For example, if a study claims that the phase of the biblical is 3.2, a true scientist would provide sufficient detail for someone else to verify this claim. They ensure that their methods and findings are transparent and accessible. The goal is to advance knowledge through objective and verifiable means, rather than relying on subjective beliefs.

The Dangers of Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience, on the other hand, often uses scientific terminology to lend credibility to its claims but fails to provide the necessary detail for verification. Pseudoscientific theories might sound scientific but lack the rigorous testing required to substantiate their claims.

A notable example is Cold Fusion. Scientists who proclaimed the discovery of cold fusion did indeed produce real results, but these results were difficult to reproduce. Even if fusion was demonstrated, the lack of replicability left room for skepticism. Pseudoscientific theories often rely on faith-based reasoning, making them highly subjective and unreliable.

The Concept of Scientism

Scientism is a more subtle but equally problematic approach. It refers to the belief that science can solve every problem and provide answers to all questions, regardless of their nature. This perspective can be arrogant and often leads to overreaching claims that go beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.

Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. It can be seen as an extension of the rationalist philosophy that holds science as the ultimate truth.

Comparing Scientism and Superstition

When physicists were asked about metaphysical questions, they often dismissed them as beyond their realm of expertise. However, modern writers like Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow have made claims that suggest science can answer metaphysical questions, which is a significant departure from traditional views.

From a philosophical perspective, Scientism can be compared to superstition. It makes claims that are inherently beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. For instance, claiming that science can resolve questions about the existence of the soul or the nature of consciousness through empirical methods is problematic because these questions often lie at the intersection of philosophy, metaphysics, and even faith.

Conclusion: True Science is About Evidence, Not Faith

True science is based on evidence-based reasoning and is grounded in the pursuit of empirical truth. Pseudoscience, in contrast, often relies on faith-based reasoning and lacks the rigor required for verification. Scientism, meanwhile, takes an overly broad view of science, claiming it can answer all questions.

By understanding the differences between true science, pseudoscience, and scientism, we can better evaluate scientific claims and ensure that our scientific discourse remains grounded in objective and verifiable evidence.

Keywords: true science, pseudoscience, scientism