Joshua Booth- Other #15/15

In the book "Philosophy of Science" Okasha distinguished science and pseudo-science as two different interpretations within the realm of science as a whole. Pseudo-science as he explains is a system of theories, assumptions, and methods that are in theory but have no actual fact finding evidence to prove it. Science as he explains is based on numerous facts and repeated theories being tested to prove a conclusion to the original theory at hand. Popper thought,” that the theory makes some definite predictions that are capable of being tested against experience.” If some scientific theories did not meet these conditions then he would label them as pseudo-science. The thing that I do not like about pseudo-science is that there can be a vast number of explanations for any clinical study without the person actually admitting to be wrong as what happened in Freud’s theory and as well as Marx’s.
To a certain extent I do agree with Popper but on the other hand I have to accept the theories because after all they are just theories. I think that there is a distinct difference between the two sciences and one can not and will not co exist without the other. First of all with pseudo-science I feel as if this is the brainstorming aspect that science needs in order to even begin with real science. Einstein’s theory of gravitation is a prime example.