Myths are pseudoscience theories that are false claims - Essay Example

Myths are pseudoscience theories that are false claims In a discussion of myths as a method of imparting knowledge, the aspect of some bits of fallacies in the myths cannot be overlooked. In as much there are bits of lies; myths have also been useful in creating an aura of imagination among the concerned personalities. The fabrication of the supernatural beings and events in the myths has been termed as pseudoscience theories that consist more of half truths that twist a particular ideology. In the research conducted by Smith, pseudoscience entails a discussion of beliefs and assertions that are in the real sense very phony (38).

Dryden, & Still continue to argue that pseudoscience is much more characterized by use of sources in the wrong way, inadequate application of logic as well as observations (151). In this case, therefore, the explanations made are neither valid nor scientific, since the conclusions made are out of assumptions as opposed to science Popper (3). Allhoff argues that science and facts must rely on facts (4). In relation to the myths, one would, in this case argue that myths are false claims from the fact that the sources that these myths are based on are not credible, but are simply based on hearsays of the authors.

For instance, one cannot prove that all children born on Fridays are lucky since there are many children who are very unlucky. Myths can also be disguised as fallacial since they are simply based on observations that are not experimented. Lakatos, Feyerabend & Motterlini (30) and Lakatos (21) indicate that scientific experiments are scientific must have tested hypotheses, and results that can be proven and tested. For instance, can we prove that all skinny persons are unhealthy as the assumption goes?

It is, therefore, validated to argue that myths, at most times do not have logical and sound arguments. With false conclusions made, it is obvious that a lot of errors were made while making inferences. Validity and sound arguments, according to Allhoff, Alspector-Kelly & McGrew are an aspect of scientific method (515). In the work of Lakatos, astrology can be described as pseudoscience form the fact that it is not consistent as science facts should be (26). As a myth, astrology is untrue. Just like the ancestors believed in myths, they did not focus on evidence just like in the case of astrology.

Lack of verifiable principles disqualifies these myths. Astrology according to Lakatos cannot be falsified since the entire concept does not rely on repeatable tests (26). With astrological claims being stated negatively, the results would, therefore, be supernatural disregarding the concept of Science. According to Smith’s pseudoscience check kit, reality encompasses no room for any form of delusions (39). Myths have a space for misinterpretation of the concepts that take place in the world.

For instance, some people may choose to play cards on a certain Friday of the month that is termed to be lucky. In the event of more than two wins, that Friday is branded a lucky day. This is fallacial, since any person who is competent in calculations and reasoning does not need a specific Friday to win a game. A lot of tricks are played on individuals, who end up holding false views and claims on some aspects in the universe and in real life. Conclusively, myths are pseudoscience theories that are based on observations and making of false conclusions regarding a particular theme.

In the long run, a lot of beliefs that are erroneous are made, a characteristic of pseudoscience according to Velasquez (347). Myths are majorly based on an individual’s perception on certain concepts, which is not science according to Allhoff, Alspector-Kelly & McGrew (515). People tend to pick what they want to hear, and simply cannot base their assumptions on real facts, that lead to proper reasoning. Works citedAllhoff, Alspector-Kelly, M., & McGrew, Timothy. Philosophy of Science: An Historical Anthology.

New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2009. Print. Allhoff, Fritz. Philosophies of the Sciences: A Guide. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2010. Print.Dryden, Windy. & Still, Arthur. The Historical and Philosophical Context of Rational Psychotherapy: The Legacy of Epictetus. New York: Karnac Books, 2012. PrintLakatos, Feyerabend, P., & Motterlini, Matteo. For and Against Method: Including Lakatoss Lectures on Scientific Method and the Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Print. Lakatos, Imre.

Science and Pseudoscience. Available at: http://crl.ucsd.edu/~ahorowit/lakatos.pdfPopper, Karl. Science: conjectures and refutations.1953. Print. Available at: http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/popperphil1.pdfSmith, Jonathan. Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinkers Toolkit. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Print.Velasquez, Manuel. Philosophy: A Text With Readings. London: Cengage Learning. 2010. Print.