The things what difference science and pseudoscience
The thing what makes difference in science is that scientist uses the existent material for making the conclusions about some things, and here I must say, that if the source is faked, the thing is is that the conclusions, what the scientist makes are wrong. The scientist uses the material, what is given to that person, or what has been found on the Internet. And if the material somehow manipulated, the scientist can also make mistakes. Or even the best of scientists can be tired or in fewer when they do their work, which means that even the best researchers are human beings.
If the scientist tries to give wrong conclusions, that would be very difficult, because that person must show, that the evidence or source material is used, and it's polite for ordinary people and other researchers to show, what is the used material. This means that if the researcher uses a photograph or painting, it's nice to show other people. And the place, where the picture is taken or downloaded is polite to mark in the source list. The thing about the pseudoscience is that thing is always trustable, and it's hard to show faked.
One of the things about the pseudoscience is that it seems very nice, but something seems to be wrong in the research. The thing what is wrong is that the sources, what are used are not shown to the audience. And this is the weakness in the research. The thing is that the evidence must be something, what shows the claiming true or false. One of the remarkable thing in the pseudoscience is that used money for that research is very big, and this is the very big problem in scientific work.
If somebody gives money for the research, the members of the research team have a need to please those profiteers, and that means that there is a big risk, that somebody would write lies in that report. When we are talking about theories and another kind of conclusions, the thing is that the pictures and exotic merchandises are a very good thing, how to make people blind. Also telling some exciting stories about the sacrifices would be an effective way to make people be silent.
And stories about escaping the guerillas and erupting volcanoes are very impressive things. Those stories are a good way to make people impressed, what would be a good way to get publicity. If the reporters are confessed and impressed about the stories how this explorer escapes the hostile villains in the jungle and swims away from the great tsunamis, they might not ask anything, what might cause an embarrassing situation. And if the story is placed another side of the or in an exotic place like in the river Congo, would that confess many people.
The thing what makes difference in science is that scientist uses the existent material for making the conclusions about some things, and here I must say, that if the source is faked, the thing is is that the conclusions, what the scientist makes are wrong. The scientist uses the material, what is given to that person, or what has been found on the Internet. And if the material somehow manipulated, the scientist can also make mistakes. Or even the best of scientists can be tired or in fewer when they do their work, which means that even the best researchers are human beings.
If the scientist tries to give wrong conclusions, that would be very difficult, because that person must show, that the evidence or source material is used, and it's polite for ordinary people and other researchers to show, what is the used material. This means that if the researcher uses a photograph or painting, it's nice to show other people. And the place, where the picture is taken or downloaded is polite to mark in the source list. The thing about the pseudoscience is that thing is always trustable, and it's hard to show faked.
One of the things about the pseudoscience is that it seems very nice, but something seems to be wrong in the research. The thing what is wrong is that the sources, what are used are not shown to the audience. And this is the weakness in the research. The thing is that the evidence must be something, what shows the claiming true or false. One of the remarkable thing in the pseudoscience is that used money for that research is very big, and this is the very big problem in scientific work.
If somebody gives money for the research, the members of the research team have a need to please those profiteers, and that means that there is a big risk, that somebody would write lies in that report. When we are talking about theories and another kind of conclusions, the thing is that the pictures and exotic merchandises are a very good thing, how to make people blind. Also telling some exciting stories about the sacrifices would be an effective way to make people be silent.
And stories about escaping the guerillas and erupting volcanoes are very impressive things. Those stories are a good way to make people impressed, what would be a good way to get publicity. If the reporters are confessed and impressed about the stories how this explorer escapes the hostile villains in the jungle and swims away from the great tsunamis, they might not ask anything, what might cause an embarrassing situation. And if the story is placed another side of the or in an exotic place like in the river Congo, would that confess many people.
Comments
Post a Comment