Science is different from pseudoscience primarily in its methods and attitudes toward evidence and testing. Science relies on careful observation, controlled experiments, reproducibility, falsifiability of claims, skepticism, and willingness to abandon or revise hypotheses based on conflicting evidence. Pseudoscience, by contrast, starts with fixed beliefs or hypotheses, seeks only confirming evidence, ignores or dismisses contradictory data, fails to produce reproducible results, often relies on anecdotal evidence, and resists change regardless of new information.

Key Differences

Aspect| Science| Pseudoscience
---|---|---
Approach to Hypotheses| Tests and challenges hypotheses, seeks falsification| Starts with a hypothesis and seeks only confirmation
Evidence| Uses empirical, reproducible data and controlled experiments| Relies on personal stories or selective data, lacks reproducibility
Openness| Open to peer review, skeptical evaluation, revision| Closed to criticism, resists change, claims secrecy or conspiracy
Consistency| Consistent with established scientific knowledge and interconnected| Often inconsistent and not integrated with established science
Falsifiability| Claims are falsifiable; testable and can be disproven| Claims are unfalsifiable; cannot be tested or disproven

Philosophical Foundation

Science is defined as a systematic way of inquiry focused on empirical evidence and methodologies that ensure unbiased, repeatable results. Pseudoscience mimics the language or appearance of science but lacks scientific rigor and is more aligned with false or deceptive claims presented as science.

Thus, the fundamental difference lies in science’s reliance on the scientific method and its critical, evidence-based attitude, versus pseudoscience’s reliance on confirmation bias, untestable claims, and resistance to falsification.