What is Pseudoscience?
Leah Murphy
Psych 4850
Prof. Louise Barrett
As this semester progresses, the more I realize how messy ‘science’ is and
that there is no easy solution to the issues we face in our pursuit for answers. With
science being a discipline based on trust (in researchers, peer reviewers, publishers
etc.), how do we distinguish real, bona fide science from pseudoscience? The trouble
with determining pseudoscience from science is the superficial resemblance of each
other, making it sometimes difficult to separate real information from fake. One of
my favorite examples of this is astrology, which is the practice of studying planets
and star patterns with the belief that they have a powerful influence on our
behaviors and future. Though astrology uses outwardly ‘scientific’ terms and
derives from aspects in the study of astronomy, it is not actually based on any real
scientific evidence or knowledge and instead is based on ancient beliefs.
Like astrology, many forms of pseudoscience have existed since the
emergence of science itself. Pseudoscience comes in many ways, shapes and forms.
From bogus claims such as Count Arthur Gobineau and his theory on The Inequality
of Races (1854), to outright manipulating or faking data such as the Piltdown Man
fiasco (Marks, 2009). Science has always been based on a ‘gentleman’s code of
honor’, a system of trust in the methods, data etc. used in the process of acquiring
answers. Mark’s makes an important point in how when the shift of science from a
hobby into a profession began, this ‘gentleman’s honor code’ somewhat weakened
with this shift. Stresses in publication deadlines, grant money and maintaining a
reputation in the field, pressured researchers in ways that compromised the trust
system. Pseudoscience resembles real science in many ways, making it that much
more problematic in knowing when a red flag comes up, and when to investigate.
There is no policing in science, only peer reviewers who double-check findings if
they ‘seem’ valid. Mark’s asks if a person is caught as a falsifier, does this mean all of
their other work is at risk for this as well? While I would personally like to believe
everyone is honest in his or her work, once you have been labeled as a cheat, it
would be hard to regain your reputation back as an authentic scientist.
To offer a thorough outlook of what is pseudoscience, I will shift from the
brief history and factors that make up a pseudoscience, into why people are prone
to believing pseudoscience. Boudry, Blancke and Pigliucci (2014) attempt to create
and understanding on why Pseudoscience still thrives today in their article, What
makes weird beliefs thrive? The epidemiology of Pseudoscience. They make a genuine
comparison between the struggles in the demands of bona fide science, and how
Pseudoscience manages to slip through these principles in our pursuit for a ‘perfect’
science;
Science, on the one hand, by bowing to the demands of evidence, tends to
become hard to swallow for laypeople and even scientists themselves. Without its
undeniable technological success, its close interconnectedness, and the institutional
support it receives (partly in virtue of those technological rewards), no beliefs as
unpalatable as those of modern science would stand a chance in the struggle for
influence over human minds. Given the way the human mind works, science is a frail
creature indeed. The ultimate source of its remarkable cultural dominance is the
world out there, which tends to be pretty stable. (p. 1193)
This suggestion of ‘science being a frail creature indeed’ certainly resonates
with my thought processes throughout this term, and I have began questioning
everything I read about science ever since. In my last paper, I too discussed the
critical construction of science being a cultural practice. However, contrary to what
is suggested in the above passage, I believe the world is rather unstable which
continuously challenges and reinvents what we know as science. In comparison,
Boudry et al., (2014) suggests Pseudoscience’s gain their popularity by delving into
the comfortable intuitive representations of the world. Therefore their intuitive
appeal is a major source for their continued success in today’s world, despite their
shortcomings in evidence, “Pseudoscience has traded intellectual respectability for
intuitive allure”. (p. 1194)
The question still remains, how do we stop this from happening and is it
possible to imagine a world where all scientific information published and found can
be honest and truthful (to the best of our abilities)? Hoaxing, forging, trimming and
cooking up (Babbage, 1830) data is an easy way out to create a false perception that
what you’re trying to suggest to the world is more impressive than actual results
you’ve found. To some, this is an alluring risk that is better than facing subpar or
disappointing results. Boudry suggests that is also the case for people believing
these alluring claims. It is a tricky cycle to get out of until they get caught! A better
filter between the raw data being found, and what is presented to the public would
help with Pseudoscience slipping through the cracks of scientific methods. However,
despite efforts for nipping fraudulence at the source, people still love a grand story
that appeals to the intuitions. Take Jenny McCarthy’s infamous claims on
vaccinations causing autism; despite the countless scientific evidence claiming this
to not be true, people still believe it! This is troubling and there is no easy solution
to how we can discontinue false information being spread. Hopefully in the future,
we will have a better way of filtering through inaccurate information, and have a
more honest work of knowledge of the world.
References
Boudry, M., Blancke, S., & Pigliucci, M. (2014). What makes weird beliefs thrive? The
epidemiology of pseudoscience. Philosophical Psychology, 28:8, 1177-1198.
Marks, J. (2009). Why I am not a scientist: Anthropology and modern knowledge.
University of California Press.