So, how do we draw the line between science and pseudoscience?

Self confirming belief system? Powerful emotions --> Biased perception --> Fallacious reasoning --> Emotive language --> and it goes on

Happiness research is a great example of why psychology isn't science. How exactly should "happiness" be defined? The meaning of that word differs from person to person and especially between cultures. What makes Americans happy doesn't necessarily make Chinese people happy. How does one measure happiness? Psychologists can't use a ruler or a microscope, so they invent an arbitrary scale. Today, personally, I'm feeling about a 3.7 out of 5. How about you? http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713 Alex Berezow: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

But even with my limited perspective into the “hard sciences,” I know that there is no way anyone can claim that they all revolve around empirical analyses of observable facets of the natural world. From what I can gather, there are plenty of phenomena in the “hard sciences” — most notably, in physics — that are not observable. String theory? Quantum mechanics? I mean, for goodness sake — how long were physicists searching for the Higgs Boson without even knowing if it actually existed?!

Hard sciences (biology, chemistry, physics) vs Soft sciences (psychology, sociology) http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713

To do Read Karl Popper’s Conjectures and Refutations on the website. As you read the article, think critically about whether you agree with Popper. On your poster: Develop a criteria for ‘what is science’ and ‘what is not science.’ Include at least 6 descriptions for each. Answer the following question: Should there be a criteria for science/non science? Why or why not?

Science vs. Pseudoscience

Critique Critique another group’s criteria for science/pseudoscience. After the critique, develop a new criteria for science/pseudoscience. In 10 minutes, you will join with another group. As a new group, develop a new criteria for science/pseudoscience. At the end of the discussion, post your main ideas of what makes science on the board.

Karl Popper & The problem of demarcation Karl Popper: Austrian-British philosopher and professor at the LSE (1902 – 1994) The problem of demarcation: How do you distinguish between science and pseudoscience?

Popper main arguments Science is often suggested as having an empirical method, which is inductive, stemming from observation Pseudoscience Marx’s theory of history: society is driven by material conditions Freud’s psycho analysis: human attitude driven by irrational choices Alfred Adler’s individual psychology: societal, love-oriented, vocational Problem: the theories were always confirmed

Popper main arguments It is easy to obtain confirmations if we look for it. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions. “Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability.”

Popper main arguments Problem of induction: we cannot be sure that a law/theory is true no matter how many confirming observations we make Law: “All metals expand when heated” But if we find one metal that does not expand when heated then we can falsify the law. Therefore, confirmation is tentative and refutation is decisive. “Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability.”

Criticisms of Popper Falsification is conclusive in theory but not in practice E.g. Mendeleyev & periodic table: arrangement according to atomic weights E.g. Darwin & natural selection Scientific theories cannot be conclusively falsified because it is up to you to reject the observation rather the theory.

"Science does not rest upon solid bedrock "Science does not rest upon solid bedrock. The bold structure of its theories rises, as it were, above a swamp. It is like a building erected on piles. The piles are driven down from above into the swamp, but not down to any natural or ‘given’ base; and if we stop driving the piles deeper, it is not because we have reached firm ground. We simply stop when we are satisfied that the piles are firm enough to carry the structure, at least for the time being.“ Karl Popper

Hard sciences (biology, chemistry, physics) vs Soft sciences (psychology, sociology) http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713

Religion versus Science? “I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.” Albert Einstein Awe of nature ‘To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. ‘

Through the wormhole Is there a creator? Questions What/Who is God? Do you agree with the various forms of the creator as discussed in the documentary? Why or why not? Are science and religion compatible?