topic as described in paper

Scientific Cannons and Pseudo Science Activity
Experimental Psychology (PSYC/CHLD 3404)
Objectives: Following this activity, students will be able to identify and describe the four cannons of the scientific method, and distinguish between pseudoscientific and scientific claims.
Part 1: Cannons of Science
Review the four cannons of science by defining the terms using your textbook.
Parsimony
This cannon proposes that when contrasting theories, it is imperative to choose the simplest and one with the minimal postulations. The key idea in parsimony is reducing the complexity of accounts and events by choosing the simplest elucidation for an observation.
Determinism
The idea in determinism is that behaviors result from existing dynamics and hence they can be foreseen. This approach therefore, focuses on how an incident is influenced by prior occurrences.
Testability
This approach proposes that scientific hypotheses should be tested to establish their reliability and accuracy. By testing hypotheses, conclusions can be drawn on whether the concept applied is right or wrong.
Empiricism
The idea in empiricism is that, knowledge is acquired through observing and experience from different events but not just rational thinking. By observing different aspects in life, a researcher can draw compelling evidence from the observations.
Part 2: Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience
Pseudoscience is sometimes passed off as real science in the news media. People want consumers to buy their products and they may use “science” to entice you to buy their products.

Oftentimes, the “science” they claim backs their product isn’t science at all. It may include components that are scientific in nature (e.g., testability) but the product or service may still lack scientific support. This kind of “science” is called pseudoscience or junk science.
An example of a pseudoscientific claim is “healing” rocks. At many new age stores there are rocks that are purported to help heal illness or alleviate pain. The idea of healing rocks is scientific in nature because the cannons of science can be applied to the claim. That is, one could test the hypothesis that rocks heal (testability) by systematically observing (empiricism) people.
Empiricism: One could randomly assign ill participants to a healing rock versus control/placebo condition whereby healing rocks are used or not used by sick people. Then one could systematically observe symptoms in those with or without the healing rocks.
The claim about healing rocks is deterministic because it suggests that the rocks cause people to feel better. Finally, one could argue that healing rocks are a parsimonious explanation for the alleviation of symptoms over time in sick people (although a better explanation could be advanced, such as placebo effects or the natural progression of most colds and flu symptoms).
Thus, using the cannons of science one could argue that healing rocks are scientific. However, because there is no evidence that healing rocks work (there are no tests or systematically observed outcomes) this is probably junk science/pseudoscience.
Instructions: Below there are a number of claims that are scientific or not so scientific (pseudo-science). Read each claim and decide whether or not the claim describes science or pseudo-science (junk science), and provide a rationale for your decision using at least one of the four cannons of science. Then, decide what evidence or information would help you decide whether or not the claim is scientific or based on pseudoscience. That is, if evidence could be provided about the claim, what type of evidence would help you determine its scientific merit? In the example above, the evidence that would help us determine the scientific merit of healing rocks is a study comparing the symptoms reported by sick people who used healing rocks compared to sick people who didn’t use healing rocks.
Parents who are afraid that their children are developing slowly are happy to hear about brain gym—a new program based on kinesiology (movement therapy) that can bring about dramatic improvements in areas such as: concentration and focus, memory, academics, physical coordination, relationships, self-responsibility, organizational skills and attitude. The basic idea is that movement can massage brain regions to improve circulation and thinking skills. The studies that support brain gym show that students who join the program seem to do better over time. In other words, researchers observed children and found that they had improved. .
Is this science or pseudoscience/junk science?
This can be classified as science
Use at least one of the four cannons of science to justify or support your decision in #1.
With regard to the case above, the idea is empiricism because observations were made to determine whether remedial movements affect children growth. The use of science is evident because a research was conducted to determine the relationship between the two variables. More so, the researchers gathered knowledge and concluded that the development of children is influenced by brain exercises.
What additional evidence or information would help you make an affirmative decision about whether the claim is science or pseudoscience/junk science?
To establish the reliability of the case above as scientific, an experiment examining children with normal development and those with slow development may be conducted. Remedial movements can be introduced to both and based on the observations one can compare the test results and determine the impact the therapy has on both. Hence, the observations can be used to prove that the case is scientific.
Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate lasting for an extended period. As through much of its history, the Earth’s climate is changing. Right now it is getting warmer. Most of the warming in recent decades is very likely the result of human activities (IPCC, 2007). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) State of the Climate Reportand the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Surface Temperature Analysis indicate the average temperature of the Earth’s surface has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4ºF since 1900. Other aspects of the climate are also changing such as precipitation patterns and storminess. The Earth does go through natural cycles of warming and cooling, caused by factors such as changes in the sun or volcanic activity. This has been closely examined, and the warming we have seen in the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural factors alone. The warming we are observing is consistent with the warming properties of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases that we are adding to the atmosphere.
Is this science or pseudoscience/junk science?
This, likewise, is science
Use at least one of the four cannons of science to justify or support your decision in #1
The case above uses testability approach because the hypothesis that climate change results from the intent and actions of human beings is tested to ascertain whether the claim is true or false. Furthermore, tests have been conducted to establish whether climate change is caused by human actions alone or whether other factors, such as natural phenomena, contribute to the same. Based on the tests, conclusions are drawn pointing out that different factors contribute to the climate changes.
What additional evidence or information would help you make an affirmative decision about whether the claim is science or pseudoscience/junk science?
To justify that the case above is scientific, additional research may be conducted indicating to what extent human activities have contributed to the climate changes. The observations drawn from the research can provide cogent proof to the scientific research.
Juicing is a natural way to stay healthy, look young, say trim and feel great. Juice has natural healing power and active enzymes that allow the vital energy in the body to be shifted from digestion to other body functions such as repair or rejuvenation. Juicing flushes the body of toxins and it works because of the high concentration of vitamins and minerals in fresh fruit. The enzymes in fruit are the critical agent that help your body and mind feel great!
Is this science or pseudoscience/junk science?
This qualifies as pseudoscience
Use at least one of the four cannons of science to justify or support your decision in #1
The case presented above uses determinism because, the proposal is that drinking juice promotes good health. The case purports that drinking juice leads to weight loss, youthfulness, and aids in detoxification. In the case above, drinking juice has health benefits. However, there is no scientific evidence to justify the assumptions, and, no tests are conducted to validate the expected outcomes.
What additional evidence or information would help you make an affirmative decision about whether the claim is science or pseudoscience/junk science?
To ascertain whether drinking juice has health benefits, an experiment may be conducted examining the results depicted by unhealthy people who take juice and those that do not and the results compared. By conducting the experiment and determining the outcome, one can ascertain the claim as scientific.
Part 3. How to distinguish between science and pseudoscience
What are a few things (choose 3 at least), in general, that can be said about pseudo scientific claims versus scientific ones?
Pseudoscience portrays cases without proof to support the claims while science depicts claims that can be examined and proven. Secondly, pseudoscience is a fallacy ensuing from faulty reasoning while science is based on factual reason. Lastly, pseudoscience depends on futile techniques to draw faulty conclusions but tries to portray them as truthful while science tries to be accurate by making factual observations and analysis (Lilienfeld et al., 2014).

References
Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., & Lohr, J. M, 2014. Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford press.

Grading Rubric
Category Unacceptable (D,F)< 65% Problematic (D-, C-) 66-73% Satisfactory (C, B) 74-87% Good (B+, A) 88-100%
Concept Comprehension Inappropriate
Incorrect
Incomplete Relevancy vague
Major inaccuracies
Lacking completeness Relevancy implied
Minor inaccuracies
Too broad Relevancy described
No inaccuracies
Thorough
Application Inappropriate
Incorrect
Incomplete Relevancy vague
Major inaccuracies
Lacking completeness Relevancy implied
Minor inaccuracies
Too broad Relevancy described
No inaccuracies
Thorough
Interpretation & Integration Improper format for question
Several grammatical/spelling errors
Unclear or haphazard organization Proper format for question
Few grammatical/spelling errors
Focused and integrated organization