Difference between revisions of "Pseudoscience"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Lets not get political here)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
   
 
   
  
−
==Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences==
+
==Examples of pseudosciences==
 
*[[Astrology]]
 
*[[Astrology]]
 
*[[Dianetics]]
 
*[[Dianetics]]
 +
*[[Evolution|Evolutionary biology]]<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/</ref> <ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref><ref>http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-Fact-or-Theory.pdf</ref>
 
*[[Graphology]]
 
*[[Graphology]]
 
*[[Iridology]]
 
*[[Iridology]]

Revision as of 21:55, January 11, 2009

Pseudoscience is theory or speculation having the trappings of science, and presented as science, but not generally accepted as valid by the scientific community. The stated reasons for rejection usually relate to lack of observability, failure to follow the scientific method, be falsifiable, apparently lack of objectivity, or unwillingness to allow neutral outsiders to observe, test, or replicate findings.

For example, Uri Geller claims to be able to bend spoons without applying pressure to them, but he can't do it in front of scientists or journalists.


Examples of pseudosciences

References