In our last TOK class we discussed the differences between science and pseudoscience, more specifically what subjects can be and cannot be defined as being scientific, and which we would consider pseudoscientific subjects. For example, we compared subjects such as astronomy and astrology, and what differs these two fields of study, and which we could consider to actually be scientific. The prompt for this reflection is to analyze the claim “it is unsurprising when we hear that experts in Art can’t always agree what ‘is’ and ‘is not’ Art. We might say that the distinction between what ‘is’, and what ‘is not’ art, is not always clear. Similar to the question of what is art, the distinction between science and pseudoscience is also not clear.
I would say that in the case of science versus pseudoscience, the distinction between the two is reliant on a few factors, one of the most important being how you define science, or more specifically the AOK of natural science, as this is open to many different interpretations. The definition of natural science is debatable, as is what can be considered natural or pseudoscience. In my opinion, pseudoscience differs from science as although it may appear to be scientific, is mistaken to have followed the steps of the scientific process, in relation to how information is gathered and discoveries are made in thiese disciplines. I believe that in order to decipher between topics that are scientific and pseudoscientific, it is important to state how you define each term, in order to make it clear of what the criteria for each of these two topics.