Depending on the adopted approach concerning the explanation of various phenomenons, results relating to a particular view may exhibit significant disparities. The depth employed in investigating a certain idea determines the validity of the results associated with the idea. The diverse fields of science and pseudoscience present this aspect.
Science focuses on the establishment of factual assertions regarding various phenomenons in the universe. In science, any declaration regarding a particular phenomenon must possess considerable levels of evidence evaluated through experiments, hypothesis testing and the establishment of various theories. Science ensures any obscure view undergoes refinement and views that prove not fit for refinement face abandonment. In this regard, a scientific investigation should exhibit signs of consistency in the results. The modification of assumptions concerning a particular investigation is crucial in order to eliminate inconsistencies. Another aspect in science is the literalness and testability of views. Science places more emphasis on views that possess the literal sense rather than those that appear as metaphors. Scientific investigations ensure that conceptual or empirical evaluations on views present substantial evidence. Furthermore, the compatibility of a particular view with other concepts in scientific research is a crucial consideration.
Pseudoscience places a minimal focus on comprehensive investigations while promoting speculative assertions. The emergence of evidence refuting an old concept has minimal effects in pseudoscience as such ideas continue to prevail. Instead of discarding incorrect theories, pseudoscience rationalizes failures concerning the interpretation of various phenomenons. The disparity between these two disciplines is evident by varying perceptions regarding the shape of the earth. While some pseudoscience views depict the earth as flat, others describe it as house-shaped to accommodate God, Satan and man. Such disparities do not exist in science, which presents facts on that spherical shape of the earth. Another disparity concerns rain. While pseudoscience presents views concerning the influence on rain patterns by superior beings, science presents substantiated results concerning the interplay of various environmental factors, and their influence on rain patterns.
In conclusion, while science focuses on the adoption of standards, pseudoscience lacks clearly defined standards. Obscurity concerning various aspects such as religion, superstitions and myths raises minimal concerns in pseudoscience unlike in science.