Pseudoscience
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A pseudoscience is any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by
science but which fails to comply with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is a kind
of counterfeit or masquerade of science which makes use of some of the superficial
trappings of science but does not involve the substance of science.
Advocacy of pseudoscience may occur for a number of reasons, ranging from simple
naiveté about the nature of science and the scientific method, to deliberate deception
for financial or political benefit.
Some people consider some or all forms of pseudoscience to be harmless
entertainment. Others, such as Richard Dawkins, consider all forms of pseudoscience
to be harmful, whether or not they result in immediate harm to their followers.
Contents [hide]
1 Classifying pseudoscience
2 Pseudoscience contrasted with protoscience
3 The problem of demarcation
4 Examples of pseudoscience
5 Pseudomathematics
6 See also
6.1 Related topics
6.2 Other
6.3 Lists
7 External links
[edit]
Classifying pseudoscience
Pseudoscience fails to meet the criteria met by science generally (including the
scientific method), and can be identified by a combination of these characteristics:









by asserting claims or theories without first verifying them in experiments
by asserting claims which cannot be verified
by asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence;
by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
by failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results;
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 asserting claims that violate falsifiability; or
by violating Occam's Razor (the controversial principle of choosing the
explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions when multiple

viable explanations are possible); the more egregious the violation, the more
likely.
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 the physical world by "scientific" means. Systems of
thought that rely upon "divine" or "inspired" knowledge are not considered
pseudoscience if they do not claim 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 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.
[edit]
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 wanting 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 (e.g., peer review, publication
in standard journals). In some cases, no one applying scientific methods could
disprove a pseudoscientific hypothesis (i.e. untestable claims) and failure to do so 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. Many
people have tried to offer objective criteria for the term, with mixed success. Often the
term 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 "scientific" positions, because of differing political goals. This
enlistment of science in the service of politics is sometimes called "junk science".
Other examples of new scientific disciplines that some consider protoscience include:


Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI)
Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI)
However, these fields are not considered protoscientific by most scientists; they are
genererally considered real science, albeit subjects that may offer only a low
probability of revealing significant results.
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. and 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 is
pseudoscience.
[edit]
The problem of demarcation
Main article: Demarcation problem
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. Newton-Smith has criticized both approaches,
arguing that only a rough heuristic is needed to be able to do real science.
Many supporters of both science and pseudoscience have called into question whether
there is a rigorous way to tell the difference, especially since, historically, many
disciplines currently thought of as "science" exhibit trends which are often cited as
those of pseudoscience, such as lack of reproducibility (due to the necessity of large,
expensive, and specially created instruments), or the inability to create falsifying
experiments. Because of the heterogeneous nature of the scientific enterprise itself, it
is increasingly difficult to create a set of criteria which can apply to all disciplines at
all times.
[edit]
Examples of pseudoscience
Main article: List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories
Examples of fields of endeavor that many consider – to varying extents –
pseudoscientific include:









Cold fusion
Götaland theory
Pseudoarchaeology
Gene Ray's Time Cube
Astrology
Homeopathy
Creationism and Intelligent design
The Megalithic yard
New Chronology
Pseudoscientific science and medical practices are often quite popular. Medical
pseudosciences even sometimes show notable therapeutic benefits, possibly due to the
placebo effect or observer bias.
Many pseudosciences are associated with the New Age movement and there is a
tendency to improperly associate all practices of the "New Age" 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 selfproclaimed 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.
[edit]
Pseudomathematics
Pseudomathematics is a form of mathematics-like activity undertaken by many nonmathematicians - and occasionally by mathematicians themselves. The efforts of
pseudomathematicians divide into three categories:



attempting apparently simple classical problems long proved impossible by
mainstream mathematics; trying metaphorically or (quite often) literally to
square the circle
generating whole new theories of mathematics or logic from scratch
attempting hard problems in mathematics (the Goldbach conjecture comes to
mind) using only high-school mathematical knowledge
[edit]
See also

Critical thinking
[edit]
Related topics









Protoscience
Pathological science
Cargo cult science
Bad science
Junk science
Quackery
mind myths
Pseudohistory
Pseudophilosophy
[edit]
Other







Astrology
Extrasensory perception
New Age
Magical thinking
Sokal Affair
Telepathy
Ufology
[edit]
Lists

List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories
[edit]
External links











Bad Astronomy (http://www.badastronomy.com) - discussion of cases in
which incorrect astronomy and physics have been promoted by the media,
such as the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations.
Crank.net: Science (http://www.crank.net/science.html)
The Demarcation Problem: What theories should be ranked as
'scientific'? (http://www.ku.edu/~acudd/phil140-s23)
James Randi Educational Foundation (http://www.randi.org/) - 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 (http://www.skepdic.com/) - collection of essays
critical of claims that are considered pseudoscientific. See also Skeptic's
Dictionary.
Umbrellaology (http://physics.weber.edu/johnston/astro/umbrellaology.htm) 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 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/)
Quackwatch (http://www.quackwatch.org) - A guide to pseudoscience of a
medical nature
Skeptic.com (http://www.skeptic.com) - The Skeptics Society and Skeptic
Magazine
Parapsychology: Science or PseudoScience? (http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/17.2_mousseau
.pdf)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience"
Categories: Pseudoscience