gravity. The individual even added the tenth planet “after his hometown Faenza to explain the presumed patterns of the earthquakes.” (Bressani 15). An earthquake did occur in the same year of his prophecy although it missed his prediction by two days. Furthermore, the earthquake was quite minor and its magnitude was nowhere near what Bendani predicted. In recent times, doomsday prophecies have been flouted. A community of believers cited 21 December 2012 as the end of time. They attribute it to the alignment of a foreign body – Planet X- which will “pass by earth and create a polar shift that will cause devastation.” (Wong 37). The followers also use ancient Mayan calendars to validate their claims. The Mayans chose this date as the end of a cycle in their calendar. It was a time when “the sun, the earth, and the galactic equator would come into alignment in a Milky way band.” (Wong 38) The proponents argued that a dangerous polar shift would occur because of the magnetic activities and solar energy from the alignment.

While most of the above followers may appear to contain reasonable arguments, especially in ancient times, their assertions fail to hold water when analyzed through a scientific lens. The most immediate negation of these claims is the fact that most of their claims rarely came true. Some, like the Bendani earthquake prediction of the 1920s, might appear true, but they missed the mark about precise details on the events. Furthermore, the premises of these believers are mostly founded on other fallacies of logic and argument like the use of opinion as a substitute for truth, anachronistic thinking, and the lack of evidence.

Whyte (55) claims that pseudoscience is characterized by “a shift from evidence and reason to human rights”. Individuals who believe in predictions often argue that they have a right to hold their opinion. While there may be nothing wrong with this statement, it becomes a problem when an entitlement to have an opinion is just as important as knowing the truth. Scientists are entitled to have an opinion that the force of gravity causes objects to fall. However, this does not in any way testify to the objectivity of the statement because one’s opinion may be wrong or right. Therefore, one must rely on sound logic rather than the popularity and acceptance of the issue among the masses. In the world of prophecies and predictions, many individuals claim that they have a right to hold an opinion about the end of the earth; however, this claim has little to do with whether their claims are true. They have gone off into a tangent by focusing on something other than the validity of their claims.

Members of this pseudoscience community usually depend on anachronistic thinking to validate their assertions. In other words, an idea holds more water when it gets older. With time, one is unlikely to witness any progress in the theory, as well. This is often true regardless of whether the scientific community abandoned it or not. For instance, the Italian, Bendani, used a theory of earth movements that was later disproved by geologists in the next decades. They found that it was not plausible to predict earthquakes using his method because it was not supported by experimental evidence. However, followers would still hold on to his ideas because they are older. Additionally, believers in the 2012 doomsday prediction used ancient Mayan teachings to come up with a date for the end of the earth. These followers still held onto those ancient teachings as true even though modern science has disapproved of them. The Mayans and 2012 doomsday followers do not know that polar shifts are quite a natural phenomenon. This arises out of the magnetic and solar energy that stems from alignments. While the polar shifts do take place, their effect is not as dire as members of these communities predicted. For the solar shift to upset the planetary balance, “it needs to have an amount of energy that is a hundred times more forceful than the one people know about” (Wong 38). Ancient thinking may be quite sentimental, but it is often non-factual, as is the case with Mayan astrology. Members of this community are holding on to ancient wisdom and thus failing to progress or develop their ideas. One is unlikely to get new information from this school of thought as followers rarely modify old concepts. This explains why people living in the 21st century still hold onto ancient beliefs about the Mayans. “When something does not develop or progress, then its falsifiability is often illuminated” (Carroll 9).

Prophets, astrologers, and other individuals who make predictions often do so from “a point of ignorance” (Coker 14). They are not willing to subject their assertions to the rigors of scientific research, yet they make their claims based on partial information. Science has methodologies and procedures that can be used to refute many claims made about the future. All that one requires is a simple and well-constructed experience to establish whether the assertion is true or not. Wong (38) explains that “The planet X is twenty times the size of Jupiter and it would be easy to observe in the sky with the naked eye”. Therefore, astronomical evidence firmly disputes this theory amongst its followers. If the prophets were committed to the truth, then they would let their opponents subject their theories to rigorous testing to validate their affirmations. When a claim lacks information, then it is not possible to verify it. This means that those who claim to support it are evading the truth. When believers in prophetic predictions are asked whether they have considered the possibility of certain information, many of them will argue that science cannot prove or understand their affirmations. However, in most instances, scientists refrain from topics about the end times because minimal evidence exists to support the phenomenon. Those who can demonstrate that evidence exists to disprove the pseudo scientist’s theory will often be ignored. For instance, when the 2012 doomsday adherents used the polar shift as a basis for their prediction, they did so from a point of ignorance. They should have done a lot more research on the effects of polar shifts in modern times. They should also have known that Albert Einstein supported the theory of the Hapgood polar shift to explain this spinning of the Earth. It had no dire consequences at the time and would not do so under any foreseeable circumstances. Those prophets used “only partial truth to propagate their claims” (Braithwaite 15).

Prophets and other predictors of events use astronomic alignments and other similar phenomena to validate their claims. However, these assertions are usually done from a point of ignorance. Many of them do not research the facts around the assertions and are unwilling to get tested. They also use anachronistic thinking by giving ancient assertions more weight than new findings, so progress is never made. Lastly, they use their right to hold an opinion as a substitute for thinking.

References

Boese, Alex. 2011. Pseudoscience hoaxes. 2011. Web.

Braithwaite, Jill. Critical thinking, logic, and reason, a practical guide for students and academics. Birmingham: Birmingham University Press, 2006. Print.

Bressani, David. 2011. 2011. Web.

Carroll, Rota. The skeptic’s dictionary. New Jersey: John Wiley, 2003. Print.

Coker, Rory. 2011. 2011. Web.

Whyte, Jay. Crimes against logic. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005. Print.

Wong, Katrina 2011, Science, and pseudoscience behind the 2012 doomsday prophecy. 2013.

Parapsychology – Science or Pseudoscience?

Introduction

According to Radford, there are numerous therapies that have been reported to be beneficial despite failing to satisfy scientific evaluation criteria. In these reports some of the therapies require dilution of herbs to a degree that leads to the question, how potent are these herbs? Such questions arise owing from the fact that some of these herbs are diluted to an extent that would require the patient to consume huge amounts to generate the effects of any medicinal properties the herb may possess (2203).

Such a position suggests the pseudo science as opposed to science. Science would justify the use of a drug through measurements and the measured effect of varied doses whereas in this case the doses are so weak it is unlikely that they provide any tangible benefits to the user. It is notions such as this that this paper seeks to identify within the context of parapsychology.

Parapsychology: Paranormal Behavior may be Useful for Science

Many researchers have over time argued that paranormal beliefs are not related to neuroscience. The position held by neuroscience with regards to paranormal beliefs is that these experiences are based on a sub set of delusional beliefs that bear no correspondence in the healthy mind (Brugger and Mohr 1291).

However it has been argued that study of paranormal beliefs may provide the much needed link between abnormal and normal behavior. This study can be useful in providing a bridge between major gaps that exist between neuropsychology and cognitive psychiatry.

Proponents of the study of paranormal beliefs suggest a janusian peculiarities associated with specific beliefs that are useful in understanding the pathology of belief and their clarification of some of the cognitive bases of human behavior. Based on this it is argued that investigations into the paranormal mind may provide a solution to the persistent ideas surrounding similarities between madness and genius (Brugger and Mohr 1291).

Paranormal behavior is defined as anomalies related to behavior and experience that exists outside of known explanatory mechanisms used to account for organism-environment or organism-organism information and influence flow. This would include anomalies such as Extra Sensory Perception (ESP) which includes telepathy, clairvoyance and precognition (Brugger and Mohr 1291).

It has been argued that despite the existence of varied scientific positions on the relevance on paranormal behavior, neuropsychology may gain insights into mechanisms of belief formation which can not be discovered through analysis of the normal and abnormal brain alone. The position presented in this paper suggests that parapsychology is science and investigation into this field may be useful to other areas of science.

Parapsychology: Paranormal Behavior and Schizotypy

It has been reported that research in recent years has indicated that there may be a relationship between paranormal behavior and schizotypy (Hergovich, Schott and Arendasy 119). Schizotypy has been defined as the initial stages of schizophrenia and it includes cognitive, perceptive and affective symptoms.

The degree to which individuals are prone to schizophrenia can be measured by assessing various traits that characterize the schizotypal personality. Among the symptoms of schizophrenia that are evident in schizotypy include delusional thoughts and or unusual experiences.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of the existence of a link between schizophrenia and paranormal behavior. Evidence of this is also seen in statistics that indicate a higher degree of belief in paranormal events is often associated with higher incidence of schizophrenia. Evidence of this is seen in high schizotypy scores as witnessed in members of occult sects (Hergovich et al. 119).

The results of a recent study by Hergovich et al indicated that a link does in fact exist between schizotypy and paranormal behavior (Hergovich et al. 124). This is further supported by the presence of reputable data that points to the underlying cognitive and neurological basis of the relationship.

However, despite of this it was still not possible to confirm whether schizotypy and paranormal behavior were different concepts. It is still unclear whether paranormal behavior is one facet of schizotypy. This scenario arises due to the fact that one popular measure of schizotypy, the Magical Ideation Scale is also used to measure paranormal beliefs. An analysis of the points presented in this paper posits that paranormal behavior may indeed be a neurological disorder or a facet of the disorder.

Conclusion

In this paper two positions have been presented on the issue of paranormal behavior with a view to considering parapsychology as a science or pseudo science. Based on the evidence in the reports it would appear that parapsychology is indeed a science.

The first reason behind this conclusion lies in the fact that it is still unclear whether paranormal behavior forms one of the manifestations a neurological disorder or is a concept on its own (Hergovich et al. 124). It is clear that inability to accurately measure has led researchers to this conclusion. That being the case, paranormal behavior may indeed be a rational phenomena and parapsychology a rational science.

Further it has been indicated that the study of the healthy brain and abnormal brain alone are not adequate to provide solutions on similarities between genius and madness (Brugger and Mohr 1291). It has been suggested that paranormal behavior appears a promising solution owing to the fact that neuroscience already recognizes paranormal behavior as bearing similarities with known cognitive bases of human behavior.

Works Cited

Brugger, Peter and Christine Mohr. “The Paranormal Mind: How the Study of Anomalous Experiences and Beliefs may inform Cognitive Neuroscience.” Cortex 2008:1291-1298. Print.

Hergovich, Andreas, Reinhard Schott and Martin Arendasy. “On the Relationship between Paranormal Belief and Schizotypy among Adolescents.” Personality and Individual Differences 2008: 119-125. Print.

Radford, Tim. “Fringe Science to Fraud.” The Lancet 23/30 December 2000: 2203.Print.

Phrenology by Franz Joseph Gall as a Pseudoscience

Phrenology is a pseudoscience that evaluates one’s character by locating the bumps on the surface of the head. The inventors of this method found it efficient because there is no way a person can have bumps on the same spot.

This idea was generated by a famous German physician called Franz Joseph Gall. He carried out studies on people in different locations and found out that when the bump was located in a specific position the individuals who had them had common personality traits.

In phrenology the physicians locate a bump hence evaluate the distance between bumps in order to dictate the kind of behavior that is likely to be displayed by the person in question.

Today most people don’t appreciate phrenology like before because they associate it with other arts such as palm reading. They don’t understand how people can gauge their behavior by observing their bumps (Bain, 2004).

The studies done by Franz Joseph Gall suggest that the outside form of the skull reflect the actual form of the brain. He further found out that the other external parts of the body are interlinked with the brain.

Phrenology was later integrated into other fields such as criminology because this concept could explain the character exhibited by a criminal. Wyhe (2004) explains that the physician would run his/her hand on the surface of the patient’s head to feel the bump(s).

The bumps here don’t include scars that are found on the head because bumps are protrusions that are on the skull and can be used to define the form of the head.

Franz stated that the brain was comprised of 27 seven organs and each of them represented different characters in human beings. However, 19 of these organs were shared by man and animals hence man was distinct due to the remaining eight organs.

During the bump evaluation the actual dimension of the head was gauged. Due to the efficiency of this theory ancient employer begun to use it while selecting the best employees. Additionally, the technique was applied in relationships where partners employed it to evaluate their compatibility.

Phrenology was later rejected as a pseudoscience because it resembled astrology in so many ways. Besides, the advancement in scientific studies proved the technique to be misleading.

Franz did not take the criticism of his findings lightly because he had managed to make many people believe in his technique. In his studies the twenty seven organs of the brain had individual roles and the one that was felt by the touch of hand was the dominant character.

Phrenology tends to be in conflict with science and Holy Scriptures and that’s why other philosophers rejected it because there is no evidence concerning its efficiency.

Scientists argue that though several children may be fathered by one man or born by the same woman they exist as independent entities hence they have different behaviors which are influenced by their experiences and interests. Phrenology could be very wrong because you can not judge someone’s personality by their outward looks.

There are many times when we have been misguided by the outward looks because they don’t reflect the behavior portrayed by the individual.

Some people feel that behavior is hereditary such that the children tend to follow the footsteps of their parents. But they don’t actually imitate both parents because the child follows the footpath that is dominant that is the father’s or the mother’s behavior (Gregory, 2004).

In addition to that, there are those who view character as being repetitive in sequential generations. This means that the characters that were present among our forefathers will continue to exist in successive generations.

That’s why parents are amazed by the behavior exhibited by their children because neither of them possesses such personality.

However, there are other advanced techniques that have been developed to evaluate people’s behavior such as when they are lying. Most of these techniques are used in criminology to determine whether a suspect is guilty or innocent.

References

Bain, Alexander. (2004). On the Study of Character Including an Estimate of Phrenology, New York: Kessinger Publishing.

Gregory, R.J. (2004). Psychological Testing: History, Principles, and Applications. 4th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Wyhe V. J. (2004). Phrenology and the Origins of Victorian Scientific Naturalism. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.

Pseudoscience and Alternative Medicine

Health is considered to be one of the most important human possessions and people have been using the healing power of nature since the beginning of time. Modern science and medical advancements have largely developed drug treatment, thus complementary and alternative medicine is thought to be ineffective and is distrusted by doctors and patients. The opposite view is beginning to dominate societies, as more people use alternative ways of medicine.

The modern world has seen many changes in the development and reliance on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The most general definition of CAM is any medicine or treatment procedure that is not taught in the medical school and cannot be called fully “scientific”.

There include homeopathy, treatment of the body’s energy flow, chiropractic procedure, Ayurveda, acupuncture and many more (Micozzi, 2010). The most important principle of CAM is that there is a unity between the mental state of the person and the biological processes of the body. As such, philosophy and the outlook on life are very important in the practice of alternative medicine.

It is true that people have been using CAM for many thousands of years but the evidence that is known today is somewhat inconclusive. One of the problems is that there are few studies done that are based on scientific facts and more information is needed to prove effectiveness of CAM (Davis, 2012).

Homeopathy is one of the alternative ways to treat deceases and it is based on intruding a minimal amount of the pathogen to the body. The technique relies on the body’s immune system in the hope that it will build up immunity towards the unwanted organism. There are some benefits from the treatment that were reported, as a similar concept is used in immunizations with the introduction of the virus to the body.

The negative effects include the possibility that the individual’s organism will not be able to adapt and will become ill. Another alternative to the usual medical treatment is Ayurvedic medicine. The origins come from India and have been practiced for many centuries. This form of medicine is based on natural plant and animal products and thus, can be seen as extremely positive for people’s health.

The herbs that are used also have an influence on the balance within the person, causing a re-alignment of the life’s energy. The negative side is that there have been cases where research showed an increased number of toxins found in the remedies (Larson, 2007). Overall, any treatment that uses plants and animal materials has been shown to have inconclusive effect on the people’s health.

Acupuncture and several other energy therapies are based on finding currents of positive energy within the human body. Acupuncture activates the circuits by the use of needles and has been shown to be beneficial in activating a better flow of energy. Energy therapies are based on magnetic and electric fields that each person has and there is a close connection to the meditation, prayer and other mental exercises.

Hand healing has been a part of the divine, energetic treatment for a long time, as people deeply believe that it is possible (Micozzi, 2010). Even though the amount of evidence is not convincing there are cases where CAM has resulted in the positive outcome, so people continue using it and doctors are beginning to take a closer look as well.

Reference

Davis, C. (2012). Alternative Medicine. Minneapolis, MN: Twenty-First Century Books.

Larson, C. (2007). Alternative Medicine. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Micozzi, M. (2010). Fundamentals of complementary and alternative medicine. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Health Sciences.