Difference between revisions of "Pseudoscience"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Saying exotheology is a psuedoscience is equivalent to saying theology is a psuedoscience.)
(Lets not get political here)
Line 14: Line 14:
 
*[[Psychoanalysis]]
 
*[[Psychoanalysis]]
 
*[[Ufology]]
 
*[[Ufology]]
−
 
−
== Example of a field often classified as pseudoscience by conservatives ==
 
−
*[[Theory of evolution]]<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>
 
−
 
−
==Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences by liberals==
 
−
*[[Intelligent Design]]
 
−
*[[Creation Science]]
 
−
*[[Cryptozoology]]
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 23:31, May 28, 2007

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 fields often classified as pseudosciences

References

Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pseudoscience&oldid=181453"