1

This question already has an answer here:

Within the scope of the problem of demarcation there seems to be an implicit distinction between pseudoscience and non-science. Trying to make explicit what such distinction might be, I wonder: Does the difference between pseudoscience and non-science amount simply to the fact that the former "pretends to be scientific" whereas the latter does not? --- What does it really mean for some theory "to pretend to be scientific"? (And, could it be that theories we might consider pseudoscientific at present time, would turn in future into scientific ones (just as it happens from time to time with non-scientific theories that evolve into scientific ones?))

marked as duplicate by Alexander S King, Community Dec 30 '15 at 23:41

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 3
    You might also find useful information in the following answer: philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/22820/… – Alexander S King Dec 30 '15 at 23:37
  • 1
    Thanks a lot; sorry - was not aware of these. I asked a slightly different question but those you refer me to will do perfectly fine, as they're close enough. Thanks again. – L.M. Student Dec 30 '15 at 23:40
  • 1
    That happens a lot, no need to be sorry. That is why the mechanism for voting to close as a duplicate exists. – jobermark Dec 31 '15 at 1:14
  • 1
    Oh I see...Well, thanks for this thoughtful sensitive note. Will keep it in mind. – L.M. Student Dec 31 '15 at 1:55
1

I think that pseudoscience is a field that makes scientific claims but is not science, thus giving off the impression that it is scientific. I think it's important to not make it something the practitioner does (such as "pretends to be science") because even if someone stands up an repetitively says "I'm not doing science" that shouldn't change our perception of his field, and I do think that pseudoscience is a description of a kind of field of knowledge.

  • 4
    i think it would be more accurate to say that pseudoscience is a description of a kind of field of pseudoknowledge. – robert bristow-johnson Dec 30 '15 at 23:59
  • 2
    Maybe 'pretends' is too strong, but I think claiming to be scientific is a part of pseudoscience. Astrology and numerology might well be called pseudosciences because their practioners make claims that they have predictive value and that they contribute to our understanding of how the world works. In this, their claims resemble those of science, but they are false. By contrast, aesthetics is non-science, but doesn't claim to be, so it is not pseudoscience. – Bumble Dec 31 '15 at 4:52

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.