Anytime when one tries to differentiate between āscienceā from āpseudoscienceā, there is a reference to the Merriam Webster Dictionary. āPseudoā translates to mean fake and the easiest way to identify something fake is to investigate more about that which is real and this scenario underscores what is popularly known as āscienceā. In pseudoscience, a hypothesis is the starting point and conflicting evidence is not accepted. I concur that pseudoscience has a clear-cut definition as compared to science, which has numerous definitions. With proper strategies, pseudoscience cuts down absurdity. Ziman, Popper, and Fereabend all have different views in terms of differentiating science from pseudoscience. In science, the expression of findings mainly is in peer reviewed scientific journals and has a high standard for accuracy and honesty. However, in pseudoscience, there is no review, no mandatory accuracy, and the public is the main target. Another difference emerges in the results whereby in science, results are mandatory and so experiments have to be accurate in order to make a duplication or improvement. On the other hand, in pseudoscience results, there is no verification or reproduction, which means that studies done produce vague information, which is not good for any qualitative or qualitative study.
In my opinion, science shows more mature and accurate information particularly in studies seeking to come up with serious results particularly in medicine. However, pseudoscience information is not very reliable. Pseudoscience can be quite dangerous, as it often paints rationality and education as irrelevant aspects. Therefore, I would advice on using Ziman and Popperās description of science especially when conducting a quantitative study whereby accurate results are compulsory for their descriptions provide good information to make the best studies.