Science or Pseudoscience?

Post Reply New Topic

Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to any valid scientific method; lacks supporting evidence or plausibility; cannot be reliably tested; or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or improvable claims; an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.[2] Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing.[3] Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science.[4] "Pop Science" may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction.[4] Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among public school science teachers and newspaper reporters.[5]

The demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience has ethical political implications, as well as philosophical and scientific issues.[6] Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.[7] Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, medical quackery, and occult beliefs combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.[8]

The term pseudoscience is often considered inherently pejorative, because it suggests something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science.[9] Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience normally dispute the characterization.[9]

Definitions

"Pseudo" (adj):

1. Not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham.

2. Almost, approaching, or trying to be.

"Science" (noun):

1. A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3. Any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4. Systematized knowledge in general.

5. Knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

References

[1] Definitions:

*"A pretended or spurious science; a collection of related beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status that scientific truths now have," Oxford English Dictionary, second edition 1989.

*"Many writers on pseudoscience have emphasized that pseudoscience is non-science posing as science. The foremost modern classic on the subject (Gardner 1957) bears the title Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. According to Brian Baigrie (1988, 438), '[w]hat is objectionable about these beliefs is that they masquerade as genuinely scientific ones.' These and many other authors assume that to be pseudoscientific, an activity or a teaching has to satisfy the following two criteria (Hansson 1996): (1) it is not scientific, and (2) its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific." -- Hansson 2008

*'"... claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility"(p. 33). In contrast, science is "a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed and inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation"(p. 17)' Shermer 1997, (this was the definition adopted by the National Science Foundation).

[2] Cover JA, Curd M (Eds, 1998) "Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues", 1-82.

[3] Stephen Jay Gould, "Nonoverlapping Magisteria", Natural History, March, 1997.

[4] George Pendle, Popular Science Feature - "When Science Fiction is Science Fact".

[5] Art Hobson (2011). "Teaching Relevant Science for Scientific Literacy". Journal of College Science Teaching.

[6] Imre Lakatos, "Science and Pseudoscience" (transcript), Dept of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method, 1973.

[7] Hansson, Sven Ove (September 3, 2008). "Science and Pseudo-Science". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Retrieved April 16, 2011. "From a practical point of view, the distinction is important for decision guidance in both private and public life. Since science is our most reliable source of knowledge in a wide variety of areas, we need to distinguish scientific knowledge from its look-alikes. Due to the high status of science in present-day society, attempts to exaggerate the scientific status of various claims, teachings, and products are common enough to make the demarcation issue pressing in many areas."

[8] Hurd PD (June 1998). "Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world". Science Education 82 (3): 407–416. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199806)82:3<407::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-G.

[9] Hansson, Sven Ove (2008). "Science and Pseudoscience". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

It looks good to me.

That pretty much covered all of the bases, Fnord.

Thanks!

Now, if I could just get a few of the more blatant pseudo-scientists to read this thread, maybe they will recognize themselves and start really looking into some of the stuff they post here.

Real science is based on assumptions that lead to potentially falsifiable conclusions.

Any theory that can accomodate a false conclusion (i.e. provide a means for accepting it) is a psuedo science. Thus the theory that sacrificing virgins will guarantee good crops meets up with a year that the sacrifices didn't work. Explanation. The girls sacrificed weren't virgins or that the theory works every time except for the times it does not work.

ruveyn

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0W7Jbc_Vhw[/youtube]

But there's been tons of hard evidence on UFO abductions, ghosts, and telekinesis right?!

One thing that is particularly bothersome is when the pseudoscience cloaks itself in concepts borrowed from real science in an attempt to give it an air of legitimacy.

[img][732:800]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Uo7D8b5VgnM/UU756FnR60I/AAAAAAAAEcs/1FnzP6D1VxE/s1600/VDOIN0.D.png[/img]

^ Copied & Saved for posterity. Thanks!

umm.. acupuncture has a lot of scientific evidence pointing it really works.

Just not exactly how the practitioners think it does (energies/chi/etc ...all that pre-science babble) but it does trigger a response in the body that helps speed up the natural healing abilities and it does help alleviate symptoms.

Incredibly vague/fuzzy language, and its the kind of thing that'll just annoy both sides off even more.

If you're going to try to distinguish science from pseudoscience in any meaningful way you'll need to say something concretely about experiment design and procedure. You need to highlight metrics on peer review and replicability of the experiments. If there's any contention over additional proposed variables that either side of the argument - let that be worked out by the scientific method. To name it pseudoscience based character on findings rather than experimental integrity and data population is problematic to both those accused of it and also to anyone doing new research in any direction (it would also be a great tool for unscrupulous competitors to wield against one another in brinksmanship).

The additional problem with defining science and pseudoscience by precedent; that wouldn't be science, it would be law. If we forced science into a common law rubric and judged on legal precedent Newton would have disqualified findings of Einstein, Plank, and Bohr by coming ahead of them. Similarly you have peer review in science, not appellate and supreme courts. Anything that will now allow for paradigm changes to organically occur within the field over time is arbitrary and counterproductive.

To clarify that last part I'm not making any claim against hierarchical committees assisting in the organization of the scientific norm, just that prior norms should not be somehow legally binding.

1. An hypothesis is formed.

"I may have Quatschkopf's Syndrome."

2. If the hypothesis can not be tested, then it can not be validated (verified) or invalidated (falsified), therefor it is only a speculation, and not a fact. Yet, some people persist in believing their speculations are both true and valid.

"Hey, everyone! Guess what? I have Quatschkopf's Syndrome! Isn't that wonderful?!"

3. If an hypothesis can be tested, and it is found valid, then it must be submitted for peer review to verify that (1) the experiment was performed correctly, and (2) the results were obtained without deliberate fraud or or any inadvertent "fudging" of the data due to selective bias (e.g., "Cherry-Picking").

"Yes, after performing a thorough examination, my colleagues and I concur that you do have Quatschkopf's Syndrome. Persons exhibiting this disorder present the following behavioral traits..."

4. If an hypothesis can be tested, and it is found invalid, then the hypothesis must be re-defined or discarded entirely...

"I don't have Quatschkopf's Syndrome. I may have Fantasieren's Syndrome."

... and the process begins all over again.

This is the generally-accepted form of the a Scientific Method; one in which an idea proceeds from pure speculation to accepted fact, but only by validation through objective peer review that usually involves running and re-running the same evaluative procedures (e.g., "experiments") numerous times.

If the above four steps aren't turning out to be satisfactory for separating science from pseudoscience these days then the above is still missing something in the way of clarity.

Then again if it's simply a problem that forum heads are having which practicing scientists in the community aren't, perhaps we're better off letting the professionals do what they do best.

The key step is "Testability/Falsifiability" - if an idea or claim can not be tested (or measured), then the idea or claim can not even be said to be an hypothesis; much less a valid claim.

Unfortunately, too many people stop short of actually testing their claims - either from lack of available technology (or funding), or from fear of being found out for having made an invalid assumption. Yet still they persist in claiming that their speculations are true, and waste a lot of time and effort in seemingly endless and convoluted rhetoric in a vain effort to "prove" their claims.

Thus the proliferation of "Ancient Astronaut" stories and similar flotsam.