The difference between Science and Pseudoscience essays

The difference between Science and Pseudoscience essays I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudo-science. And in addition to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true once said Cornell University Astronomy Professor Carl Sagan. The reason science exists is to observe, identify, describe, experiment, and explain phenomena in the universe. The claim that the earth is flat is not supported by science because it requires the scientist to negate all knowledge about the earth to accept the hypothesis that the earth is flat; so it is therefore not scientific. However, the means of distinguishing a science from a pseudo-science is not simple due to the various beliefs of a person or group of people and the ideas surrounding supporting or refuting a hypothesis. It is difficult to concretely differentiate a scientific argument from a pseudo-scientific one because of contrasting views and bias present in science. Compared to a science, a pseudo-science is a theory, methodology, or practice that arises without a scientific foundation. The reasoning behind science is based on the scientific theory. The four steps of scientific methodology are: observing, creating a hypothesis or explanation for observations, deducing other facts that must be true if the hypothesis is true, and testing the hypothesis by experimentation. Good arguments or good reasons with science are those that are supported by the scientific method. In the realm of science, various theories and hypotheses can be tested and supported through the scientific method. A scientist observes plants whose roots are damaged in the soil and other plants of similar species whose roots are not damaged. The scientist seeks to deduce the cause of this damage and hypothesizes that an excess of perhaps aluminum in the soil is damaging some plant roots while the other plants roots are protected from the ...