Another example to provide evidence that Science is flawed; religion can never be proven or disapproved by science because the evidence the scientists hypothesized has simply conflicted with each other. As religion is Pseudo-science, religion is based on belief that there is a higher power that is an omnipresent being, which exist, and controls the universe. Many people believe in religion, that’s what makes religion a pseudo-science. That is why the reason being pseudo-science have a lack of evidence to support it is because most of that evidence is subjective, hence, opinions, beliefs and experiences from other people. Religion is a theory, which to some people it exists and to others it doesn’t. Religion has many different categories that people believe in, including atheism, in which people doesn’t believe in any religion, which makes it a religion in itself. Furthermore, in religion itself, there are many theories that are not proven but believed, such as the creation of the world. It is stated, in almost all of the religion, that a higher being called “God” created the world, but is this theory proven? It is certainly not, but people want to believe what to believe. Another example would be the process of Reincarnation, which comes from the belief of the Hinduism. Ian Stevenson, a scientist, found that the vast majority of cases investigated with explained personal traits involved people who had met some sort of violent or untimely death. Stevenson also provided evidence that it is true. But if we include the basis of Pseudo-science in this evidence, how much of it do we know is true? Science is only based on evidence that can be scientifically proven, whereas in this case Reincarnation involves the moving of souls from one body to another, from one generation to another; and Science by far could not even prove that the souls even exist or not. Thus Reincarnation could not be science even though some scientist proves that it is with their evidence.
As I have mentioned above about the different theories there are to identify the differences, let us now take an example from the Theory of Chaos, such as the ‘Butterfly Effect’, which basically shows that from such a tiny mistake occurring can cause a huge problem not only for one person but for many others around them as well; chaos also imply that there is no order. Such theories like these won’t be counted as ‘scientific’ because it’s merely a prediction based on theory but not in practical. How can you prove that the occurrence from one mistake can cause a huge problem? How can scientist prove that it can actually happen? We may never know if that one little mistake can be continued to an even worse problem or stay as it is. Thus the ‘Butterfly Effect’ is not science because nothing can be proven, it’s merely a prediction and a belief. Even due to observation, how can the things seen from our eyes be true? We may never know as well. Even if it’s observed that the ‘Butterfly Effect’ is there, maybe due to experiences as well, is it possible for it to be proven with the nature of science? Thus this theory also conflicted with itself.
There are many more examples to come but their proponents have described some that were thought to be a pseudo-science as ‘scientific’. These may include such things like ‘Acupuncture’, ‘Crystology’, etc. For Acupuncture, it is a belief that by inserting needles into various parts of the body you can restore normal energy balance to relieve pain and cure various disorders. Even though this belief has been accepted to be ‘scientific’, until now the scientist still cannot prove how Acupuncture works. Some people are willing to subject their belief to proper scientific test, while others simply state that their belief are scientific. But this does not prove that it is scientific just because some people state that they are. Another example I have mentioned above, crystology, is a set of belief about the magical power of crystals, which claim to be scientific but have not been scientifically tested. Thus this clearly states that it is more likely to be pseudo-science. Even if it were to work or not, no scientist can prove whether crystals has its own power within it to help cure pains on parts of the human body. Just like the use of Acupuncture, but in different ways. It also used to generate a field of positive crystalline energy depending on which crystals gives out which type of energy fields. This kind of magic pendant although it cannot be proven has been believed and stated that it is scientific due to its unexplained capability.
As I have mentioned above, science needs its key steps to prove whether or not the relevant data scientists collected can be concluded to develop a theory and unifies various laws in terms of some underlying principal. But we don’t surely know whether the new discovered scientific laws are correct or not, now do we? If we connect it with pseudo-science, people’s belief and real science collide with each other in various ways. But pseudo-science helps and motivates scientists to find out more about how it works. Through many of the examples I have described above, have made some points from my own perspective that science itself is flawed due to the existence of pseudo-science, but whether it is completely true we don’t know, and that it is, and will forever be incomplete.