Is It a Simple Matter to Distinguish a Scientific Argument from a Pseudo-Scientific argument?

Is it a simple matter to distinguish a scientific argument from a pseudo-scientific argument? (May 2003)

Scientific arguments are based upon observation of the physical world. They are reached by using scientific methods. Scientists begin the scientific arguments as a hypothesis, which is then tested meticulously. If the argument or hypothesis is supported by the test, it then becomes a theory. The more times the hypothesis is proven true, the more convincing it becomes. The methods and results of the investigation are also open for the inspection of other people. If a proper observation against the theories or laws are made, they can change with time. The experiments also provide appropriate methods for other scientists to repeat and obtain the same results.

On the other hand, pseudoscience are views that claims to be scientific when in actuality they do not. They try to explain the reason behind some events by creating laws that dictate the nature. Astrology and numerology are examples of pseudoscience. Similar to scientific arguments, pseudoscience also involves theory and law. However, most of the laws are existing facts. In Astrology, the claims they make are based on the statistically commons for the people that are born on the same day. The laws also have many ways of interpretations allowing their predictions to be flexible. These claims can never be tested in a truthful manner and they seem to just explain existing knowledge. The methods of pseudoscience are often secretive, they can only be researched after and are not repeatable. Thus, pseudoscience fail to fulfil the criteria of scientific arguments.

The two arguments can be distinguished in the following ways. Firstly, it is the ability for the author’s argument to link with existing and generally accepted theories, facts or references. The concepts used in the theory or argument should be defined in areas such as physics or chemistry in order to prove its scientific. The argument should also be backed up through the use of data and the methods should be public and generally accepted. Pseudoscientific arguments often claim their results to be 100 percent accurate, this claim however, is unfeasible in the proper scientific field.

Although the two arguments seem to be very different, they are becoming harder to distinguish between each other. As the technology is improving, new scientific theories are formed. These new scientific theories often lack experimental evidence just like pseudoscience, but they are proved to be true by proper evidence only in the future. The characteristics of the two arguments also overlaps in their precision, science may not be always right and pseudoscience may not be always wrong. Meteorites were once labelled a pseudoscience in the 18th century but it is now a fully accepted concept by people around the world because it is proven to be true many years later.