Science in Archaeology relies on systematic methodologies, empirical evidence, and rigorous testing to understand past human behaviors and societies. In contrast, pseudoscience often lacks scientific validation and may rely on anecdotal evidence, leading to speculative or unfounded claims. This distinction is crucial because pseudoscientific interpretations can mislead public understanding and diminish the credibility of genuine archaeological research. Thus, maintaining scientific rigor ensures that archaeology contributes accurately to our knowledge of history.
Science is not pseudoscience. The former is authentic, the latter is fake.
science is real and pseudoscience is fake
pseudoscience fake science basically and scince made technology build things
science is real and pseudoscience is fake
science is real and pseudoscience is fake
science
pseudoscience
Pseudoscience is NOT science. You have to be able to test your scientific claims for it to be Science. If you can't it goes under the category of pseudoscience.
Physics is a well-established and respected science that deals with the study of matter, energy, and the interactions between them. It is not considered pseudoscience.
The main difference between science and pseudoscience is that science relies on evidence, experimentation, and peer review to support its claims, while pseudoscience often lacks empirical evidence and does not follow the scientific method.
The main difference between science and pseudoscience is that science is based on evidence, experimentation, and peer review, while pseudoscience lacks these rigorous methods and often relies on unproven claims or beliefs.
pseudoscience