Assignment 2 - Demarcation of Science and Pseudo-science
Soumya Kanti Chakraborty
Magister Program in Software Engineering
scy09001@student.mdh.se
Romik Guha Anjoy
Magister Program in Software Engineering
rga09001@student.mdh.se
1. Please give a short summary of all three articles [1-3] taken together as a discussion
of the difference between science and pseudo-science in general, and particularly
astrology as example pseudo-science.
Ans 1) All the articles [1-3] present the outlook of different persons from across the society regarding
pseudo- science and science and how to demarcate between the two. We will just summarize each of
the article and the influence and the light it throws upon the topic.
Article [1] - Science and Pseudo-Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The whole article describes what Science and Pseudo-science is and how various demarcation
criteria are present to differentiate between them. The major proposed demarcation criteria and the
differences or weakness between them are well pointed out in the article.
Author starts with describing the basic question, the purpose of demarcations. He discusses the
need of demarcation of science from its look-alikes. The look-alikes of science under the shade of
science can be misleading to human beings and society in various fields. These fields are discussed as
Healthcare, Court of law, Environmental issues, and Science education.
The next section starts with something very interesting regarding the term “Science”. Author
states about the definition of science and also how there are two different ways of expressing it. One
way of expression of science can be focusing on the descriptive contents and usage of the term, or else
it can focus on normative element and clarifying some more fundamental meaning of the term. He thus
points out the reason beside the conflict of Pseudo-science and Science to be the extended sense of
science. Homeopathy, creationism, astrology, holocaust denialism are in conflict with the results and
methods that are accepted in community of knowledge disciplines and thus it conflicts with Science.
The author tries to draw a boundary or outline of Science and thus create a distinction of what
is Science, Pseudo-Science, Non Science, Para science. All non sciences can never be stated as Pseudosciences as there are many topics outside the boundary or scope of science. What should be the exact
criteria of calling Pseudo-science was always in discussion and various authors felt that it should be
something which is non-scientific and its proponents should claim it as scientific. But this was a very
wider judgment of Pseudo-science as later it was felt that isolated breaches of requirements of science
are not regarded as Pseudo-scientific and one of its example as stated by author is “fraud”. So the
description of Pseudo-science changed to accommodate this all and it was assumed to be something
which is non-scientific and a part of non-scientific doctrine which conflicts with good science. Author
gives all suitable examples to explain the criteria’s of Pseudo-scientific theories.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page | 1
The following sections in the article throw light on the view of various scientists and authors on
the demarcation criteria and ideas of demarcation of Science and Pseudo-Science.
Logical positivists of Vienna Circle on 1930 proposed that any theories or principles that can be
verified can be called as science.
Karl Popper in mid 20th century proposed the theory of falsification as a demarcation criterion
of science with pseudo-science. Popper stated that
“A sentence (or a theory) is empirical-scientific if and only if it is falsifiable”
Many scientists that time objected towards Popper’s criterion as they thought some other criterion
should also be present along with falsification for demarcation Pseudo-science from science.
Thomas Kuhn came with the demarcation criterion of puzzle solving. He proposed that anything
that is a puzzle solving activity like astronomy is a science but astrology is not.
Paul Thagard described that any discipline can be marked as a Pseudo-science if its theory fails to
progress and also if its practitioners make little or no progress in developing the theory towards
solutions and problems.
The last section draws a conclusion from the whole article and combines all the ideas of all
authors regarding the criterion of calling a theory or principles as pseudo-science. The criterions are
stated as
i)
Belief in authority
ii)
Non -repeatable experiments
iii)
Handpicked examples
iv)
Unwillingness to test
v)
Disregard of refuting information
vi)
Built-in subterfuge
vii)
Explanations are abandoned without replacements.
Article [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
The article starts with the definition and background of Pseudo-science. It defines Pseudo
science as a methodology, belief or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear as
scientific but doesn’t adhere to proper scientific methodology.
In the background section the article provides us briefly with all the authors and there relative
work on the field of identifying Pseudo-science. It states the work of Karl Popper, Paul Thagard and
many others. It also gives us a brief description of the Skeptics group, who always thought the
Pseudoscience to be harmful no matter what they prove. Skeptics also believed that pseudoscientific
theories may also be spread due to political or personal gain of an individual.
The article also states that any field that can be experimentally tested and the methodological
standards are upheld then it’s not pseudoscience, however odd, astonishing or counter-intuitive.
Going further the articles describes about various broad indicators for describing Pseudoscience like

Vague and Non-testable claims

Over reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page | 2

Lack of openness to testing to others

Absence of Progress

Misleading languages
Further the article conveys about the demographics and also the problem faced in demarcating
science and pseudo-science. The problem is faced in demarcation mainly due to the nonstop growth of
science.
Science is heterogeneous and always subject to change. Any theory which is marked now as
Pseudo science may possibly be termed as Science after a few years. Many such examples of
Pseudoscience which are now called as science are continental drift, cosmology, ball lightning.
Article [3] – The Astrotest A tough match for astrologers
The article by the author is a very well written article to prove with a scientific experiment how
astrology fails to prove itself on scientific grounds and thus can be considered as a Pseudoscientific.
The introduction to the article starts with how astrologers are the persons who always object to
scientific tests and states that tests should be considering the whole birth chart and just not the sun and
moon signs separately. The author devised a test just to test the astrologers or whether the astrology
stands on basis of what it tries to prove as truth.
Author called upon 50 astrologers (measuring their professional knowledge level) and
announced that there will be 7 subjects and for each of the subject there will be a birth chart which will
be present with the astrologers. The astrologers will also get a chance to choose a number of questions
that needs to be answered by the subjects. The author selected such 24 Questions after getting them
from the astrologers and then added more 3 questions and gave it to the subjects to fill it up. The
astrologers were shown the 27 Questions and all of them were satisfied. The catch was that the
astrologers need to match all the 7 persons with their occupations depending upon their 27 questions
and birth chart, and the prize money for the astrologer getting it all right would be 2500 Dollars. The
astrologers were given 10 weeks to analyze and after that it was seen only 1 single person got 3 rights.
Rest 22 persons got all wrong among total 44 who completed the test.
The average hits were 0.75 which was 0.25 less than the mean change expectation, a deviation
which was not significant at all.
The astrologers got the same information but the results of each varied with the other. Only
two astrologers made it independently the same. When astrologers were asked about the failure, there
were unusual excuses given to save astrology. Some astrologers argued that all gave their information
wrong, whether other argued about alike horoscopes. Some astrologers argued and believed that
astrology works on actual practice and not on tests.
Author conclude the article by showing that though astrology fails itself to prove as science till
Astrology has its own arguments to make others believe that it is correct always. Astrologers never
come to a conclusion about devising a test that will prove their results to be successful.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page | 3
2. Why is it important to distinguish science from non-science? Describe the problem of
demarcation and its significance for science according to Sven Ove Hansson’s article
[1]
Ans 2) According to the author in the first article there are many practical applications for which the
demarcation from science and non science is important. Few such practical examples are :

Healthcare – If the doctors, patients, and government are not acquainted with the exact differences
between science and non-science then it will cause a massive havoc. It can lead to inefficient and
dangerous interventions.

Court of Law – If the litigants present some clues and evidences which are totally non scientific and
claim it as science then it can lead to a wrong judgment and decision. The courts must be
knowledgeable enough for distinguishing between Science and Non science.

Environmental Effect – Preventive measures should be taken in case of potential hazards which
have a valid proof and evidence. It should be easily differentiated among taking precautions against
alleged hazards with no scientific proof.

Science Education – The promoters of Pseudoscience’s always try to include pseudoscience topics
and non science in teaching of school curricula. Teachers and students should have clear idea to
protect students from unreliable and disproved teachings.
The problem of demarcation of science and pseudoscience are due to the following reasons:
Science is growing and it is vast and endless – Discussion and theories of sciences are going
through regular developments and advancements. The history of science states about its
development from past till date.

Science is heterogeneous and mutable.

Science is not free from defects – Science has lots of defects on its own and thus with every
date and time it gets improved. Many of the theories which were earlier considered as
pseudoscience are now considered as science such as continental drift, cosmology.
3. What are the characteristics of pseudoscience according to [2]
Ans 3) Character tics of pseudoscience are as mentioned below:

Vague and Non-testable claims – Any claims which are made is not testable via scientific
experiments. Scientific claims lacking specific measurements or using technical jargons to get
claims of superficial trappings of science are considered Pseudoscience. Lacking of boundary
conditions in those claims is also noticeable.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page | 4

Over reliance on confirmation rather than refutation – In this part the article describes about
the burden of proof and its end consequences. It also states that assertion should not be used
as something to claim, rather than experiments, results and observations should be used.

Lack of openness to testing to others – If any person or group claiming for a theory to be
scientific it must go through peer review and testing by other persons. Lack of openness in
providing data to other peers for testing is a vital criterion to mark a theory as Pseudoscientific.

Absence of Progress – If a particular community fails to provide additional evidence towards the
claims and also if there is very little amount of self correction, then there must be a problem
with the claim.

Misleading languages – Sometimes using very heavy scientific words in theories and claims
people claim to be scientific.

Science is subjective comparing to pseudoscience which stands as mostly objective.
4. Give a short account of astrotest [3] and its results.
Ans 4) Astrotest was a nice and interesting article which showed how astrology failed miserably in
front of a scientific test. Here is a brief account of astrotest:
Author selected 50 astrologers (measuring their professional knowledge level) from 70 initial
applicants and announced that there will be a astrotest in which there will be 7 subjects and for each of
the subject there will be a birth chart which will be presented to the astrologers. The astrologers will
also get a chance to choose a number of questions that needs to be answered by the subjects. The
author selected such 24 Questions after getting them from the astrologers and then added more 3
questions and gave it to the subjects to fill it up. The astrologers were shown the 27 Questions and all of
them were satisfied. The catch was that the astrologers need to match all the 7 persons with their
occupations depending upon their 27 questions and birth chart, and the prize money for the astrologer
getting it all right would be 2500 Dollars. They had 10 weeks to determine the results.
The results were horrible and just 1 of them got 3 matches correct. Rest 22 persons got all
wrong among total 44 who completed the test. The average hits were 0.75 which was 0.25 less than the
mean change expectation, a deviation which was not significant at all. The astrologers got the same
information but the results of each varied with the other. Only two astrologers made it independently
the same.
5. What are your conclusions on science contra pseudo-science discussion?
Ans 5) From all the articles we get a clear idea on science and pseudoscience. Demarcation of both science
and pseudoscience is very essential and needed as it helps us choosing what is right and what’s wrong.
Pseudoscience can be harmful to us also if we are not well aware of it. Doing the demarcation is very
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page | 5
difficult as Science is heterogeneous and changing. Theories and principles and hypothesis which are yet
under the tests of science are called as Protoscience. Some of which we consider today as Protoscience may
tomorrow be termed as science or pseudoscience. Laws and principles of science are also not full proof and
subject to improvement. In such a case marking something as pseudoscience is quite difficult as may be
today we don’t have so much developed experimentation and tests to mark it as science but who knows in
future we may have it. Already things like continental drift, cosmology and ball lightning are under Science
which was earlier not considered as a member of science. Science is mutable and subject to change,
theories and principles which seems vague or unjustified to us may be a great experiments of science in the
future, such as electricity. The discussion though seems logical but is really endless from a scientific
perspective.
REFERENCES
[1] Hansson, Sven Ove, "Science and Pseudo-Science", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/pseudo-science
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
[3] The Astrotest A tough match for astrologers (Rob Nanninga), http://www.skepsis.nl/astrot.html
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page | 6