People often believe Science as it is because it is said to be ‘Scientifically Proven’. But how do we know if it really is true? What about Pseudo-Science? Pseudo-Science is a claim or belief which is presented to be scientific but lack of supporting evidence for it to be proven, rather it is more of a belief, yet some people still choose those over real Science. Pseudo-Science also has its relations with the Religion. Why? Because Science cannot prove that all that is said in Religions are true or not since it’s not part of understanding the nature of science, it is a belief.
The claim that it is grounded in observation is supposed to be what distinguishes genuine science from pseudo-science. But the traditional picture of the scientific method consists of observation, hypothesis, experiment, law and theory. Where as pseudo-science don’t need all those key steps to make a statement about something because it is a belief and not to be proven.
We can also use the different theories to identify their differences like the Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Chaos, and Complexity.
Science is flawed because of the existence of Pseudo-science, because this statement is true I believe Science is flawed. An example for this would be could Science prove that ‘ The Big Bang’ started all life on earth? No, Science cannot prove that this has happened (Quantum Mechanics), where an observer is needed for something to exist. Thus, in order for ‘The Big Bang’ theory to happen, an observer is needed.
According to conventional science, before ‘The Big Bang’ theory, nothing existed.
Thus nothing can be proven and ‘The Big Bang’ theory conflicts with itself. Another example to provide evidence that Science is flawed; religion can never be proven or disapproved by science because the evidence the scientists hypothesized has simply conflicted with each other. As religion is Pseudo-science, religion is based on belief that there is a higher power that is an omnipresent being, which exist, and controls the universe. Many people believe in religion, that’s what makes religion a pseudo-science.
That is why the reason being pseudo-science have a lack of evidence to support it is because most of that evidence is subjective, hence, opinions, beliefs and experiences from other people. Religion is a theory, which to some people it exists and to others it doesn’t. Religion has many different categories that people believe in, including atheism, in which people doesn’t believe in any religion, which makes it a religion in itself. Furthermore, in religion itself, there are many theories that are not proven but believed, such as the creation of the world.
It is stated, in almost all of the religion, that a higher being called “God” created the world, but is this theory proven? It is certainly not, but people want to believe what to believe. Another example would be the process of Reincarnation, which comes from the belief of the Hinduism. Ian Stevenson, a scientist, found that the vast majority of cases investigated with explained personal traits involved people who had met some sort of violent or untimely death. Stevenson also provided evidence that it is true.
But if we include the basis of Pseudo-science in this evidence, how much of it do we know is true? Science is only based on evidence that can be scientifically proven, whereas in this case Reincarnation involves the moving of souls from one body to another, from one generation to another; and Science by far could not even prove that the souls even exist or not. Thus Reincarnation could not be science even though some scientist proves that it is with their evidence.