Editing Pseudoscience (section)

===Classification===

Philosophers classify types of [[knowledge]]. In English, the word ''[[science]]'' is used to indicate specifically the [[natural science]]s and related fields, which are called the [[social science]]s.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/pseudo-science/|title=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|last=Hansson|first=Sven Ove|year=2017|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|editor-last=Zalta|editor-first=Edward N.|edition=Summer 2017|access-date=16 April 2018|archive-date=10 May 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190510091608/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/pseudo-science/|url-status=live|issn=1095-5054}}</ref> Different philosophers of science may disagree on the exact limits – for example, is mathematics a [[formal science]] that is closer to the empirical ones, or is pure mathematics closer to the philosophical study of [[logic]] and therefore not a science?<ref name="L0347">{{cite book|title=Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory|author=Bunge, Mario Augusto|publisher=Transaction Publishers|year=1998 |isbn=978-0-7658-0413-6|page=24}}</ref> – but all agree that all of the ideas that are not scientific are non-scientific. The large category of [[non-science]] includes all matters outside the natural and social sciences, such as the study of [[history]], [[metaphysics]], [[religion]], [[art]], and the [[humanities]].<ref name=":0"/> Dividing the category again, unscientific claims are a subset of the large category of non-scientific claims. This category specifically includes all matters that are directly opposed to good science.<ref name=":0"/> Un-science includes both "bad science" (such as an error made in a good-faith attempt at learning something about the natural world) and pseudoscience.<ref name=":0"/> Thus pseudoscience is a subset of un-science, and un-science, in turn, is subset of non-science.

Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing.{{sfnp|Sager|2008|p=10}}<ref>{{Cite magazine |first=Stephen Jay|last=Gould|author-link=Stephen Jay Gould|title=Nonoverlapping magisteria|url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html|magazine=Natural History|year=1997 |issue=106|pages=16–22|url-status=dead |archive-date=4 January 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170104061453/http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html}}</ref> The most notable disputes concern the [[evolution]] of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the [[Solar System]], and the origin of the universe.<ref>{{cite press release|url=http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4298 |title=Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design|date=11 April 2006|publisher=[[Royal Society]] |location=London|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071013040110/http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4298 |archive-date=13 October 2007}}</ref> Systems of belief that derive from divine or inspired knowledge are not considered pseudoscience if they do not claim either to be scientific or to overturn well-established science. Moreover, some specific religious claims, such as [[Studies on intercessory prayer|the power of intercessory prayer to heal the sick]], although they may be based on untestable beliefs, can be tested by the scientific method.

Some statements and common beliefs of [[popular science]] may not meet the criteria of science. "Pop" science may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve [[science fiction]].<ref>{{cite web|first=George|last=Pendle|url=http://www.popularscience.co.uk/features/feat20.htm|title=Popular Science Feature – When Science Fiction is Science Fact|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060214144307/http://www.popularscience.co.uk/features/feat20.htm|archive-date=14 February 2006}}</ref> Indeed, pop science is disseminated to, and can also easily emanate from, persons not accountable to scientific methodology and expert peer review.

If claims of a given field can be tested experimentally and standards are upheld, it is not pseudoscience, regardless of how odd, astonishing, or counterintuitive those claims are. If claims made are inconsistent with existing experimental results or established theory, but the method is sound, caution should be used, since science consists of testing hypotheses which may turn out to be false. In such a case, the work may be better described as ideas that are "not yet generally accepted". ''[[Protoscience]]'' is a term sometimes used to describe a hypothesis that has not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method, but which is otherwise consistent with existing science or which, where inconsistent, offers reasonable account of the inconsistency. It may also describe the transition from a body of practical knowledge into a scientific field.<ref name="Popper"/>