Pseudoscience

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. Analyse this claim.

To draw the line on what ‘art’ is can be quite a challenging. This is mainly because most, if not all things that we know of can be considered as ‘art’. Sometimes, the way in which we interpret art varies because of its ambiguous nature. Art can be purely visual or linguistic based, but to the degree in which we call it a form of ‘art’ is subjective to individual interests. The captivating or aspects of the work can influence how we determine its artistic authenticity. Therefore, art is limitless and can be conveyed in a multitude of ways. 

Similarly, to differentiate sciences and pseudoscience is not always evident. Pseudoscience is relatively experimental and thus the justifications behind it are not consistently accurate. Science involves a systematic process which includes observations and experimentation to draw conclusions; in contrast to pseudoscience, there is a lack of structure in the processing stages. However, both of these sciences still rely on our senses and can be based on qualitative evidence, which means there are commonalities amongst the two. Both of them are also relatively experimental, making it difficult to define the two without having overlapping points or ideas. There are always going to be flaws in our definitions, therefore pseudoscience and sciences are not as distinctive as people might think at first.