Pseudoscience
Tmtoulouse (Talk | contribs) (→Stasis, and hostility towards development or change of the idea) |
Tmtoulouse (Talk | contribs) (→Refusal to use the scientific method, or the claim that it can not be used) |
||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
===Refusal to use the scientific method, or the claim that it can not be used=== | ===Refusal to use the scientific method, or the claim that it can not be used=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Rarely does pseudoscience promoters discuss experimental evidence when out pushing falsehoods. But in debates that inevitably emerge, sometimes they must face the question of why don't they submit to the basic practice of science. This is commonly seen in medical [[woo]] where the gold standard of double blind study would clearly show the ideas to be false. Most promoters will refuse to do the studies, and often claim that their ideas are somehow impossible to test through standard means. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This [[special pleading]] is often hidden in a positive light. For example, promoters of "alternative medicine" will claim that the "whole body" approach to healing requires full disclosure between the doctor and patient. Homeopaths claim that true remedies must be tailor made and can not thus be tested based on any kind of standard. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Other techniques are to claim that attempts to apply skepticism or testing to the idea destroys it. This is common in various [[psychic]] woo where skeptics disrupt the delicate telepathic waves. Many pseudoscience concepts based around supernatural cause will claim that the causes of phenomenon have agency and will not willingly be tested in such a manner. | ||
===Misuse of scientific terms=== | ===Misuse of scientific terms=== | ||
Revision as of 01:09, 28 June 2009
| Style over substance
Pseudoscience |
| Popular pseudosciences |
| Random examples |
Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Promoters of pseudoscience often adapt the vocabulary of science, describing conjectures as theories or laws, often providing evidence from observation, expert testimonials, or even developing what appear to be mathematical models of their ideas. However, in pseudoscience there is no real attempt to follow the scientific method, provide falsifiable predictions, develop double blind experiments, or publish in peer review literature. Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but it lacks any of the substance of science.
History
With the rise of the enlightenment movement and the amazing success of the physical sciences in describing the natural world, a new found respect for science was developing in the western world. Charlatans everywhere attempted to capitalize on this phenomenon by hawking a range of "scientifically proven" remedies, potions, treatments, and devices to cure the woes of man and bring peace and well being to all. The term "pseudoscience" developed in response to these con men, one of the first recorded uses of the word "pseudo-science" was in 1844 in the Northern Journal of Medicine, I 387: "That opposite kind of innovation which pronounces what has been recognized 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".
In the beginning of the 20th century science had exponentially increased the boundaries of human understanding. With the development of quantum physics and relativity science was presenting reality as a strange place divorcing the ability for humans to really ever truly understand the mess of particles and high velocity speeds that make up everything we think we know. These ideas persisted and proved themselves because of their ability to make amazing predictions that could be verified experimentally. Against this backdrop one of the most famous modern philosophers of science, Karl Popper, tried to understand what separated out the true science of people like Albert Einstein, from the intuitively less rigorous concepts such as psychoanalysis. Popper decided that the key was falsifiability. True science made specific predictions that could be proven false by examining empirical reality. Pseudosciences rarely cared about making predictions, and if they did they were unfalsifiable or impossible to test.
After Popper, philosophy entered the stage of social constructionism, with philosophers arguing that science was an illusion. Some, such Paul Feyerabend argued that it was impossible to separate science and pseudoscience, and in the end such a separation is undesirable anyway.[1]
However, the reality of pseudoscience and knowledge of the harm it causes was always and still is a unifying idea behind skepticism and most practicing scientist. With the emergence of New Atheism and its emphasis on critical thinking, an insurgence of effort to combat modern (and sometimes very non-modern) pseudoscience has developed. People like James Randi and his million dollar challenge, Carl Sagan, and Richard Dawkins have all actively and publicly fought against woo, quacks, cranks, creationism, and the thousands of other manifestations of pseudoscience.
Characteristics of pseudoscience
Vague and/or exaggerated claims and ambiguous language
One of the easiest ways to avoid being proven false is to not make any specific claims at all. Predictions in science are all about specificity and exactness. Operational definitions have to be clearly defined and shared, what you are measuring, how you will measure it and how you will determine if their is anything significant there are all hallmarks of good science. In pseudoscience claims are never specific, they rely on vague and ambiguous language, but often encompass grandiose claims.
In quack medicine a pseudoscience promoter might claim that a given treatment "removes toxins from your system," never saying what toxins, or how they will be removed, or how you can tell if they will be removed. The toxins are the true cause of disease, never saying how they cause disease, and that removing them will cure you of all known afflictions.
In other areas of science, it is popular to claim that one as discovered a "unifying theory" that explains all of reality through special "energy" and "forces." Or that your perpetual motion machine works from hitherto undiscovered principles of magnetism.
Lack of peer review, and claims of vast establishment conspiracies
One of the single most important aspects of true science is replication and verification, particularly from third parties not involved in original experiments. This is the heart of peer review, where new ideas are laid out to fellow scientist with all the details of how to replicate and extend the research. While the social dynamics of peer review are not fool proof, and many interesting issues can emerge, there is still nothing better for advancing human knowledge. It is, of course, not surprising that people who promote pseudoscience want to avoid peer review like a plague.
If an idea has not been published in a single peer review journal, it is safe to say it is not science. Most people have at least a passing knowledge of the peer review system and so pseudoscience promoters often have to offer hand wavy explanations for why their ideas have not been published. The most common tactic is to claim that their is a vast conspiracy to suppress the research. In medicine it is common to blame big pharma for wanting to hide the fact that some natural product cures all known illnesses, because it will hurt their profits. In Biology creationist often claim that evolution is propped up by a vast atheist and materialist conspiracy.
Another tactic is for pseudoscience promoters to create pseudo-peer review. They will start their own journals that are "reviewed" by fellow promoters. These journals are often easily identified by their poor standards for inclusion, and their lack of inclusion in scholarly indexes (such as scholar google). One of the most obvious characteristics of pseudo-peer review is a total lack of interest in replicating or verifying each others work. Which brings us to the next point.
No attempts or interest in replication or outside verification
While closely related to a refusal to submit to peer review, the total lack of interest in any form of replication or outside verification is an important issue in and of itself. Pseudoscience is presented as a completed package, a done deal. The ideas have unified physics, cured the sick, reduced all of mathematics to an algebraic proof, and created limitless energy. There is no need to go any further, just embrace the idea and enter utopia.
Often the pseudoscience promoter will use the techniques of vague language to make outside verification impossible, or will offer the secrets to only those people who are deemed worthy, or who pay large sums of money. If by chance, someone attempts to replicate or verify the idea and fails they must be either stupid or a paid shill for the evil conspiracy out to hide the truth.
This embracing of the idea that the problem is solved and needs no verification is also the source for our next major characteristic of pseudoscience.
Stasis, and hostility towards development or change of the idea
Pseudoscience is embraced by it proponents with almost religious fervor. Since the idea can never be wrong, there is very little that needs to be changed or should be changed. This is most aptly seen in pseudoscience ideas that have been around for generations such as homeopathy or acupuncture. One is hard pressed to find significant differences between the basic idea proposed 300 or 3000 years ago and the beliefs and practices of modern day quacks.
This is in marked contrast to real science, where stasis of a few years is rare, let alone decades or centuries. The difference between physics as proposed by Sir Issac Newton and the modern day is huge. While despite what creationist like to claim, Charles Darwin's idea of evolution by natural selection has gone through huge changes with the advent of genetics, developmental biology and hundred of other fields.
While progress in science can be rough, and personalities can clash, nothing can compare to the out right hostility of a pseudoscience promoter when faced with having his ideas developed or changed. Any such attempts will usually mark the upstart as a member of the establishment out to undermine truth once again.
Refusal to use the scientific method, or the claim that it can not be used
Rarely does pseudoscience promoters discuss experimental evidence when out pushing falsehoods. But in debates that inevitably emerge, sometimes they must face the question of why don't they submit to the basic practice of science. This is commonly seen in medical woo where the gold standard of double blind study would clearly show the ideas to be false. Most promoters will refuse to do the studies, and often claim that their ideas are somehow impossible to test through standard means.
This special pleading is often hidden in a positive light. For example, promoters of "alternative medicine" will claim that the "whole body" approach to healing requires full disclosure between the doctor and patient. Homeopaths claim that true remedies must be tailor made and can not thus be tested based on any kind of standard.
Other techniques are to claim that attempts to apply skepticism or testing to the idea destroys it. This is common in various psychic woo where skeptics disrupt the delicate telepathic waves. Many pseudoscience concepts based around supernatural cause will claim that the causes of phenomenon have agency and will not willingly be tested in such a manner.
Misuse of scientific terms
Poor standards of evidence
Reliance on negative proofs
Ideas are unfalsifiable
Clear political and religious motivation
See also
- Lists of pseudosciences
- Double-blind
- The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
- Woo
- Pseudoscience in advertising
- Expelled:Leader's Guide
| Articles on RationalWiki related to pseudo-studies | ||
|---|---|---|
| Pseudoarcheology - Pseudohistory - Pseudolaw - Pseudolinguistics - Pseudomathematics - Pseudoscience - Pseudopsychology - Pseudoscience list - Pseudoscience in advertising - Pseudoskepticism - Pseudovitamin | ||
Cite error:
<ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found