Science vs. Pseudoscience

[Zzyzx]

.
Science vs. Pseudoscience

Frequently in these debates we encounter pseudoscience or junk science. This (from somewhere on the web) outlines some of the differences:

Science: Follows the evidence wherever it leads
Pseudoscience: Starts with a conclusion, then works backwards to confirm

Science: Embraces criticism
Pseudoscience: Hostile to criticism

Science: Uses precise terminology with clear definitions
Pseudoscience: Uses vague jargon to confuse and evade

Science: Claims are conservative and tentative
Pseudoscience: Grandiose claims that go beyond the evidence

Science: Properly considers all evidence and arguments
Pseudoscience: Cherry picks only favorable evidence, relies on testimonials or weak evidence

Science: Uses rigorous and repeatable methods
Pseudoscience: Uses flawed methods with unrepeatable results

Science: Engages with peers and community
Pseudoscience: Lone mavericks working in isolation

Science: Follows careful and valid logic
Pseudoscience: Uses inconsistent and invalid logic

Science: Changes with new evidence
Pseudoscience: Dogmatic and unyielding

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Those are some good points to bear in mind. Glad you shared them here because so many get caught up in creation-science, which is bad science and bad theology as well.