Plate Tectonics: The Similarities Between Science And Science Fiction

What distinguishes between the worlds of science and science-fiction? While many may fall prey to the beliefs of pseudoscience, it is clear that there is a vast difference between these false sciences and legitimate science. An example of a widely accepted scientific theory, for instance, could be Alfred Wegener’s concept of Plate Tectonics, an approach for which a great deal of solid and legitimate evidence has been provided. Perhaps the most commonplace variety of pseudoscience, although there are a great number present in our world today, would be astrology. Featured in the backs of daily newspapers and highlighted in online articles, this concept has been substantiated by many with seemingly scientific evidence; however, it still cannot

His theory was labelled “continental drift”, which quite literally describes how Wegener regarded the formation of the earth (Oskin 2016). Modern versions of this theory, for which a great deal of research has been conducted, is classified as plate tectonics. In terms of the previously described characteristics, the theory of plate tectonics is widely accepted as legitimate and valid in the scientific community, and is taught in many schools as part of the science curriculum (Steele). Wegener’s theory was controversial and not well-acknowledged in the course of his life; however, in following with the aforementioned characteristics of a legitimate science, his theory opened up many opportunities for further research and inspired many in the community of scientists to test and build upon new hypotheses on the

While these programs may be thought-provoking and creative, they can hardly be considered truthful or even factual in most cases. To simplify what is a fairly broad construct, astrology is the belief that there are “‘harmonies’ or ‘synchronicities’... between celestial configurations and human activities” (Haider 2015). This controversial theory or belief has undergone a variety of tests and trials over the years, as many in the scientific community have analyzed its core values and claims. However, as explained by philosopher Paul R. Thagard, astrology cannot be considered a scientific theory: “Because the predictions of astrologers are generally vague, a Popperian would assert that the real problem with astrology is that it is not falsifiable: astrologers can not make predictions which if unfulfilled would lead them to give up their theory. Hence because it is unfalsifiable, astrology is unscientific” (Thagard 1978). It should also be noted that while some predictions may be accurate or applicable to the observer’s life, those which are not are typically ignored. As previously mentioned, evidence which is found in researching a scientific theory must not be selective, and both evidence for and against the theory must be taken into consideration. It is likely that some notable correlations may be drawn in terms of