51Due提供Essay,Paper,Report,Assignment等学科作业的代写与辅导,同时涵盖Personal Statement,转学申请等留学文书代写。


私人订制你的未来职场 世界名企,高端行业岗位等 在新的起点上实现更高水平的发展


美国论文代写:The Pseudoscience

2017-05-26 来源: 51due教员组 类别: Paper范文

本文是一篇优秀的paper代写范文- The Pseudoscience,供大家赏析学习,这篇论文讨论了伪科学。在生活中,我们经常会发现很多似乎有道理的事情,但却没有实例可以证明,这些就是伪科学。伪科学不是真正的科学,所以会有很多危害。很多时候会误导大家,影响人们的判断。伪科学其实源自于人们的生活经验和常识,所以才导致大家无法判断它的对错。



Pseudoscience is not bad science. Sometime it is only the hereby thought. There are several theories in physic are pseudoscience. The harm of pseudoscience is quite huge. It is likely to waste the many time and vigor of generations, not to mention money. With the development of science and technology, some theories are really acting as pseudoscience. For instance, in history, the scientist thinks that the poly-water is a polymerized form of water. This claimed by the Soviet physicist during the late 1960s. It was a scientific debate subjects. It was even cause a fear of "poly-water gap" in the United State. In 1973, it was found that just pseudoscience. Poly-water was not working as the scientist predicted. It is only water with an arbitrary number of common organic compound pollution. Poly-water has generated a compelling argument before it finally overthrown by instrumental and theoretical analysis. This reasons of this pseudoscience claim is not only because the mistake in scientific research, the attitude of people but also have much effect. It greatly interferes with the development of scientific experiments. This pseudoscience claim reminds us that the human guiding the scientific research not a robot. It is difficult to achieve the objective because of the desire of humanity. The findings of poly-water did not tell us the accurate about the chemistry of the water, but it is fundamentally revealed some real characteristics of human psychology. If you find the poly-water, then you want it to be true.

1. The basic identification of the pseudoscience.

In order to better understand the concepts and the identifications of pseudoscience, it is important to make sure the characteristics of science, as well as the difference and similarities between science and pseudoscience.

Science is a systematic method of acquiring information. It depends on the idea that the natural world works according to certain principles, and that we can discover those principles through observation and experimentation (Raff, 2016). What we should pay attention is that science is not unique when we need to know of the world we are living in. However, the reason why we respect science so much is that science works so well when we get to know the world.

As for disadvantages of Pseudoscience, there are still a lot. The first disadvantage I want to state is that Pseudoscience might do harm to our knowledge system. Because Pseudoscience is not real science, it might not be a obstacle when people are learning real science. Sometimes, people tends to be confused that where is Pseudoscience and what is real science. For example, when a professor in the class ask his or her students what is Poly-water, students like to say something from TV or internet information. The information seems to be right. But it is not supported by evidence, which cannot be real science. However, students who answer this question don’t know the truth. They might think information the gain from TV shows or Internet would be real science. At this time, those students need more help and evidence to realize the truth.

Sometime, unscientific beliefs are easy to be located in human’s minds. However, unscientific beliefs cannot be deeply considered such as magic, ghosts, or monsters. We cannot subjectively find the evidence or data supports for unscientific beliefs. Looking at this question from another point of view, unscientific beliefs are totally different than pseudoscience. Pseudoscience tends to be our first thought towards objective things based our life experience or knowledge, especially life experience and knowledge from social media and other easy learning activities. In conclusion, both pseudoscience and science can help people to know new world and things, but science is an objective, systematical way to use data, evidence, and studies to state definitions while pseudoscience is based on people’s life experience and knowledge.

2. The background of the poly-water.

Poly-water was a hypothesized integrated form of water that was the subject of so many scientific controversy starts from the late 1960s. Until the year of 1969, the popular scientists had paid attention to and sparked fears of a "poly-water gap" in the USA.

Increased attention also came up with it increased scientific attention, and as early as 1970 doubts about its authenticity were being circulated. Until the year of 1973, it was found to be illusory, being just water with any number of common organic compounds contaminating it. Today, poly-water is best known as an example of pathological science.

Based on a long-term description of pseudoscience and science, let us go ahead and take part in the main discussing point of this topicof Poly-water. It is creative but typical to use poly-water as an example to explain the significance of differentiating pseudoscience and integrate it when we conducting real science.

When it first comes to the background of poly-water, we need to know the famous scientist named Nikolai Fedyakin, who is from Soviet. He is a great physicist, who worked in a small government research office in Russia many years ago. As far as I am concerned, one of his best contributions to the history of physical science was to determine the properties of condensed water. His contribution was a fundamental of the testament of poly-water.

Following Nikolai’s research contribution, another famous scientist, Boris Derjaguin, who is the chief of the lab of surface physics at the Institute for Physical Chemistry in Moscow (Wikipedia, 2016). Boris was affected by Fedyakin’s experiments, and he did some improvement about how to produce the new condensed water. He did put the water in different place and different temperature to see what would happen. To his surprise, his experimental results were published and everybody noticed what he contributed. In the year of 1966, Derjaguin came to England to do presentation of Discussions of the Faraday Society in the city of Nottingham. At this time,Derjaguin again presented the story of poly-water, and this time English scientists paid attention to what he means as anomalous water. English scientists then began researching the effect as well, and by 1968 it was also under study in the United States (Wikipedia, 2016).

Until the year of 1969, concepts about those two physical scientists’ experimental contributions had been spread to newspapers and magazines, in which the name of poly-water came to this world for the first time.

Kurt Vonnegut's stated in his novel Cat's Cradle, poly-water was a kind of water that could be seen as solid at the very temperature.

Derjaguin and Churaev,in August 1973,got a report in the book of Nature, which they stated that, "the poly-water is the biggest pseudoscience in the scientific history"Denis Rousseau applied poly-water as a traditional example of pseudoscience, and he has reportedon other journals as well.

Another scientist, Richard Feynman,stated that, if such a poly-water existed, then an animal could be existed that would eat it. That some of creatures would just ingest water and excrete poly-water, applying energy released on the progress to live.

In terms of this statement, after 10 years, poly-water has eventually been proved as a pseudoscience. In the story of poly-water, current scientists and researchers could learned much about the importance of conducting scientific researches, as well as the difference and similarities between pseudoscience and science.

3. The influence of the poly-water, both in positive and negative.

Poly-water, as a new scientific phrase, could help people to construct more chemistry things. It works as a landmark for chemistry field and help a lot of scientists to study new things and science. However, Poly-water is too complex to understand.

In 1960, reports have showed that there are emerged from the laboratories of several respected Russian scientists, such as Fedyakin and Deryaginm, who have been reviews as revealing a fourth stage of water, including other forms of this water such as gaseous and frozen forms. In order to confirm and maybe harness this new concept, many scientists with high academic reputations let their hopes and beliefs cloud their objectivity. In order to so, several of those scientists acted in this special instance much like pseudoscience. Those scientists managed to confirm the existence and report various novel properties of this “new” substance. The system of peer review and reputation eventually corrected these false starts. Some other analysis, which is being recognized as more meaningful, revealed that the “new” material as really in fact a very subtle form of contamination introduced by some researchers studying in laboratory. The phenomenon was broken by an honest mistake, not real science. However, as egos and reputations became threatened in the ensuing debate, many scientists cannot accept canons of their profession. The poly water is on the one hand a case of pathological science on the other hand a great example of how scientific system could work to correct such errors. Scientists in different generations seem to produce

Their own discussion of this concept. Current scientist have put emphasis on the discussion of could fusion, which is considered as new contribution of literature.

The experience of poly-water shows that even respected scientist can sometimes make big mistakes, in which those reputations seem like pseudoscience. The essential part for producing pseudoscience comes from outsiders who believe they have achieved striking discovers that are being overlooked.

4. The reasons for the poly-water claim.

About every ten years, something goes wrong in the physical sciences. Recently (2002), it was faked (Newswire, 2003), and in 1999, it was a faked discovery of Element 118 (Schwarzschild, 2002). Ten years before, in 1989, the world briefly watched the alleged phenomenon of Cold Fusion appear, perhaps cause a wild spike in world Palladium prices, and disappear. Twenty-three years before that, it was Poly-water (Franks, 1982). Neither cold fusion nor poly-water was a fraud; instead they were bad science perpetrated by people who were somehow blind to evidence against them.

While a history of Poly-water is beyond the scope of this paper, a very brief summary of events, drawn from Franks (1981), is provided to give some context for the reader unfamiliar with the controversy. The Soviet scientist N. N. Fedyskin (1962) reported the discovery of Poly-water (also known as anomalous water or modified water) in 1962, after observing the unusual capillary activity of a bound water sample while studying the behavior of thin films of water in contact with solid surfaces (Ackermann, 2005).

In 1962, N. N. Fedyakin reported one of his big achievements. This famous physicist Fedyakin, working in a famous public research lab in Kostroma, Russia, had reported measurements on the constructions of water that already has been condensed in, or repeatedly forced through, narrow quartz capillary tubes. Some of those famous studiesreported in what was seemingly a brand newstyle of water with a higher boiling scale, but lower reporting scale, and much higher validity and reliability of the water’s constructions. (Park, 2000).

Boris Derjaguin, the leader of the experimental team for surface physics at the Institute for Physical Chemistry in the city, hear from Fedyakin's studies. He increased on the methods to create the new forms of water, and though he still increase very small constructions of this new kink of material, he did so much faster than Fedyakin did. researchers of the material properties implied that a substantially lower freezing point of −40 °C or less, a hot point of 150 °C or greater, a density of approx. 1.1 to 1.2 g/cm³, and improved expansion with up temperature. The conclusions were published in Soviet science academic journals, and short summaries were published in Chemical Abstracts in English, but Western scientists had no notice of the jobs (Segerstrale, 2000).

In that period, poly-water is almost recognized by every scientist from different countries. Some scientists, such as E. R. Lippincott from the University of Maryland reported in Science that they have found poly-water and test its contrast. Until 1971, the research paper about poly-water in high peer reviewed journal come to more than 400. Some scientist with good ability of imagination even believed there are poly-water in other planets.

However, after the researches about poly-water come to the United States, scientists start to suspect its contrast. In 1969, some American scientist believe there were some other elements, such as boron, silicon, and sodium in the poly-water they made. In terms of this situation those scientists started to suspect that poly-water is just a kind of water that is been polluted. After that, various scientist had done research about the contrast of poly-water, while they found the poly-water is just pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience other than science is an interesting thing because it is typically a landmark that is invoked only post hot when it comes out that something do not have meanings. In the numbers of Book Reviews heat of a new productin, few scientists would create a finger and say something like that. There are definitely critics who do not believeall of thing, but that is always the case in science anyway. This makes Langmuir’s reputated criteria for pseudoscience other than science less valuable than perhaps believed. This was the methods that the N-rays, poly-water, cold fusion and other many phenomena are considered to have made their entry into the annals of would-be science. But, as Bauer points out, the same criteria for pathological science also fit quite nicely the discovery of prions, for which a Nobel Prize was awarded in 1997 (Evans, 2001).

When I got the information about poly-water from Felix Franks’ book, I felt it is also different to some extent. I noticed that concept of poly-water exist in the world for at least 10 years, especially between 1960s and 1970s. During these times, a hundreds of literatures have published about this new concept, while even no one found it is a kind of pseudoscience to some extent. In another word, the work on poly-water could be viewed as a waste of time and money. Eventually, it turned out that an impurity was involved, causing seeming polymeric water, although it had been generally believed that impurities had been eliminated. Could not the (even unexpected) impurity have been found if someone had looked more closely?

Deryagin's work in the 1960s, illustrates a common type of cognitive shortcoming: a failure to seriously consider alternative hypotheses to explain an unusual result. The dense liquid called poly-water that Deryagin and other researchers were able to produce through condensation in tiny capillaries--reproducibly, it should be noted, and with exhaustive attention to controlling physicochemical variables and answering the critiques of colleagues ultimately turned out to be an artifact caused by impurities in ordinary water. Deryagin and a worldwide network of adherents to his theory pursued the poly-water concept to extraordinary lengths, in part because of plausible theories about the behavior of water molecules in ultrafine capillaries. However, when purification tests using more sophisticated equipment convinced Deryagin to reconsider an obvious hypothesis he had previously rejected--that his polywater was contaminated ordinary water he readily and honestly conceded that his original experiments were flawed, invalidating any interpretations based on these results (Turro, 2005).

The chemistry of water has attracted more than its share of pathological investigations; the stories of cold fusion, poly-water, and infinite dilution, all involving properties of water, provide shining (or perhaps glaring) examples of how implausible ideas can run amok. Perhaps it is because it is essential to life, has numerous properties that are indeed anomalous (or at least ill-understood), and is rich in metaphoric connotations, water seems to bring out the un-skeptical enthusiast in some researchers. And perhaps because the dream of converting water into a cheap and plentiful fuel held particular promise in the years following the OPEC-induced energy crisis in the West, considerations of wealth and fame inevitably intruded into the Utah laboratories where palladium electrodes allegedly edited a heavy-water solution (Turro, 2005).

5. The experience and revelation of the poly-water events.

Periodically throughout the history of science researchers, a creation is reported that creates a scientific controversy. If the discovery is real, then a new domain or research specialty is created, often with an accompanying journal. If the discovery is not confirmed or replicated, then interest dies out, creating no lasting specialty or research area. Since the main product of scientific research is the publication, the by-product of a controversial discovery is a related literature (hereafter controversial scientific literature) composed of publications generated by researchers trying to prove (or disprove) the controversial claim. What do the bibliometrics of a controversial literature look like? How does it differ from a normal (or non-controversial) scientific literature? This study is an attempt to answer this question by examining the bibliometrics of a literature created by the reported discovery of a new kind of water, polymerized (or polymer) water, commonly known as Poly-water (Ackermann, 2005).

Combine with the case of poly-water, we could find that there are little evidence to support the value and contrast of poly-water since it has been first reported by Fedyakin. Other scientists followed his statements just because they do not have a right method to conduct science study. In there is only Fedyakin who was talking about this, I believe the theory of poly-water has already been certified as pseudoscience. However, there were many other scientists who followed his fault, in which most of those scientists are authority in the field. Fortunately, science has the ability to modify its self. One of pseudoscience, no matter how many scientists support it, no matter how long it has been existed, it will be found as pseudoscience. No evidence revealed that the theory of poly-water is faked purposely. It is only because no body pays attention to the right science methods. Scientists have wasted 10 years on a pseudoscience of poly-water, which might be more severe than faking science purposely.

Certainly, appeals to the classic ‘scientific method’ are not workable (Bauer 1992). Nevertheless, it remains common for scientists to rely on Langmuir’s notions rather than on modern views in science studies and for naive discussions of ‘pathological science’ to appear even in periodicals that might be expected to draw on referees versed in history or philosophy or sociology of science; for example, in 1992 American Scientist had an article castigating as pathological "infinite dilution" studies of the effectiveness of certain biological agents, poly-water, and cold fusion (Rousseau 1992). That Langmuir’s ideas have seemed convincing to scientists is illustrated by the publication of his talk 15 years after it was given and by re-publication a couple of decades later (Langmuir,1989). The 1985 version added such examples of pathological science as water dowsing, the canals of Mars, certain reported photomechanical and electromechanical effects, radar observations of Venus, poly-water, biological effects of magnetic fields, and the detection of gravity waves. One or another of these versions of Langmuir’s talk continues to be cited as authoritative: several references per year are listed in the Science Citation Index through the 1990s; and there are some un-countable larger number in such periodicals as Skeptical Inquirer that specialize in discussions of pseudo-science and pathological science but are not scanned for the Science Citation Index (Bauer, 2002).

6. Lessons I learnt from of Poly-water

The first important lesson I have learned from poly-water is that scientists need to keep the scientific standard when conducting researches instead of listening to others without thinking. In terms of poly-water, it can be resolved very soon in the beginning when someone found it. However, many scientists with high reputation agreed with the wrong theme and made this big joke. The claim of poly-water shows that even respected scientist can sometimes make big mistakes, in which those reputations seem like pseudoscience. The essential part for producing pseudoscience comes from outsiders who believe they have achieved striking discovers that are being overlooked. However, after the researches about poly-water come to the United States, scientists start to suspect its contrast. In 1969, some American scientist believe there were some other elements, such as boron, silicon, and sodium in the poly-water they made. In terms of this situation those scientists started to suspect that poly-water is just a kind of water that is been polluted. After that, various scientist had done research about the contrast of poly-water, while they found the poly-water is just pseudoscience.

In the process of literature review, I also learned how to distinguish pseudoscience from science. Science is a systematic method of acquiring information. It depends on the idea that the natural world works according to certain principles, and that we can discover those principles through observation and experimentation (Raff, 2016). What we should pay attention is that science is not unique when we need to know of the world we are living in.

However, the experience of researching poly-water helped us to improve our awareness of doing scientific research.Scientistshould not follow the authority blindly; the only way to decide whether the claim is right or wrong is the evidence. In the meanwhile, we need to a scientist with sprit of challenging authority. With this quality thescientists can save social resources and make more contribution to our society.

7. How to identify the pseudoscience.

Even I have discussed a lot of differences and similarities between pseudoscience and science, their distinctions are still a new place of researchers and scholars to study. And sometimes, the public could seldom understand the importance for identifying the pseudoscience from the science. However, as far as I am concerned, it is essential. The reason I have stated before shows that to identify the pseudoscience from real science can help people to know real science better.

So, specifically, how can we tell pseudoscience from real science? It is actually very difficult. Firstly, we should make sure what is pseudoscience, what is science, and what are differences and similarities between pseudoscience and real science. The then, we should make sure the importance to identify pseudoscience. Then we need to have several little tips when we apply practical activities of scientific studies. I have searched over various resources about those tips, and I would like to order them in the following for peer’s review and correct.

In the first part of this essay, I have put much content in introduction of the definition of pseudoscience. However, only understanding the concepts of pseudoscience is far away from identifying it from science. What we also need to do is to understand the concepts of science. Actually, we cannot think science as a positive word in all of the situations, for which sometimes science is somehow negative.

Take the story of poly-water for example. In order to identify the pseudoscience of poly-water from real science, scientists first need to understand the standard of what is real science and what is pseudoscience. For Fredyakin who found the poly-water, he might make some mistakes probably because of the mistakes in the process of experiment, or because of the lack of knowledge of the field. However, for the following scientists who agreed with this term, they might need more awareness of what is real science and what is pseudoscience.

Then, in order to identify the poly-water from real science, scientists need to have a series of appropriate experimental methods to conduct researches. After all, when the story of poly-water came to the United States, it had been proved to be pseudoscience really soon because several wise scientists did careful researches on the very theme with scientific research methods.

Lastly, as a scientist, no one could listen to others even others are famous ones with high reputation. In the story of poly-water, what made things worse was those following scientists agreed with poly-water without thinking. They publicized papers on academic journals, and helped poly-water to be a real science. However, listening to others without scientific thinking makes them a big joke in the history of science.

8. Treat the pseudoscience with the dialectical view.

Pseudoscience is not a real science, but it is different than unscientific things. Pseudoscience is a kind of way to gain information and knowledge from public ways, such as social media, newspapers, radios, TVs, and others. It is not a kind of science because it is not proved or supported by evidence. Only thing that can support Pseudoscience is people’s subjective point of views and previous experience. However, sometimes, people’s subjective point of views and previous experience work as the most important functions for human beings to gain information. Thus, Pseudoscience has both advantages and disadvantages.

For the advantages of Pseudoscience, it is easier for people to gain information. For example, when people gaining information and learning new things, it will be very long time and difficult if they do this through course works, data collecting, and paper writing. However, it is interesting and fun if people can learn new things and gain information through social medias, especially for young people. Take children before school ages for example. The only way for them to understanding this new world is to listen and watch. Many of what they can see and hear is not science but Pseudoscience. We know that children have no idea to distinguish what is benefit for them and what is the real truth. Meanwhile, they just accept what they can see and hear directly. Maybe in the future, when they have more experience and knowledge, they could distinguish new things. But as for this time, Pseudoscience is a significant important way for them to know new word.


Sources of the Claim

Bauer, H. (2000). Antiscience in current science and technology studies. In Segerstrale, U. (Ed.).

Beyond the Science Wars: The Missing Discourse about Science and Society (pp. 41–61). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Cromer, A. (1993). Uncommon Sense. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Wikipedia. (2016). Poly-Water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater

Scientific Sources

Achermann, E. (2005). Bibliometrics of a controversial scientific literature: Polywater research, 1962-1974. Scientific Journal. 63, 189-208.

Bauer, H. H. (2002). ‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological). HYLE--International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 8, No.1 (2002), pp. 5-20

Barber, B. (1961). Resistance of scientists to scientific discovery. Science, 134, 596–602.

Mugaloglu, E. Z. (2014). The Problem of Pseudoscience in Science Education and Implications of Constructivist Pedagogy. Science & Education. 23:829-842.

Pigliucci, M. (2015). Scientism and Pseudoscience: A Philosophical Commentary. Bioethical Inquiry. 12:569-575.

Raff, J. (2016). What’s the difference between science and pseudoscience? Violent Metaphors. http://violentmetaphors.com/2013/05/17/whats-the-difference-between-science-and-pseudo-science/

Turro, N. J. (2005). Toward a general theory of pathological science. Pathologial Science. 49, 268- 272.

Park, R. (2000). Voodoo Science. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 35, 29-44.

Segerstrale, U. (Ed.). (2000a). Beyond the Science Wars: The Missing Discourse about Science and Society. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Segerstrale, U. (2000b). Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.


51due为留学生提供最好的留学生作业代写服务,亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多,paper代写范文 提供澳洲代写服务,详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ:800020041。-ZR

上一篇:留学生作业代写:The gourmet 下一篇:美国论文代写:Construction of Cultura