Comparison of Genuine Science and Marginal Science Using Giere’s Six Step Method of Analysis

$19.95

Add to cart
Essay #: 071356
Total text length is 5,023 characters (approximately 3.5 pages).

Excerpts from the Paper

The beginning:
A Comparison of Genuine Science and Marginal Science Using Giere’s Six Step Method of Analysis
Introduction
The question of whether genuine science and marginal science can be determined distinct from one another can be analyzed using Griere’s six step method of evaluating whether a hypothesis is valid. This model allows for a sequential process that brings a clear and logical method to determining whether a demarcation between genuine science and marginal science, or “pseudoscience” (92) is possible, and then we can make a logical decision about whether or not it is possible. This paper will argue that, after going through Griere’s six step process, it is not possible to make this demarcation between genuine science and marginal science....
The end:
.....science and genuine science are actually distinct.
Conclusion
Similar to Freud’s work that involved inventing a brand new vocabulary for his psychoanalytic theory that makes it impossible to model the terms in comparison with other theories, pseudoscience falls short in its appeal to magical thinking, emotion and the vague predictions (98). However, with Griere’s model alone, it is not possible to actually say that genuine science and marginal science are two distinct things. The very vagueness of the “theories” involved in marginal science makes it impossible to test using this model or any other.
Works Cited
Giere, Ronald N., John Bickle & Robert F. Mauldin. Understanding Scientific Reasoning, fifth edition, 2005. New York: Wadsworth.