Minna Pöntinen 00e / Kuopion lyseon lukio / D-0786015
TOK essay
7. Is it a simple matter to distinguish a scientific argument from a
pseudo-scientific argument?
Science, which can be defined for example as the systematic study of nature and of individual and
social human behaviour has a characteristic of reasoning about what it observes1. This definition
holds partially true also for pseudosciences like anthroposophy or parapsychology, and the
practices of pseudosciences, such as water divining or aura photography. What are then the
differences between scientific and pseudo-scientific arguments, how can they be separated from
each other and ultimately, what difficulties may a person trying to separate the two face?
The scientific method is often said to have five archetypal characteristics2, and it can be said that
these characteristics hold true for scientific arguments or theories and untrue for pseudoscientific
arguments and theories. The first characteristic is using proper, accepted methods for collecting
data which is interpreted later. The second is publicity: the scientific methods and results etc. are
open for the inspection of everybody. The third is criticism and the admittance of errors, and the
fourth renewance: scientific theories or even laws of nature can change within time if, for
example, proper observations against them are made. The fifth characteristic is repeatability:
provided with the correct apparatus and method, a scientist anywhere should be able to carry out
the experiments and obtain the same results.
It can be clearly seen how pseudosciences fail to fill these criteria. For example, pseudosciences
are often not public, but often just vice versa - many pseudoscientific methods can only be
researched after ie. joining a cult. And old example of this is the brotherhood of Pythagoras3: even
though Pythagoras was a distinguished mathematician, he and his brotherhood for example gave
specific, secret meanings to different numbers and shapes that were available only to the
members of the brotherhood. Pseudosciences can and do also admit some errors or change, but
lean often oddly on the statement “knowledge is true and accurate if it has been unchanged for a
x period of time”, like in the case of zone therapy.4
What are some easily recognizable characteristics of a pseudoscientific argument, then? First it
should be checked if the author of the argument can link his reasoning with any known and
generally accepted theories, facts or references. If not, it is a good starting point to checking
whether she or he has formed his or her theories out of thin air. Secondly it should be verified if
the author of the theory or argument has used any concepts that are defined for example in
physics, chemistry or psychology, and if the concepts have been used in a correct way and in the
right connections. Thirdly, it should be checked whether the author has made any harsh, hasty
generalizations.
Fourthly, if the author of the theory or argument has used data to back up his or her claims, it
should be checked if he or she has used public, generally accepted methods to acquire data and if
he or she has taken the error marginals into account when interpreting his data. Pseudoscientific
theories and arguments can also be seen boasting on “100-percent accurate” results, which is an
unattainable percent of accuracy in the field of proper sciences. It should also be checked if the
author’s claims can be falsified by experiment that gives opposite results.
In the separation of scientific arguments from the pseudoscientific ones a clear separation should
be made on what you want to be true and what is true.5 Pseudo-scientific arguments and theories
often take advantage of peoples’ craving for some kind of a romanticism. Of course it would be
nice if you could cure a sore back and a poor heart by a vanilla-tasting extract containing evening
primrose6, a very pretty flower, but does it really work? This side of pseudosciences is also
associated with the placebo effect. Unfortunately, in pseudoscientific experiments, it is usually
never taken into account. In the field of “correct” medicine the placebo effect can be (and very
often is) taken into account for example by performing blind- or double blind experiments. They
help to differentiate between the placebo response and the physiological results produced by the
drug itself.
The preachings of my taiji (an old chinese sport which combines excercise, meditation and martial
arts) instructor are a good example on three of these points. He claims that when you hold your
hands in front of you for a while and your fingertips start tingling it is because of the mysterious
“energy” in your body has started to flow more freely. This argument features two of the
characteristics of a pseudoscientific argument: a) the concepts that belong to physics are used in
the wrong way (“force is running through your veins when you concentrate”), b) this and other
wisdoms of taiji rely on the fact that they have been an accepted truth for the chinese for
centuries and therefore must be correct and c) since the so-called “energy” is invisible and
inmeasurable its existence can never be proven nor falsified by experiment, and therefore it’s
“true”.
What difficulties can there be when separating a pseudo-scientific argument from a scientific one
while so many clear characteristics can be assigned to both? Many. First, let’s consider the areas
where science and pseudo-science somehow overlap.
A common argument against pseudo-scientific arguments is the lack of critical, experimental
evidence. However, a new scientific theory - such as Louis de Broglie’s theory of the wave-particle
duality7 - may always not have experimental evidence to lean on in the first place, but are proven
to be true by evidence only later on. The second way in which science and pseudoscience may
overlap is the fact that science may not be always right nor pseudoscience always wrong.
Acupuncture is an example of a case where a branch of medicine that has labeled ‘pseudoscience’
is now an accepted form of treatment for example headache. However, acupuncture isn’t effective
because it “helps the mystical life energy Qi of the body flow free”8 but supposedly because it
relieves both physical and psychological tension by making the body produce endorphins. 9
Then, let’s consider the cases where the difficulty in separating valid and non-valid arguments lies
more in the fact that all observers may not have proper footing on which to judge the arguments.
The more obvious case of this is the terminology used in both scientific and pseudoscientific
connections.
Pseudosciences often take concepts from natural sciences in a very carefree manner - for
example, concepts belonging to physics like “energy” and “force” are very often misused in
pseudoscientific texts. Sometimes these uses may be separated somewhat easily, like when the
argument features concepts like “good energy” and “bad energy”10, but in a general case a person
with no training in physics whatsoever is not able to distinguish which of the following statements
is correct, “there are energy channels running throughout your body” or “when talking about
mechanics, energy is the ability to do work”. Also the vocabulary from social sciences may be
used in the wrong way. Sometimes the misuse of vocabulary may even concern such things as the
terms belonging to statistics, such as the words “average” and “mode”.
The general language used in pseudoscientific texts may also otherwise resemble a proper
scientific text very much, making it hard for even a critical reader to distinguish whether it is valid
or not. In addition to the difficult, technical language both pseudosciences and sciences may both
create awe in the reader by leaning on authorities - “even Mr/Mrs X, PhD says this is true”. This is
the case with for example the natural medicines of Mr. Tolonen, PhD11, which are advertised in
almost all of the womens’ magazines in Finland.
Separating a pseudoscientific argument from a scientific one may also be a psychological thing.
Some pseudosciences are often more easily approached than sciences, which are considered to be
distant and cold by many. An example of this is herbal medication, as mentioned before: a person
suffering from cancer may find the thought of eating “all-natural” medicine made of a shark’s
cartilage12 and sitting at home comfortably a more appealing option than going through the
treatment ordered by the doctor. In cases like this the psychological factors may overlap critical
thinking.
Also the application of “naivistic” thinking that is useful in real life may not be wise when dealing
with this kind of matters: things like the laws of cause and effect and statistical data can be easily
misinterpreted using the everyday inductive method.
To illustrate a few of the points I made before, I’ll tackle another example from my life. My
grandmother was suffering from severe back pains due to a serious illness. She had met a socalled “doctor” (a spokesperson for natural medicines) who advised her to take some ginger root
for her pain and cut off the other drugs. She stopped taking her prescribed drugs and started to
eat loads of ginger. This, of course, didn’t help very much, but still she felt as if her pain had been
eased a bit - I suppose that was the work of the placebo effect. However, fortunately my father
convinced her quite soon to return to her original medication. This incident is an example of how a
large portion of people is not provided with the correct means of distinguishing these sort of
things - even when in some cases the pseudoscientific alternative can be harmful to the health.
Distinguishing a scientific argument from a pseudo-scientific one is not necessarily an easy task.
However, things like critical thinking, general education and above all, the much-praised common
sense help in making the difference between the two.
Word count: 1599
Sources:
1: The New Webster’s International Encyclopedia, p. 971, Trident Press International, 1999
2: http://www.skepsis.fi/ihmeellinen/tiede.html
3: http://members.tripod.com/~AliPasha/pythago.htm
4: http://www.energybalancing.com/zonether.html
5: www.sci.monash.edu.au/subject/sci2010/resources/lectures/Lec5SCI2010.ppt
6: http://www.biovita.fi/suomi/tuotteet/helokkioljy.html
7: Giancoli, Doublas C.: Physics fifth edition, p. 836, Prentice Hall, 1998
8: http://acupuncture.com/Acup/Acupuncture.htm
9: http://www.discover.com/sept_issue/acupunc.html
10: http://www.skepsis.fi/lehti/sisallys/2002-2esse.html
11: http://www.biovita.fi/suomi/tolonen.html
12: http://www.skepsis.fi/lehti/sisallys/2002-2esse.html