Pseudoscience: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:00, 20 March 2006

Phrenology is regarded today as being a classic example of pseudoscience.

A pseudoscience is defined as "a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific" (Merriam–Webster, 1950). The term has negative connotations to the extent that it attributes a mistaken view to the holders of the system of concepts and practices in question. Consequently, its use is likely to be contentious, with claims of ideological bias being made by one or more parties to the contention.

Introduction

The criteria for a system of assumptions, methods, and theories to qualify as science vary in their details from application to application, but they typically include (1) the formulation of hypotheses that meet the logical criterion of contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability and the closely related empirical and practical criterion of testability, (2) a grounding in empirical evidence, and (3) the use of scientific method. The procedures of science typically include a number of heuristic guidelines, such as the principles of conceptual economy or parsimony that fall under the rubric of Occam's Razor. A conceptual system that fails to meet a significant number of these criteria is likely to be considered "nonscience", and if its exponents further claim the status of science for it, then they risk the charge of "erroneous regard" that would make that conceptual system a "pseudoscience".

A number of attempts have been made to apply philosophical rigor to the notion of pseudoscience, with mixed results. These include Karl Popper's criterion of falsifiability and the historiographical approach of Imre Lakatos in his Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Other historians and philosophers of science (including Paul Feyerabend) have argued, from a sociology of knowledge perspective, that a clear philosophical distinction between science and pseudoscience is neither possible nor desirable.

The term "pseudoscience" often has negative connotations, implying generally that things so labeled are false and deceptive (though a strict interpretation of the term would not necessarily have it mean either). As such, those who are labelled as practicing or advocating a "pseudoscience" almost always reject this classification, and often the distinction itself.

Some critics of pseudoscience consider some or all forms of pseudoscience to be harmless entertainment. Others, such as Richard Dawkins, Mario Bunge and Carl Sagan, consider almost all forms of pseudoscience to be harmful, whether or not they result in immediate harm to their followers. These critics generally consider that advocacy of pseudoscience may occur for a number of reasons, ranging from simple naïveté about the nature of science and the scientific method, to deliberate deception for financial or political benefit.

The concept of pseudoscience as an antagonist to bona fide science appears to have emerged in the mid-19th century. The first recorded use of the word 'pseudo-science' appears to have been in 1844 in the Northern Journal of Medicine I. 387 "That opposite kind of innovation which pronounces what has been recognised as a branch of science, to have been a pseudo-science, composed merely of so-called facts, connected together by misapprehensions under the disguise of principles".

Classifying pseudoscience

Pseudoscience fails to meet the norms, either procedural or societal, of scientific research, most importantly the use of scientific method, and it can be identified by a combination of these characteristics:

by asserting claims or theories unconnected to previous experimental results;
by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability);
by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
by habitually changing the nature of its claims to deflect criticism;
by failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results;
by failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")
by claiming a theory predicts something that it does not;
by claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict;
by violating Occam's Razor, the heuristic principle of choosing the explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible; or
by a lack of progress toward additional evidence of its claims.

Pseudoscience is distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it claims to offer insight into real phenomena through "scientific" means. Systems of thought that rely upon "divine" or "inspired" knowledge are not considered pseudoscience if they do not claim either to be scientific or to overturn well-established science. There are also bodies of practical knowledge that are not claimed to be scientific. These are also not pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience is also distinguishable from misleading statements in some popular science, where commonly held beliefs are thought to meet the criteria of science, but often don't. The issue is muddled, however, because it is believed that "pop" science blurs the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public.

The term "pseudoscience" is often used by adherents of fields considered pseudoscientific to criticize their mainstream equivalents. Hence, for instance, supporters of creationism often characterize evolution as a pseudoscience, as do supporters of Dianetics with respect to psychiatry. Such criticisms are, however, generally regarded as fringe viewpoints.

Pseudoscience contrasted with protoscience

Pseudoscience also differs from protoscience. Protoscience is a term sometimes used to describe a hypothesis that has not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method, but which is otherwise consistent with existing science or which, where inconsistent, offers reasonable account of the inconsistency.

Pseudoscience, in contrast, is characteristically lacking in adequate tests or the possibility of them, occasionally untestable in principle, and its supporters are frequently strident in insisting that existing scientific results are wrong. Pseudoscience is often unresponsive to ordinary scientific procedures (for example, peer review, publication in standard journals). In some cases, no one applying scientific methods could disprove a pseudoscientific hypothesis (that is, untestable claims have been made) and failure to test and disprove these claims is often cited as evidence of the truth of the pseudoscience.

The boundaries between pseudoscience, protoscience, and "real" science are often unclear to non-specialist observers. They can even be obscure to experts. Especially where there is a significant cultural or historical distance (as, for example, modern chemistry reflecting on alchemy), protosciences can be misinterpreted as pseudoscientific. Many people have tried to offer objective distinctions, with mixed success. Often the term pseudoscience is used simply as a pejorative to express the speaker's low opinion of a given field, regardless of any objective measures.

If the claims of a given pseudoscience can be experimentally tested it may be real science, however odd, astonishing, or intuitively unacceptable. If they cannot be tested, it is likely pseudoscience. If the claims made are inconsistent with existing experimental results or established theory, it is often presumed to be pseudoscience. Conversely, if the claims of any given "science" cannot be experimentally tested it may not be a real science, however obvious or intuitively acceptable.

In such circumstances it may be difficult to distinguish which of two opposing "sciences" are valid; for example, both the proponents and opponents of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming have recruited the help of scientists to endorse contradictory positions, because of differing political goals. This enlistment of science in the service of politics is sometimes called "junk science".

Other examples of modern scientific pursuits that some consider protoscience include both the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) and Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI) research projects. However, these fields are not considered protoscientific by most scientists; they are generally considered real science, albeit subjects that may offer only a low probability of revealing significant results. Conversely, proponents of Intelligent design consider their ideas to be protoscience, while the overwhelming majority of scientists consider them to be pseudoscience.

The difference between these subjects as science and pseudoscience may be seen by these examples: Scientists involved in SETI and CETI do not claim that they know for certain that intelligent extraterrestrials exist, although most consider the possibility likely (see Drake equation). They test their beliefs against available data.

Ultimately, whether something is pseudoscience or not has less to do with the ideas under study than the approach used to study or justify them. Acupuncture, for instance, while it involved a prescientific system, is not inherently pseudoscientific. This is because most of the claims can be tested scientifically so acupuncture can be viewed as a protoscience. Of course, a scientific investigation might fail to support the claims of acupuncture. In the presence of a number of tests that successfully falsify a particular claim, insisting that the claim is still scientifically supported becomes pseudoscience.

Problems of demarcation

After more than a century of active dialogue, the question of what marks the boundary of science remains fundamentally unsettled. As a consequence the issue of what constitutes pseudoscience continues to be controversial. Nonetheless, reasonable consensus exists on certain sub-issues. Criteria for demarcation have traditionally been coupled to one philosophy of science or another. Logical positivism, for example, espoused a theory of meaning which held that only statements about empirical observations are meaningful, effectively asserting that statements which are not derived in this manner (including all metaphysical statements) are meaningless. Later, Karl Popper attacked logical positivism and introduced his own criterion for demarcation, falsifiability. This in turn was criticised by Thomas Kuhn, who illustrated with historical examples that falsification did not play a largely causative role in changes between scientific theories, and also by Popper supporter Imre Lakatos, who proposed his own criteria that distinguished between progressive and degenerative research programs.

Many supporters of both science and pseudoscience have called into question whether there is a rigorous way to tell the difference, especially since many disciplines currently thought of as science exhibited at one point in their development features which are often cited as those of pseudoscience, such as lack of reproducibility (for example, due to the necessity of large, expensive, and specially created instruments), or the inability to create falsifying experiments. Thus, many accepted scientific theories of our time — including the theory of evolution (Thagard, 131 ff), plate tectonics (Thagard, 157 ff), the Big Bang (a term originally chosen by Fred Hoyle to poke fun at the idea), and quantum mechanics — were criticized by some as being pseudo-scientific when they were first proposed. In retrospect, there are many examples in the history of science in which the creation of a new theory or a new field challenged the very definitions of what types of knowledge could be discussed or who could discuss them, and that in many cases the arguments over the truth of a theory have also involved the arguing that the theory's way of looking at the world fit into what was considered "science" at the time. Most philosophers have since given up the attempt to try and create a set of criteria which can apply to all scientific disciplines at all times, given the heterogeneous nature of scientific research.

Fields often described as pseudoscience

Main article: List of alternative, speculative, and disputed theories

The following is a list of theories and fields of endeavor which their critics fault as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another.

Acupuncture (the traditional theory behind it) ^{[citation needed]}
Alchemy (pre- or proto-scientific rather than pseudoscientific)
Applied kinesiology
Astrology
Biblical scientific foresight
Chakra theory
Characterology
Chiropractic's vertebral subluxation
Clairvoyance
Context speaking budgies
Creation science and its offshoots and many of the "theories" invoked in its defense:
- Baraminology
- Creation biology
- Creationist cosmologies
- Flood geology
- Intelligent design
- Specified complexity
Cryptozoology
Cybernetics, (Gerovitch, 2002)
Dianetics (The pseudoscience of Scientology.)
Duesberg hypothesis (Claims that HIV is a "harmless agent" unrelated to AIDS)
Essentialism
Eugenics
Feng Shui
Folk psychiatry
Graphology
Götaland theory
Homeopathy
Hypnosis (to help retrieve "repressed memories")
Lunaception
Megalithic yard and other pseudoscientific metrology
Melanin Theory
Modern geocentrism (see also Flat Earth Society)
Natural Hygiene
Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP)
New Chronology
Novelty Theory (aka "Timewave Zero")
Orgonomy
Palmistry
Parapsychology
Schemes for Perpetual motion
Personology
Phrenology
Physiognomy
Precognition
Pseudoarchaeology
Psychoanalytic theory (See closed circle)
Pyramidology
Quantum mysticism
Scientology
Spiritualism
Technological Singularity
Time Cube (also see Gene Ray)
Explanations of Telekinesis
Explanations of Telepathy
Vedic science

Pseudosciences and medical practices are often quite popular. Medical pseudosciences even sometimes produce perceptions of therapeutic benefit, possibly due to the placebo effect or observer bias. These are usually subjective perceptions, with any objectively measurable physiological effects being of a limited and temporary nature.

Many pseudosciences are associated with the New Age movement, but there is a tendency to improperly associate all "New Age" practices with pseudoscience.

Certain "watchdog" groups, such as CSICOP, have released statements expressing concern about the apparent growing popularity of pseudoscience, especially when it applies to scientific fields that are intended to save people's lives. A number of self-proclaimed alternative medicine treatments have been designated pseudoscience by critics, largely because some of these methods inspire false hope in terminally ill patients, and end up costing large amounts of money without actually providing any real benefit, treatment, or cure for various ailments.

Pseudomathematics

Pseudomathematics is a form of mathematics-like activity undertaken by either non-mathematicians or mathematicians themselves which do not conform to the rigorous standards usually applied to mathematical theories.

Criticisms of the concept of pseudoscience

Since it implies rejection by the mainstream scientific community, the term "pseudoscience" removes the perceived legitimacy afforded by the category "science". Since, historically, it has been applied to competing theories and interpretations of empirical evidence within the mainstream--sometimes with emotional overtones--critics caution against its over-use.

Another criticism is that it is impossible to define the term pseudoscience with the degree of rigor commonly demanded of scientific definitions. Although various definitions have been proposed, controversy remains over what the term really means.

When seen from the perspective of scientific paradigms, the term pseudoscience can be seen as one of many tools used by the establishment to describe a perceived threat. Thomas Kuhn has postulated that proponents of competing paradigms may resort to political means (such as invective) to garner the support of a public which lacks the ability to judge competing scientific theories on their merits.

References

Aczel, Amir D. (2005), Descartes’ Secret Notebook, Broadway Books, New York, NY.

Putnam, Hilary (1990), "A Reconsideration of Deweyan Democracy", Southern California Law Review 63 (1990), 1671–1697. Reprinted with modifications in (Putnam 1992).

Putnam, Hilary (1992), Renewing Philosophy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Runes, Dagobert D. (ed., 1972), Dictionary of Philosophy, Littlefield, Adams, and Company, Totowa, NJ.

Thagard, Paul (1992), Conceptual Revolutions, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, W.A. Neilson, T.A. Knott, P.W. Carhart (eds.), G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield, MA, 1950.

External links

What is pseudoscience?

Bad Astronomy - discussion of cases in which incorrect astronomy and physics have been promoted by the media, such as the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations.

Philip Plait on debating pseudoscientists

Crank.net: Science

The Demarcation Problem: What theories should be ranked as 'scientific'?

Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience

James Randi Educational Foundation - organization that investigates and attempts to verify claims that seem to contradict established science. Using controlled experimental conditions, the JREF has yet to find evidence of anything not explainable by established science.

The Skeptic's Dictionary - collection of essays critical of claims that are considered pseudoscientific. See also Skeptic's Dictionary.

Skeptic's dictionary article on pseudoscience

Science, PseudoScience and Society Softpanorama anti-pseudoscience page

Umbrellaology - this article amusingly illustrates some of the difficulties of deciding whether a subject is scientific or pseudoscientific.

http://www.thislife.org/ra/265.ram - "Fake Science," from episode 265 of This American Life (5/21)

Guardian (UK) newspaper's Bad Science column

Quackwatch - A guide to pseudoscience of a medical nature

Skeptic.com - The Skeptics Society and Skeptic Magazine

Ancop.com.br - Associação Nacional de Combate às Pseudociências [Brazil]

Parapsychology: Science or Pseudo-Science?

"From Science-fiction to Fiction-science" S. I. Hayakawa's famous critique of Dianetics. (PDF)

"The 10 Commandments of Helping Students Distinguish Science from Pseudoscience in Psychology" American Psychological Society

What is pseudoscience?

How to rate a work of pseudoscience

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[Image:Phrenologychart.png|thumb|right|250px|[[Phrenology]] is regarded today as being a classic example of pseudoscience.]]
-A '''pseudoscience''' is defined as "a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific" (Merriam–Webster, 1950).  The term has negative connotations in so far as it attributes an "erroneous regard" to the holders of the system of concepts and practices in question.  Consequently, its use is likely to be contentious, with claims of ideological bias being made by one or more parties to the contention.
+A '''pseudoscience''' is defined as "a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific" (Merriam–Webster, 1950).  The term has negative connotations to the extent that it attributes a mistaken view to the holders of the system of concepts and practices in question.  Consequently, its use is likely to be contentious, with claims of ideological bias being made by one or more parties to the contention.
 ==Introduction==