Question

When Mario Molina and

f. Sherwood Rowland first presented their findings about the threat of CFCs, the industrial chemists who developed CFCs scoffed at their warnings. They argued that CFCs were known to be very nonreactive. Would you categorize the reaction of these scientists as science or pseudoscience? Explain.

Answer 1

The reaction of the industrial chemists was not scientific. It would be categorized more accurately as pseudoscience.

The industrial chemists showed bias when they scoffed at evidence concerning the CFCs.

The industrial chemists allowed their beliefs about the characteristics of CFCs to take precedence over data concerning CFCs.

Step-by-step explanation:

exactly what it says on edg 2020

Answer 2

Answer: -

Pseudosciences are generally driven by ideological, cultural, or commercial motives.

Any observation or data that are not consistent with the established beliefs of the pseudoscience tend to be ignored or actively suppressed by the pseudo scientists.

In the pseudosciences, any new evidence contrary to it's accepted dogma is often considered a hostile act and leads to bitter disputes with the proponents even scoffing at these evidences.

Thus the behavior of the industrial chemists who developed CFCs can be categorized as pseudoscience.