Jump to content

Pseudoscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AdmN (talk | contribs) at 04:10, 29 August 2004 (reverting to last version by JamesMLane, will discuss on talk page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 naivety about the nature of science and the scientific method, to deliberate deception for financial 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.

Classifying pseudoscience

Peudoscience 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 without supporting experimental evidence;
  • by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
  • by failing to provide an experimental possiblity of reproducible results;
  • by asserting claims that violate falsifiability; or
  • by violating Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible); the more egregious the violation, the more likely.

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 which are not claimed to be scientific. These are not peudoscience.

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.

Pseudoscience contrasted with protoscience

Pseudoscience also differs from protoscience. Protoscience is a term sometimes used to describe a hypothesis which has not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method, but which is otherwise consisent 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:

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. There is controversy in biology about whether evidence of extraterrestrial microbial life has been found (fossilized in meteorites or as part of the Viking program's exobiology experiments).

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.

The Problem of demarcation

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, 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. See Demarcation Problem for the complete article.

Fortunately, this is of minor relevance with respect to pseudoscience. The claimant has already presented the claim as scientific, but if the actual justification does not use the Scientific Method or ignores results produced by the Scientific Method, then it is pseudoscience.

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, pseudoarchaeology, Gene Ray's Time Cube, astrology, homeopathy and creationism. Pseudoscientific science and medical practices are often quite popular. Medical pseudosciences even sometimes show notable theraputic 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 self-proclaimed 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.

Pseudomathematics

Pseudomathematics is a form of mathematics-like activity undertaken by many non-mathematicians - and occasionally by mathematicians themselves. The efforts of pseudomathematicians divide into three categories:

  • attempting apparently simple classical problems long proved impossible by mainstream mathematics
  • generating whole new theories of mathematics or logic from scratch
  • attempting hard problems in mathematics using only high-school mathematical knowledge

See the main article on Pseudomathematics.

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoscience&oldid=5519458"