Pseudoscience

Definition of Pseudoscience: Pseudoscience is the gray area where scientific respectability is questionable. Pseudoscientific ideas purport to offer something of scientific value. Some openly contradict established scientific theories. Others claim to present facts that they feel scientists ought to explain but choose to ignore. All proponents of a pseudoscientific idea see themselves as revolutionaries in combat with contemporary science. Someone else might label them as cranks.

Marks of Pseudoscience: The following list provides guidelines for recognizing pseudoscience. Any item on the list is a sufficient condition for being pseudoscientific. It is not to be expected that a single pseudoscientific idea will satisfy all the conditions, only some of them. Also, just because an idea does not meet any of the conditions does not guarantee that it is not pseudoscientific. Failure to exhibit any of the marks of pseudoscience is not sufficient to make someone a scientist. It is, however, a necessary condition for being a scientist.

• Anachronistic Thinking: Once a theory has been rejected, scientists do not go back and take it up again unless they see how to make it work where it did not work before. Something must have happened in the meantime to make the theory viable. Either new evidence has come to light, or the scientific framework has altered in such a way that the old ideas take on new meaning.
• Looking for Mysteries: When scientists conduct research, they work within an accepted theoretical framework. The framework poses the problems and provides the methodology for solving them. Every so often, researchers come up with anomalies: Things do not turn out the way their theory led them to expect. There are two things that need to be noted about anomalies in science. One is that scientists do not set out to look for anomalies. Anomalies hit them in the face. The second point is that scientists do not reject one theory in favor of another whose only advantage is the it explains an anomalous event.
• Appeal to Myths: Pseudoscientific ideas often start with myths and stories from ancient times. They take these ideas to be reports of actual occurrences and then come up with a hypothesis that explains the event. The myth is considered to be evidence for the hypothesis and the hypothesis is argued to be confirmed by the myth. This pattern of reasoning is notable absent from science. Ancient writings may on occasion provide clues for the scientist. But a scientist never takes the word of an ancient witness at face value unless it is consistent with contemporary evidence.
• Grab-Bag Approach to Evidence: Pseudoscientists have the attitude that the sheer quantity of evidence makes up for any deficiency in the quality of individual pieces of evidence. Pseudoscientists are very reluctant to weed out evidence. Even when a particular study has been shown to be questionable it is not eliminated.
• Irrefutable Hypothesis: Any hypothesis that purports to be scientific must be refutable. This does not mean that it is or ever will be actually refuted, but only that it must be possible to refute. This means that there must be some circumstances or evidence that, if obtained, would count against the hypothesis. Given any hypothesis, it is always legitimate to ask, "what would constitute evidence against it?" If nothing would, then the hypothesis has no claim to be scientific.
• Argument by Similarity: A common strategy for making pseudoscience seem respectable is to argue that the principles upon which it is based are already part of legitimate science. Scientists also often argue that a new proposal is compatible with current scientific knowledge. And they also use arguments from similarity. But they do not argue that the proposal is consistent with current science because it is analogous to something else already accepted. Just because you can find a similarity between your claim and one that scientist accept, it does not follow that your claim is consistent with what scientists believe.
• Explanation by Scenario: Scenarios are stories or plots that "explain" events. Scenarios have legitimate explanatory uses so long as they are supported by laws. When pseudoscientists claim to offer theories that challenge current beliefs, often what they give are not theories at all but scenarios. The pseudoscientist does not care whether his scenario is consistent with accepted scientific laws. After all, he is challenging existing science.
• Research by Interpretation: Pseudoscientists often reveal themselves by their handling of the scientific literature. Their idea of doing scientific research is simply to read scientific periodicals. They focus on the words, not on the underlying facts and reasoning. They take science to be all statements by scientists, every statement counts and every statement is open to interpretation. For the pseudoscientist actual evidence does not matter, what is important is what is said. For the practicing scientist, written reports merely serve to communicate the results of research—data collected, and theories proposed.
• Refusal to Revise in Light of Criticism: Pseudoscientist often pride themselves on never having been shown to be wrong. Immunity to criticism is no measure of success in science. There are a number of ways of assuring that you will never have to take back or revise anything you say. One way is to make sure your statements say nothing. For example, "Things that do not happen by normal means are due to the paranormal". Another way of avoiding criticism is to make sure your statements are so vague that criticism cannot get a foothold. For example, "Venus is hot". A third way of avoiding criticism is to refuse to acknowledge it. Pseudoscientist often reply to criticism, but they never revise in light of it. They see scientific debate not as a mechanism for scientific progress but as a rhetorical contest. In contrast true science is a self-corrective enterprise. In order to correct one’s mistakes, one must first know what they are, and the best way to discover them is communicate effectively and then listen to criticism and take it to heart.

  Return To Physics Home Page