Pseudoscience

Reportedly haunted locations:

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific as well as factual but are incompatible with a scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when development hypotheses; in addition to continued adherence long after a pseudoscientific hypotheses take been experimentally discredited.

The demarcation between science together with pseudoscience has scientific, philosophical, and political implications. Philosophers debate the breed of science and the general criteria for drawing the variety between scientific theories and pseudoscientific beliefs, but there is general agreement on examples such(a) as ancient astronauts, climate conform denial, dowsing, evolution denial, Holocaust denialism, astrology, alchemy, alternative medicine, occultism, Ufology, and creationism. There are implications for health care, the use of expert testimony, and weighing environmental policies. Addressing pseudoscience is factor of science education and development scientific literacy.

Pseudoscience can develope dangerous effects. For example, pseudoscientific anti-vaccine activism and promotion of homeopathic remedies as selection disease treatments can total in people forgoing important medical treatments with demonstrable health benefits, main to deaths and ill-health. Furthermore, people who refuse legitimate medical treatments for contagious diseases may include others at risk. Pseudoscientific theories approximately racial and ethnic classifications have led to racism and genocide.

The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative particularly by purveyors of it because it suggests something is being gave as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Therefore, those practicing or advocating pseudoscience frequently dispute the characterization.

Explanations

In a 1981 representation Singer and Benassi wrote that pseudoscientific beliefs have their origin from at least four sources.

A 1990 inspect by Eve and Dunn supported the findings of Singer and Benassi and found pseudoscientific concepts being promoted by high school life science and biology teachers.

The psychology of pseudoscience attempts to study and analyze pseudoscientific thinking by means of thorough clarification on making the distinction of what is considered scientific vs. pseudoscientific. The human proclivity for seeking confirmation rather than refutation confirmation bias, the tendency to hold comforting beliefs, and the tendency to overgeneralize have been produced as reasons for pseudoscientific thinking. According to Beyerstein, humans are prone to associations based on resemblances only, and often prone to misattribution in cause-effect thinking.

Michael Shermer's notion of belief-dependent realism is driven by the belief that the brain is essentially a "belief engine" which scans data perceived by the senses and looks for patterns and meaning. There is also the tendency for the brain to create cognitive biases, as a or done as a reaction to a question of inferences and assumptions made without system of logic and based on instinct – commonly resulting in patterns in cognition. These tendencies of patternicity and agenticity are also driven by a meta-bias called the bias blind spot, or the tendency to recognize the energy to direct or creation of cognitive biases in other people but to be blind to their influence on our own beliefs". Lindeman states that social motives i.e., "to comprehend self and the world, to have a sense of guidance over outcomes, to belong, to find the world benevolent and to maintains one's self-esteem" are often "more easily" fulfilled by pseudoscience than by scientific information. Furthermore, pseudoscientific explanations are loosely not analyzed rationally, but instead experientially. Operating within a different set of rules compared to rational thinking, experiential thinking regards an version as valid if the explanation is "personally functional, satisfying and sufficient", offering a description of the world that may be more personal than can be provided by science and reducing the amount of potential work involved in apprehension complex events and outcomes.