About Opentopia
Opentopia Directory Encyclopedia Tools

Pseudoscience

Encyclopedia : P : PS : PSE : Pseudoscience

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

Pseudoscience is a term applied to a body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that diverges from the usual standards required for scientific work, or which is unsupported by sufficient, substantial or verifiable scientific evidence and research."Pseudoscientific - pretending to be scientific, falsely represented as being scientific", from the Oxford American Dictionary, published by the Oxford English Dictionary. http://skepdic.com/pseudosc.html (See Scientific method.) Whether such knowledge or practice is portrayed or portrays itself as 'scientific' is a secondary characteristic.

The term "pseudoscience" appears to have been first used in 1843 Magendie, F. (1843). An Elementary Treatise on Human Physiology. 5th Ed. Tr. John Revere. New York: Harper, p. 150. Magendie refers to phrenology as "a pseudo-science of the present day" (note the hyphen). as a combination of the Greek root pseudo, meaning false, and the Latin scientia, meaning knowledge or a field of knowledge. It generally has negative connotations because it asserts that things so labeled are inaccurately or deceptively described as science.However, from the "them vs. us" polarization that its usage engenders, the term may also have a positive function because "[the] derogatory labelling of others often includes an unstated self-definition "(p.266); and, from this, the applicatiion of the term also implies "a unity of science, a privileged tree of knowledge or space from which the pseudoscience is excluded, and the user's right to belong is asserted " (p.286) -- Still, A. & Dryden, W., "The Social Psychology of "Pseudoscience": A Brief History", Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, Vol.34, No.3, (September 2004), pp.265-290. As such, those labeled as practicing or advocating a "pseudoscience" normally reject this classification.

Contents

Introduction

The standards for determining whether a body of alleged knowledge, methodology, field, belief, or practice is truly scientific can vary from field to field, but involve agreed-on principles including reproducibility and intersubjective verifiability.See, e.g., Gauch, Hugh G., Jr., Scientific Method in Practice (2003) 3-5 ff. These attempt to ensure that relevant evidence can be reproduced and/or measured given the same conditions — which allows further investigation to determine whether a hypothesis or theory related to given phenomena is both valid and reliable for use by others, including other scientists and researchers. Scientific methods are expected to be applied throughout, and bias is expected to be controlled or eliminated, either directly, through the manipulation of factors, by double-blind studies, or statistically through fair sampling procedures. All gathered data, including experimental/environmental conditions, are expected to be documented for scrutiny and made available for peer review, thereby allowing further experiments or studies to be conducted to confirm or falsify results, as well as to determine other important factors such as statistical significance, confidence intervals, and margins of error.Gauch (2003), 191 ff, especially Chapter 6, "Probability", and Chapter 7, "inductive Logic and Statistics" Fulfillment of these requirements allows other researchers and practitioners a reasonable opportunity to assess whether to rely upon those results in their own scientific work or in a particular field of applied science, technology, therapy or other form of practice.

In the mid-20th Century Karl Popper suggested the additional criterion of falsifiability.Popper, Karl, "Science, Conjectures and Refutations" (orig. 1963), in Cover, J.A., Curd, Martin (Eds, 1998) Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, 3-10. Certain theories cannot be proven false under any circumstance, for example, the theory that God created the universe. Such theories may be true, but are not scientific; they lie outside the scope of (at least present-day) science. Another criterion applicable to theoretical work is a heuristic such as Occam's Razor.Gauch (2003) 269 ff, "Parsimony and Efficiency".

Some 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.Feyerabend, Paul, Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, (1975) For a perspective on Feyerabend from within the scientific community, see, e.g., Gauch (2003) at p.4: "Such critiques are unfamiliar to most scientists, although some may have heard a few distant shots from the so-called science wars." Both the theories and methodologies of science evolve, sometimes very slowly, and in other cases quite rapidly. In addition, standards applicable to one branch of science may not be those employed in another branch. For instance, physicists may expect a 100% correlation of cause and effect in certain areas of inquiry (any significant divergence from this signifying a serious lack of understanding of the causal factors, the method of measurement and/or the testing environment), whereas psychologists may find 5% statistical correlation worthy of consideration if it can be consistently repeated.See, e.g., Meyers, Anne, and Hansen, Christine H., Experimental Psychology (4th Ed., 2001) See also, e.g., Shaughnessy, John J., Research Methods in Psychology (6th Ed., 2002)

Critics of pseudoscience such as Richard Dawkins, Mario Bunge, Carl Sagan, and James Randi consider almost all forms of pseudoscience to be harmful, whether or not they result in immediate harm to their adherents. 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 gain. At the extreme, issues of personal health and safety may be very directly involved, for example in the case of physical or mental therapy or treatment, or in assessing safety risks. In such instances the potential for direct harm to patients, clients or even the general public may be an issue in assessing pseudoscience. (See also: Junk science.)

The concept of pseudoscience as antagonistic 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".

Identifying pseudoscience

Popular pseudoscientific theories tend to be liberally simplified and/or emotionally appealing, more in line with fact-based storytelling than actual science. This is arguably fueled by the common misconception of science simply being the search for truth, as opposed to the carefully refined methodology that it is.

A field, practice, or body of knowledge is reasonably called a pseudoscience when (1) it has presented itself as scientific (i.e., as empirically and experimentally verifiable); and (2) it fails to meet the accepted norms of scientific research, most importantly the use of scientific method.[link] Williams, William F. (editor) (2000). Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy. Cover, J.A., Curd, Martin (Eds, 1998) Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, 1-82. Within the various expectations of legitimate scientific methodology, by far the most important is that of making documentation of data and methodology available for close and repeated scrutiny by other scientists and researchers, as well as making available any additional relevant information used to arrive at particular results or methods of practice.See, e.g., Gauch, Hugh G., Jr., Scientific Method in Practice (2003), 124 ff, esp. section on "Full Disclosure". To the degree that thorough documentation of data and method is unavailable for detailed scrutiny by others, a body of knowledge, practice, or field of inquiry will tend, as a result, to meet at least several of the characteristics of pseudoscience introduced below.

The following characteristics are helpful in identifying pseudoscience. As more and more of these characteristics are met, further credibility may be attached to a claim that a particular field or practice is pseudoscientific.The work Scientists Confront Velikovsky, 1976, Cornell University, also delves into these features in some detail, as does the work of Thomas Kuhn, e.g., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) which also discusses some of the items on the list of characteristics of pseudoscience.

Some characteristics that are often true of pseudoscience are also true to some extent of some new genuinely scientific work. These include: Pseudoscience is distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it claims to offer insight into the physical world obtained by "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.

The term "pseudoscience" may by used by adherents of fields considered pseudoscientific to criticize their mainstream critics, in which case the appearance is of two opposing camps both accusing each other of pseudoscience. Such situations can in general only be assessed by applying the above methodological and substantial criteria. Some statements and commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science. "Pop" science may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction.http://www.popularscience.co.uk/features/feat20.htm Indeed, pop science is defined by the fact that it is disseminated to, and can also easily emanate from, persons not accountable to scientific methodology and expert peer review. Another class of pseudoscience, called pseudoskepticism, refers to non-rigorous skepticism that is itself erroneously presented as scientific.

Pseudoscience contrasted with protoscience

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

Pseudoscience, in contrast, is characteristically inadequately tested; indeed, it may even be untestable in principle. If tests appear to contradict its evidence, supporters may insist that the existing scientific results are false. Pseudoscience is often unresponsive to ordinary scientific procedures (for example, peer review, publication in standard journals). If untestable claims have been made, the 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 and sometimes even 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 field can be experimentally tested and methodological standards are upheld, it is real scientific work, however odd, astonishing, or counter-intuitive. If claims made are inconsistent with existing experimental results or established theory, but the methodology is sound, caution should be used; much of science consists of testing hypotheses that turn out to be false. In such a case, the work may be better described as as yet unproven or research in progress. Conversely, if the claims of any given "science" cannot be experimentally tested or scientific standards are not upheld in these tests, it fails to meet the modern criteria for a science.

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

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 involves 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.

Demarcation problem and criticisms of the concept of pseudoscience

After over a century of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in varied fields, and despite broad agreement on the basics of scientific method,Gauch, Hugh G., Jr., Scientific Method in Practice (2003) 3-7. the boundaries between science and non-science continue to be debated by some.Cover, J.A., Curd, Martin (Eds, 1998) Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, 1-82. This is known as the problem of demarcation. It is necessary to note that the problem of demarcation appears only in cases where standard scientific ways (experiments, logic, etc.) of assessing a theory or a hypothesis cannot be applied for some reason.

Many commentators and practitioners of science, as well as supporters of fields of inquiry and practices labelled as pseudoscience, question the rigor of the demarcation since some disciplines now accepted as science previously had features cited as those of pseudoscience, such as lack of reproducibility, or the inability to create falsifiable experiments. Many accepted scientific concepts — including evolution,Thagard, Paul, Conceptual Revolutions (1992) 157 ff. plate tectonics,Thagard (1992) 131 ff. the Big Bang, and quantum mechanics — were criticized by some as being pseudoscientific when they were first proposed.[[Citing sources citation needed]]

Thomas Kuhn postulated that proponents of competing paradigms may resort to political means (such as invective) to garner support from a public which lacks the ability to judge competing scientific theories on their merits. Philosopher of science Larry Laudan has suggested that pseudoscience has no scientific meaning and mostly describes our emotions: "If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like ‘pseudo-science’ and ‘unscientific’ from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us".Laudan, Larry, "The demise of the demarcation problem" in Ruse, Michael, But Is It Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy (1996) 337-350.

Scientific theories once widely criticized as pseudoscience

A significant number of presently accepted scientific theories, mathematical fields or practical realities were once rejected by mainstream scientists and mathematicians of their time as being pseudoscientific, irrational or obviously false. None of these fields are considered as pseudoscientific any more. These include:

At the time these theories were not accepted each was backed up by varying levels evidence or none at all, or evidence that was not yet fully understood. The scientific method itself has gradually evolved as well, affecting how each theory and its evidence was recieved and understood.

Pseudomathematics

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

Pseudoscience in Psychotherapy and Popular Psychology

Neurologists and clinical psychologists such as Drenth (2003:38), Lilienfeld (2004:20) and Beyerstein (1991:34) are concerned about the increasing amount of what they consider pseudoscience promoted in psychotherapy and popular psychology, and are also concerned about what they see as pseudoscientific therapies such as Neurolinguistic Programming, Rebirthing, Reparenting, and Primal Scream Therapy being adopted by government and professional bodies and by the public. The specific criticisms of these therapies are that they are scientifically unsupported, they may harm vulnerable members of the public, undermine legitimate therapies, and tend to spread misconceptions about the nature of the mind and brain to society at large. Organizations and publications such as the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice (SRMHP) [link] and the publication Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine (SRAM) [link] have been created to raise awareness of pseudoscientific practices in medicine, self help, and business education.

Fields considered pseudoscience in the scientific community

The following is a list of theories and fields of endeavor which a significant portion of the scientific community faults as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another. Additional fields where research results are simply ambiguous or inadequate may be found on the Prescientific systems page.

Quotes

See also

  • Bad science : pejorative term used to derogate purportedly scientific data, research, analyses or claims which are driven by perceived political, financial or other questionable motives.
  • Cargo cult science : term to describe work that has the semblance of being scientific, but is missing "a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty".
  • Inductive reasoning : A method of thinking that does not require deductive conclusions. Note that professionals such as surgeons and lawyers, and even scientists, use inductive reasoning without necessarily resorting to pseudoscience. Instead of unproductive radical skepticism about everything, Hume advocated a practical skepticism based on common sense, where the inevitability of induction is accepted. Examining the statement, "A strictly skeptical person would starve deciding the best thing to eat," we can see that it is not true, but the person would have to rely on at least some deductive logic to make the decision. Real life is not perfectly deductive. Life is not science, but can certainly be informed by it.
  • Junk science : pejorative term used to derogate purportedly scientific data, research, analyses or claims which are driven by perceived political, financial or other questionable motives.
  • Urban legends about the mind : misconceptions sometimes used to support pseudoscientific belief systems.
  • Magical thinking : used by historians of religion to describe one kind of non-scientific causal reasoning.
  • Pathological science : term to describe ideas that would simply not "go away", long after they were given up on as wrong by the majority of scientists in the field. The term is semantically loaded, and has often been taken as a personal insult implying utter foolishness in the target.
  • Pathological skepticism (or Pseudoskepticism) : class of pseudoscience masquerading as proper skepticism, where claims of "reason" and having a "scientific worldview", but frequently uses logical fallacies, attempts to silence opponents, and employs various invalid strategies of persuasion.
  • Protoscience : new areas of scientific endeavor in the process of becoming established and sometimes used to describe a hypothesis which has not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method.
  • Pseudoarchaeology : pejorative term used to describe the interpretation of material remains and sites (which may be quite genuine themselves), using methodology and criteria that the describer does not consider to be part of established scientific practice.
  • Pseudohistory : term for information about the past, which purports to be historic or supported by archeology, but which is judged to fall outside the domain of mainstream history.
  • Pseudophilosophy : any idea or system that masquerades itself as philosophy while significantly failing to meet some suitable intellectual standards.
  • Pseudophysics : physics-related theories or beliefs which purport to be scientific but are not supported by experiments, or are fundamentally untestable or inconsistent (often associated with claims of "free energy", physics-based explanations for spirituality or ESP, faster-than-light travel, or other fantastic phenomena contrary to established physical science)
  • Quackery : practice of producing medicine which may lack any commonly respected evidence of their effectiveness and are generally considered to be in the business of selling false hope to ill-informed people.

People

Lists

Notes

References

External links

 

From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.

Search Titles
0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJ
KLMNOPQRST
UVWXYZ?

E-mail this article to:

Personal Message: