Response Paper for Module 1

*This collection of Response Papers consists of my reflections on the weekly assignments for my Applied Clinical Psychology course I took on January 2023.

The article was an interesting read. Even though I was familiar with some of the fallacies, I think it was useful to think of them with regards to pseudosciences. Learning about fallacious reasoning might occur helps us to detect others’ mistakes, as well as our own’s. It’s common to fall into logical fallacies even in our every-day discussion. As the article suggests, logical thinking is a skill that needs to be practiced.

The way I would apply it is to beware of them and try to detect them on social media or in my daily interactions.

The article got me into thinking a couple of things which I’d like to elaborate on.

The first has to do with the nature of three distinct states: thinking, believing, and perhaps knowing. Even though they’re used interchangeably, thinking and believing are actually -very- different mental states. A belief doesn’t have to be supported by scientific evidence. The moment it rightfully does, it becomes knowledge. Rather than thinking about them as each other’s opposites, they should simply be viewed as different. There isn’t necessarily a dispute between the two. That aside, I’m aware that the dispute arises when believers base their beliefs on so- called scientific evidences.

There is no evidence that proves astrology true. So, one cannot claim or know that it is true, but can believe so. Similarly, since there is no evidence that falsifies it either, one cannot know that it is false. So, from a scientific standpoint, the best stance to take is not to take one, as both verifiability and falsifiability are required. If both are not applicable, then it is not a subject of science.

People used to have a more ‘’enchanted’’ world view prior to the scientific revolution which was a consequence of Enlightenment as well as the separation of the church and state. Some used to believe that giving birth was a miraculous happening. They did so because it was a mystery and because it was something that evoked a sense of awe. People did not know where babies come from up until the 1800s. Now we know exactly how and when a woman ovulates, how an egg is fertilized, at what stage an embryo develops brain waves and heart beats, and so on. Similarly, people could not make sense of lightning strikes and interpreted them as Zeus’ wrath. We now understand how and under what conditions a lightning strikes.

Scientific explanations may and do uncover the mystery, but why should they eliminate the awe?