what is the difference between science and pseudo science?
what makes science and pseudoscience different is the way that they are meant to find out details about different things. there are some people who make use of pseudoscience when they would like to find evidence that will support the claims
east or west science is the best test 1 study guide phys107, quinn chapter 1: about science what is science?  a body of knowledge and a way of thinking that describes the order within the natural world and the causes of that order o ideas are organized based on observation o modern science (since the 1500s) expresses those ideas with mathematics, because it’s unambiguous and easy to verify/disprove  disclaimer: science has never proven one thing; instead, many hypotheses have been tested over and over and some have had a constant result, many have not. the only thing science can do is Your explanation is not consistent. You state that the user is to enter a range as in "find me all numbers between x and y that are divisible by both 3 and 4." Later you state that you "input value 120 10 times". That is inconsistent with the problem so either the problem is stated incorrectly or you are not inputting the expected data. Decide what is the correct problem then write it up in pseudo-code before you write the actual code.


If a range is expected, make sure you test that it is a valid range (x <= y). fox "news" is a joke and far from fair and balanced. media effects (chapter 15)  media effects is the field of research that attempts to understand, predict, and explain the effects of mass media on individuals and society o scientific method: understand, predict, and explain o individuals and society: media does not only effect the individual but society as well  not all media researchers are studying "effects" or aiming for prediction o cultural studies researchers try to understand how media constructs and is constructed by questions of gender, race, social class, nationality, etc. o rhetorical studies researchers try to understand how media functions in terms of persuasion, meaning, political contestation, ideology, identity, etc. media effects theories  the hypodermic needle model o an early model for television effects on audiences o the idea that powerful media shoot their messages directly into vulnerable audiences' brains o also known as the "magic bullet" or "direct effects" model o fails to account for the fact that people are critical and skeptical of media messages o widely discredited by subsequent research  the minimal effects model o media effects are less powerful, and are mostly indirect. o also known as the "limited model" o people engage in selective exposure:  we tend to expose ourselves only to messages that we are already comfortable with o people engage in selective retention:  we tend to retain messages that confirm the values and ideas that we already hold o this model still assumes that audiences are passive in their consumption of media  uses and gratifications 
 o studies how and why media are used, rather than what their effects are o the surveillance function suggests that people use the media to monitor the world around them o similarly, the socialization function suggests that people use the media to help fit in with others o while the textbook says this model was never widely adopted, it has been incorporated into rhetorical and cultural studies research. what effect does the media have?  the most significant demonstrated effect of media is agenda- setting: o not telling people what to think, but telling them what to think about  many of the other effects listed in the textbook are less well proven but still worth discussing  the cultivation effect is the idea that heavy tv viewing causes is to believe that tvis giving us an accurate portrayal of the real world o one common version of this is the mean world syndrome: we believe the world is more dangerous than it really is because tv shows so much crime  the spiral of silence theory is the idea that the media silences controversial opinions by making those who have them fear social invasion o this can even be true of opinions that are not really controversial, since the media edits out very widely held opinions o some studies indicate that we are even willing to go along with wrong answers if "everyone else" is giving those answers too Though basically, there exists some difference in the cirriculam and the pattern of teaching, but in terms of recognition of these qualification, these are treated at par.   
Completion of a BE degree takes four year after passing 10+2, but practically to achieve a M.Sc degree in computer- science would take five years after 10+2 stage. This is because a candidate adopts an alternative rout where one studies B.Sc computer - science for three years and rest two years are utilised for completion for the post - graduation course in computers. In fact, the later qualification deals with the basic approach of the computers thereby making an aspirant sound in the theory but in the former qualification, much stress is given on the practical field.  
For all practical purpose, in terms of employment, no differentiation has been made among the qualifications like BE, MCA and M.Sc in computer - science. All are treated equally in terms of values.   
Hence, you can apply for a job where the qualification for BE is sought unless it is specifically mentioned in the advertisement. I've never heard of a field dedicated to the study of research methods. There are journals dedicated to advances in methodology (e.g., [[1]](http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-neuroscience-methods/), [[2]](http://www.biotechniques.com/)), but the closest concept I've encountered to a field dedicated to researching research is Thomas Kuhn's classic work [The Structure of Scientific Revolutions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions) and other similar philosophical works, which discuss how science, as a field, progresses and evolves.

 I would guess that the reason for the lack of such a field is such research is part and parcel of the actual work done in the field. In order to study biochemistry, one must understand *how* to study biochemistry; in order to study mathematics, one must know the types of questions and the methods used to find answers in mathematics. Each field is unique, and each field will find specific methods that will optimally serve the needs of that specific field. While there may be broadly-applicable research techniques, each field will solve the problem of "how to do research" differently, in the way that best suits that field. please elaborate. because insanity is mostly a buzzword the public use wrongly. who are these geniuses we’re oppressing? i'll suppose that you're telling the truth, which, i'm sure you're not, simply by a few of the tells in your message. i'll suppose as such because your imaginary situation is possible.
i don't believe christians are necessarily idiots, and not many taoists believe that at all. it's not very logical to say "creationist = idiot" because that implies a million and one presuppositions and a very very jaundiced psychological map.
you have to ask the question "why do they believe in creationism as opposed to evolutionism despite the fact that they've been thoroughly educated on evolution, and the fact that the world could not have possibly been created in 7 days 6000 years ago."
there can be a million answers, but the most prominant one is this: "it's too much work to find my own answer, and this one fits--if i die, and i'm right, wonderful. i go to heaven, if i'm wrong, oh well, i won't remember anyway. it's a good guidebook for morals, and keeps me doing the right thing. christianity has made me a better person."
does that make you an idiot? no, it just makes you weak in one area of development. who cares if you're weak in one area if you're strong in countless others. if you do good work, helping people, making the world a better place, that's really all that matters.
the conflict arises if you're pushing theocratic reform in government, that tries to subject the whole world to your ideology simply because you haven't got the mental reserves to focus on what you really believe happened in the beginning of it all, or when you're one of the loud voices screaming out against stem-cell research technology, or any other philosophically possibly morally objectionable science on the premise of a few verses in a book.
with all of these considerations in mind, i don't care that you don't accept the science on evolution, it doesn't effect me, and it doesn't effect any of us. it only effects you, and your personal psychological map. how you view the whole, how you interact with the people around you. a) false. the breakdown of glucose into carbon dioxide and energy is done using oxygen inside the cell. this process is known as respiration.b) true. likewise humans frogs also can respire through lungs. in addition to lungs frogs can also respire through their skin which is thin, moist and slimy and help in easy gaseous exchange.c) false. spiracles are the tiny pores present in the insects like cockroaches which help in gaseous exchange. these small spiracles are present on the lateral body (sides) of the organism.d) true. the percentage of co2 in inhaled air is 0.04% whereas in exhaled air it is 4.4%. therefore, we can say that exhaled air has more percentage of carbon dioxide than in the inhaled air.