Please mention either scientific or pseudoscience or mixture. Also, please three

Question

Please mention either scientific or pseudoscience or mixture. Also, please three illustrations from each site why we come to conclusion on scientific or pseudoscience or mixture. Thanks a lot for your help!

Science vs. Pseudoscience Worksheet Evaluate the credibility of each site listed below. Classify the site as science pseudo-science or mixture. Explain why it is or is not a reliable source of information. List at least three reasons to support your assessment of each site by citing sentences or phrases from the site. You may cite either lack of trait or presence of a trait For example: The statement "Either life must have originated three and one half million years ago and evolved, or it was created by a supreme being." is an example of the Either Or Fallacy because it does not allow for any intermediate possibilities. Site 1 http://www.sammilham.com/historical%20evidence.pdf Read the article on this medical hypothesis. Site 2: http://www.steveguayle.com/index.php?s-30 The author's claim is that credible evidence exists for the existence of giants Site 3: htt Site 4: The link below is the main site. Read the reports and compare to site three in terms of science and pseudoscience. ht Procedure: Go to the web sights supplied by the instructor. Read the required material. Classify each sight as scientific, pseudoscientific or a mixture. You must justify your classification by giving at least three illustrations from the sight. Scientific sights should have several of the scientific traits and none of the pseudoscience traits. Pseudoscience sights could have pseudoscience traits or lack the science traits. Generic examples of proper justification from various UFO sights. Example: The statement "Hundreds of people reported the lights, flying in formation, over Phoenix" is a use of anecdotes and rumors. Example 2: The paragraph starting: "Dr. X has authored dozens of books about Unidentified Flying Objects including (a list of several books follows) and is a recognized scientist at the Institute for s looking at the person not the science Example 3: The sight fails to show any hard evidence by omitting any measurable data showing that the lights were saucers not airplanes

Explanation / Answer

Site 1:

It is Science.

Evidence 1: The statement "Ossiander and I [1] presented evidence that the childhood leukemia mortality peak at ages 2–4 which emerged in the US in the 1930s was correlated with the spread of residential electrification in the first half of the 20th century in the US" provides a proper reference to justify the the point stated.

Evidence 2: There are tables and graphs which show the supporting data.It a proof of scientific procedure which has been followed.

Evidence3: There is also a list of references which have been referred to write the article.

Site2;

It is a pseudoscience

Evidence 1: The paragraph "By simply looking at the ruins of the past, a person quickly discovers that the ancients constructed architecture that was so accurately positioned to "stellar and planetary coordinates" that only recently has modern science and computer technology been able to fathom the relevance of such positioning." is an over imagination of the process involved in construction of ancient architecture.

Evidence 2: "King Og spoken of in Deuteronomy 3:11 whose iron bedstead was approximately 14-feet by 6-feet wide. King Og was at least 12-feet tall, yet some claim up to 18." This statement is about rumour not science.

Evidence 3: The picture of the bone may lead to false inference.

Site3

It is a mixture

Evidence1: Pictures are accurate and are related to the topic which has been discussed in the paper. It is science

Evidence2: The statement " Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. " has no reference and is just an ordinary speculation.

Evidence3: The statement "WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and nearly-straight-down symmetrically -- even though fires were randomly scattered in the building. " lacks scientific backing.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse P
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.