Feng Shui as Pseudoscience

In modern society, people are expected to make scientific decisions and rational actions over a range of personal and social problems. There have been a number of studies on students’ and adults’ decision-making over socio-scientific issues under the name of scientific literacy. In this study, we investigated the social and cultural backgrounds of Korean people’s actions and trust over their personal problems (e.g. health, career choice), by conducting in-depth interviews with ten Korean adults on their experience related to acupuncture and Four Pillars of Destiny (FPD), two representative examples of unorthodox sciences. The analysis of the data reveals that their actions concerning acupuncture and FPD are influenced by socio-cultural factors (esp. family culture, social system) and by their understandings of the nature of science. In addition, we found that there are a different set of reasons and varying degrees of people’s trust between acupuncture and FPD. Based on the results, we discussed the needs to introduce wider concepts of the nature of science and of the scopes of science education.

“…However, it still remains the central issue in the debate of science vs. pseudoscience (e.g. Matthews, 2019 ; Hansson, 2009 ; Bunge, 1991 ).…”

Section: Research Backgroundsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Research Backgroundsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Research Backgroundsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Research Backgroundsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Why People Trust Something Other than Science

Song

Chun

2021

Who Speaks for Science?

Allchin

2021

Ironically, flat-Earthers, anti-vaxxers, and climate change naysayers trust in science. Unfortunately, they trust the wrong science. That conundrum lies at the heart of scientific literacy in an age of well-funded commercial and ideological interests and overwhelming digital information. The core question for the citizen-consumer is not philosophically “why trust science?” (Oreskes 2019) but sociologically “who speaks for science?” Teachers can help students learn how to navigate the treacherous territory of inevitably mediated communication and the vulnerabilities of epistemic dependence. Students need to understand the role of science communication practices (media literacy) and the roles of credibility, expertise and honesty and the deceptive strategies used by imitators of science to seem like credible voices for science.

Is There a Limit to Resemblances?

Park

Brock

2022

The notion of family resemblance has recently emerged as a promising and fruitful approach to characterising the nature of science (NOS) in science education research, offering solutions to some perplexing challenges such as capturing both the domain-general and domain-specific features of science with a single framework. At the same time, however, criticism has been levelled that the resemblance might eventually extend to certain activities that are not scientific but pose as science. This would be an undesirable consequence for science educators, particularly given the increasing need for individuals to discern pseudoscientific claims circulated on social media from scientific information. Many pseudoscientific and non-scientific activities resemble science in terms of their aim to explain nature, their use of evidence-based methods, and their interrelation with politics and society. In this theoretical article, we build on the concept of family resemblance to consider how it can simultaneously explain the diversity and unity of science and help students to learn about the nature of science and that of pseudoscience in science education. We put forward three principles that can guide teaching about pseudoscience based on the family resemblance conceptualisation of science.