From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on Science

Natural sciences Astronomy Cosmology · Galactic astronomy Planetary geology · Planetary science Stellar astronomy Biology Anatomy · Astrobiology · Biochemistry Biological engineering · Biophysics Behavioral neuroscience · Biotechnology Botany · Cell biology · Cryobiology Developmental biology Ecology · Ethnobiology Evolutionary biology (introduction) Genetics (introduction) Gerontology · Immunology · Limnology Marine biology · Microbiology Molecular biology · Neuroscience Paleontology · Parasitology · Physiology Radiobiology · Soil biology Theoretical biology · Toxicology · Zoology Chemistry Acid-base reaction theories · Alchemy Analytical chemistry · Astrochemistry Biochemistry · Crystallography Environmental chemistry · Food science Geochemistry · Green chemistry Inorganic chemistry · Materials science Molecular physics · Nuclear chemistry Organic chemistry · Photochemistry Physical chemistry · Radiochemistry Solid-state chemistry · Stereochemistry Supramolecular chemistry Surface science · Theoretical chemistry Earth sciences Atmospheric sciences · Ecology Environmental science · Geodesy Geology · Geomorphology Geophysics · Glaciology · Hydrology Limnology · Mineralogy · Oceanography Paleoclimatology · Palynology Physical geography · Soil science Space science Physics Applied physics · Atomic physics Computational physics Condensed matter physics Experimental physics · Mechanics Particle physics · Plasma physics Quantum mechanics (introduction) Solid mechanics · Theoretical physics Thermodynamics · Entropy General relativity · M-theory Special relativity

Social and behavioral sciences Anthropology · Archaeology · Criminology Demography · Economics · Geography History · Political science · Psychology Sociology

Applied sciences Engineering Agriculatural · Biomedical · Chemical · Civil Computer · Electrical · Fire protection Genetic · Industrial · Mechanical · Military Mining · Nuclear · Software Health sciences Biological engineering · Dentistry Epidemiology · Health care · Medicine Nursing · Pharmacy · Social work Veterinary medicine

Formal sciences Computer science Logic Mathematics Statistics

Related topics Interdisciplinarity Applied physics · Artificial intelligence Bioethics · Bioinformatics · Biogeography Biomedical engineering · Biostatistics Cognitive science · Computational linguistics Cultural studies · Cybernetics Environmental studies · Ethnic studies Evolutionary psychology · Forestry Health · Library science · Logic Mathematical biology · Mathematical physics Scientific modelling · Neural engineering Neuroscience · Political economy Science and technology studies Science studies · Semiotics · Sociobiology Systems theory · Transdisciplinarity Urban planning History of science Philosophy of science Scientific method Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology,^[1][2][3][4] lacks supporting evidence or plausibility,^[5] or otherwise lacks scientific status.^[6] The term comes from the Greek prefix pseudo- (false or pretending) and "science" (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"). An early recorded use was in 1843 by French physiologist François Magendie,^[7] who is considered a pioneer in experimental physiology.

The term is inherently pejorative, because it is used to assert that something is being inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science.^[8][9] Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating a "pseudoscience" normally dispute this characterization.^[8] There is disagreement among philosophers of science and among commentators in the scientific community about whether there is a reliable objective way to distinguish "pseudoscience" from non-mainstream "science".^[10]

Professor Paul DeHart Hurd^[11] argued that a large part of gaining scientific literacy is "being able to distinguish science from pseudo-science such as astrology, quackery, the occult, and superstition".^[12] As it is taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific, or whose proponents state that it is scientific, but which nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method.^{[3][13][14][15][16][17]} The National Science Foundation, in reporting on "Belief in Pseudoscience" reports ten examples of paranormal beliefs^[18] they consider pseudoscientific:^[18] extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts, telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation, and channeling.^[18]

Pseudoscience has been characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development.

Background

A typical 19th century phrenology chart. In the 1820s, phrenologists claimed that the mind was located in areas of the brain, and were attacked for doubting that mind came from the non-material soul. Their idea of reading "bumps" in the skull to predict personality traits was later discredited.^[19] Phrenology was first called a pseudoscience in 1843 and continues to be widely considered pseudoscience.^[7]

The standards for determining whether a body of knowledge, methodology, or practice is scientific can vary from field to field. There are, however, a number of basic principles that are widely agreed upon by scientists, such as reproducibility and intersubjective verifiability.^[20] Such principles aim to ensure that relevant evidence can be measurably reproduced under 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. It is expected that the scientific method will be applied throughout, and that bias will be controlled or eliminated, 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.^[21]

In the mid-20th century Karl Popper suggested the criterion of falsifiability to distinguish science from non-science.^[22] Statements such as "God created the universe" may be true or false, but no tests can be devised that could prove them false, so they are not scientific; they lie outside the scope of science. Popper subdivided non-science into philosophical, mathematical, mythological, religious and/or metaphysical formulations on the one hand, and pseudoscientific formulations on the other—though without providing clear criteria for the differences.^[23] He gave astrology and psychoanalysis as examples of pseudoscience, and Einstein's theory of relativity as an example of science. More recently, Paul Thagard (1978) proposed that pseudoscience is primarily distinguishable from science when it is less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and the failure of proponents to acknowledge or address problems with the theory.^[24] Mario Bunge has suggested the categories of "belief fields" and "research fields" to help distinguish between science and pseudoscience.^[25]

Philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend has argued, from a sociology of knowledge perspective, that a distinction between science and non-science is neither possible nor desirable.^[26][27] Among the issues which can make the distinction difficult are that both the theories and methodologies of science evolve at differing rates in response to new data.^[28] In addition, the specific standards applicable to one field of science may not be those employed in other fields. Thagard also writes from a sociological perspective and states that "elucidation of how science differs from pseudoscience is the philosophical side of an attempt to overcome public neglect of genuine science."

Skeptics, most prominently represented by Richard Dawkins, Mario Bunge, Carl Sagan and James Randi, and the Brights movement consider all forms of pseudoscience to be harmful, whether or not they result in immediate harm to their adherents. These critics generally consider that the practice 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, the general public, or the environment 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. Among 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".

Identifying pseudoscience

A field, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be called pseudoscientific when (1) it is presented as consistent with the accepted norms of scientific research; but (2) it demonstrably fails to meet these norms, most importantly, in misuse of scientific method.^[29] Subjects may be considered pseudoscientific for various reasons.

Karl Popper considered astrology to be pseudoscientific simply because astrologers keep their claims so vague that they could never be refuted, whereas Paul R. Thagard considers astrology pseudoscientific because its practitioners make little effort to develop the theory, show no concern for attempts to critically evaluate the theory in relation to others, and are selective in considering evidence. More generally, Thagard stated that pseudoscience tends to focus on resemblances rather than cause-effect relations.

Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing.^[30] For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.^[31] The most notable disputes concern the effects of evolution on the development of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, and the origin of the universe.^[32] Systems of belief that derive from divine or inspired knowledge are not considered pseudoscience if they do not claim either to be scientific or to overturn well-established science.

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.^[33] Indeed, pop science is disseminated to, and can also easily emanate from, persons not accountable to scientific methodology and expert peer review.

If the claims of a given field can be experimentally tested and methodological standards are upheld, it is not "pseudoscience", 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; science consists of testing hypotheses which may turn out to be false. In such a case, the work may be better described as ideas that are not yet generally accepted. 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.^[34]

The following have been proposed to be indicators of poor scientific reasoning.

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

• Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.^[35]
• Failure to make use of operational definitions (i.e. publicly accessible definitions of the variables, terms, or objects of interest so that persons other than the definer can independently measure or test them).^[36] (See also: Reproducibility)
• Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor)^[37]
• Use of obscurantist language, and misuse of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.
• Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess well-articulated limitations under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.^[38]
• Lack of effective controls, such as placebo and double-blind, in experimental design. (see Scientific control)

Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation

• Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment (see also: falsifiability)^[39]
• Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict^[40]. Scientific claims that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best "conjectures", or at worst "pseudoscience" (e.g.^[41]).^[42]
• Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (see: Argument from ignorance)^[43]
• Over-reliance on testimonial, anecdotal evidence, or personal experience. This evidence may be useful for the context of discovery (i.e. hypothesis generation) but should not be used in the context of justification (e.g. Statistical hypothesis testing).^[44]
• Presentation of data that seems to support its claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with its claims.^[45] This is an example of selection bias, a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect.
• Reversed burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.^[46]
• Appeals to holism as opposed to reductionism: Proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the "mantra of holism" to explain negative findings.^[47]

Lack of openness to testing by other experts

• Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called "science by press conference").^[48] Some proponents of theories that contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their ideas to peer review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is biased towards established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forgo the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.^[49]
• Some agencies, institutions, and publications that fund scientific research require authors to share data so that others can evaluate a paper independently. Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to reproduce the claims contributes to a lack of openness.^[50]
• Assertion of claims of secrecy or proprietary knowledge in response to requests for review of data or methodology.^[50]

Absence of progress

• Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims.^[51] Terence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has changed very little in the past two millennia.^[52] (see also: Scientific progress)
• Lack of self correction: scientific research programmes make mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time.^[53] By contrast, theories may be accused of being pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence. 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.
• Statistical significance of supporting experimental results does not improve over time and are usually close to the cutoff for statistical significance. Normally, experimental techniques improve or the experiments are repeated and this gives ever stronger evidence. If statistical significance does not improve, this typically shows that the experiments have just been repeated until a success occurs due to chance variations.

Personalization of issues

• Tight social groups and granfalloons, authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.^[54]
• Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.^[55]
• Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).^[56]

Use of misleading language

• Creating scientific-sounding terms in order to add weight to claims and persuade non-experts to believe statements that may be false or meaningless. For example, a long-standing hoax refers to water by the rarely-used formal name "dihydrogen monoxide" (DHMO) and describes it as the main constituent in most poisonous solutions to show how easily the general public can be misled.
• Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways, thereby demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in the discipline.

Demographics

The National Science Foundation stated that, in the USA, "pseudoscientific" beliefs became more widespread during the 1990s, peaked near 2001 and have declined slightly since; nevertheless, pseudoscientific beliefs remain common in the USA.^[57] As a result, according to the NSF report, there is a lack of knowledge of pseudoscientific issues in society and pseudoscientific practices are commonly followed. Bunge states that "A survey on public knowledge of science in the United States showed that in 1988 50% of American adults [rejected] evolution, and 88% [believed] astrology is a science"^{[citation needed]}. Other surveys indicate that about a third of all adult Americans consider astrology to be scientific.^[58][59][60]

Commentators on pseudoscience perceive it in many fields; for example, pseudomathematics is a term used for mathematics-like activity undertaken by either non-mathematicians or mathematicians themselves which does not conform to the rigorous standards usually applied to mathematical theorems.

Clinical psychology

Neurologists, clinical psychologists and other academics are concerned,^[61] about the increasing amount of what they consider pseudoscience promoted in psychotherapy and popular psychology, and also about what they see as pseudoscientific therapies such as neuro-linguistic programming, EMDR^[62] rebirthing, reparenting, Scientology, and Primal Therapy being adopted by government and professional bodies and by the public.^[62] They state that scientifically unsupported therapies used by popular or folk psychology might 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. Norcross et al..^[63] have approached the science/pseudoscience issue by conducting a survey of experts that seeks to specify which theory or therapy is considered to be definitely discredited, and they outline 14 fields that have been definitely discredited.

Psychological explanations

Pseudoscientific thinking has been explained in terms of psychology and social psychology. The human proclivity for seeking confirmation rather than refutation (confirmation bias),^[64] the tendency to hold comforting beliefs, and the tendency to overgeneralize have been proposed as reasons for the common adherence to pseudoscientific thinking. According to Beyerstein (1991), humans are prone to associations based on resemblances only, and often prone to misattribution in cause-effect thinking.

Lindeman argues that social motives (i.e., "to comprehend self and the world, to have a sense of control over outcomes, to belong, to find the world benevolent and to maintain one’s self-esteem") are often "more easily" fulfilled by pseudoscience than by scientific information.^[65] Furthermore, pseudoscientific explanations are generally not analyzed rationally, but instead experientially. Operating within a different set of rules compared to rational thinking, experiential thinking regards an explanation as valid if the explanation is "personally functional, satisfying and sufficient", offering a description of the world that may be more personal than can be provided by science and reducing the amount of potential work involved in understanding complex events and outcomes.^[65]

Boundaries between science and pseudoscience

The boundary lines between the science and pseudoscience are disputed and difficult to determine analytically, even after more than a century of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in varied fields, and despite some basic agreements on the fundaments of scientific methodology.^[29][66] The concept of pseudoscience rests on an understanding that scientific methodology has been misrepresented or misapplied with respect to a given theory, but many philosophers of science maintain that different kinds of methods are held as appropriate across different fields and different eras of human history. Paul Feyerabend, for example, disputes whether any meaningful boundaries can be drawn between pseudoscience, "real" science, and what he calls "protoscience", especially where there is a significant cultural or historical distance.

There are well-known cases of fields that were originally considered pseudoscientific but which are now accepted scientific effects or valid hypotheses, for example, continental drift,^[67] cosmology,^[68] ball lightning,^[69] and radiation hormesis.^{[70][71][72][73]} As another example, osteopathy has, according to Kimball Atwood, "for the most part, repudiated its pseudoscientific beginnings and joined the world of rational healthcare" for lower back pain although it is not particularly effective.^[74] Others, such as phrenology^[75] or alchemy were originally considered highly scientific, but now are taken as pseudoscience. Further, there are protosciences such as cultural, traditional, or ancient practices such as acupuncture practice and traditional Chinese medicine which do not conform to modern scientific principles, but which are not pseudoscience because their proponents do not claim the practices to be scientific according to today's standards of scientific method.

Larry Laudan has suggested that pseudoscience has no scientific meaning and is mostly used to describe 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".^[76] Likewise, Richard McNally states that "The term 'pseudoscience' has become little more than an inflammatory buzzword for quickly dismissing one’s opponents in media sound-bites" and that "When therapeutic entrepreneurs make claims on behalf of their interventions, we should not waste our time trying to determine whether their interventions qualify as pseudoscientific. Rather, we should ask them: How do you know that your intervention works? What is your evidence?"^[77]

The term pseudoscience can also have political implications that eclipse any scientific issues. Imre Lakatos, for instance, points out that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union at one point declared that Mendelian genetics was pseudoscientific and had its advocates, including well-established scientists such as Nikolai Vavilov, sent to Gulag,^[78] and that the "liberal Establishment of the West" denies freedom of speech to topics it regards as pseudoscience, particularly where they run up against social mores.^[79]

See also

• Analytic philosophy
• Credulity
• List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
• Antiscience

Further reading

• Bauer Henry H (2000). Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, and Other Heterodoxies. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0252026010. 
• Charpak Georges (2004). Debunked. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0801878675. 
• Derksen AA (1993). "The seven sins of pseudo-science". J Gen Phil Sci 24: 17–42. http://www.springerlink.com/content/x618564113015377/. 
• Derksen AA (2001). "The seven strategies of the sophisticated pseudo-scientist: a look into Freud's rhetorical toolbox". J Gen Phil Sci 32: 329–350. doi:10.1023/A:1013100717113. 
• Gardner M (1990). Science – Good, Bad and Bogus. Prometheus Books. ISBN 0879755733. 
• Gardner M (1957). Fads and fallacies in the name of science. Dover Publications. ISBN 0486203948. 
• Hansson SO (1996). "Defining pseudoscience". Philosophia naturalis 33: 169–176. 
• Martin M (1994). "Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and science education". Science & Education 3: 1573–901. doi:10.1007/BF00488452. http://www.springerlink.com/content/g8u0371370878485/. 
• Schadewald Robert J (2008). Worlds of Their Own - A Brief History of Misguided Ideas: Creationism, Flat-Earthism, Energy Scams, and the Velikovsky Affair. Xlibris. ISBN 978-1-4363-0435-1. 
• Shermer M, Gould SJ (2002). Why People Believe Weird Things – Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time. New York: Holt Paperbacks. ISBN 0805070893. 
• Wilson F (2000). The Logic and Methodology of Science and Pseudoscience. Canadian Scholars Press. ISBN 155130175X. 
• Pratkanis, Anthony R. (July/August 1995). "How to Sell a Pseudoscience". Skeptical Inquirer 19 (4): 19–25. http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/pratkanis.htm. Retrieved 2007-11-24. 

References

External links

• Checklist for identifying dubious technical processes and products - Rainer Bunge, PhD
• Pseudoscience - Robert Todd Carroll, PhD
• Debating pseudoscientists - Philip Plait
• Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience - Rory Coker, PhD
• Pseudoscience. What is it? How can I recognize it? - Stephen Lower
• Science and Pseudoscience - transcript and broadcast of talk by Imre Lakatos
• Science Needs to Combat Pseudoscience - A statement by 32 Russian scientists and philosophers
• Science, Pseudoscience, and Irrationalism - Steven Dutch
• The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science - Robert L. Park
• Skeptic Dictionary - List and discussions of Pseudoscientific topics
• Why Is Pseudoscience Dangerous? - Edward Kruglyakov
• Online tool for examining pseudoscientific claims for students

From Wikiquote

Pseudoscience is any alleged body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice claiming to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but not adhering to the scientific method.

Sourced

Examples of pseudo-scientific quotes

• If a person replaces most of the water in his body with Koranic water, his body begins to emit steam which contains the Koran. This creates a halo of steam around him, containing the Koran, which fends off Satan.
  • Sharif Shukran in the United Arab Emirates who claimed to be an inventor, The "Science" behind Healing with Koranic Holy Water. MEMRI (December 3, 2007).
  • . The "Science" behind Healing with Koranic Holy Water

• Interviewer: You say that Darwin is responsible for global terrorism.
• Adnan Oktar: Yes, Darwin says that life is the struggle between the strong and the weak....The idea is reflected in Social Darwinism, which believes that whoever is more powerful militarily, politically, and in terms of technology will be superior to the weak and the oppressed, and will rule and annihilate them. This idea dominated the ideology of Hitler and Mussolini.
  • Turkish Thinker Adnan Oktar Tells about His Struggle against the Freemasons. MEMRI (September 28, 2007).

External links

Wikipedia has an article about:

Pseudoscience

From Wikiversity

"You can see a lot just by observing." -Yogi Berra

Welcome to the Wikiversity learning project about Pseudoscience.

A pseudoscience adopts some of the forms that are associated with science, but not the scientific method.

How can you recognize pseudoscience?

• Has the subject shown progress?
• Does the discipline use technical words such as "vibration" or "energy" without clearly defining what they mean?
• Would accepting the tenets of a claim require you to abandon any well established physical laws?
• Are popular articles on the subject lacking in references?
• Is the only evidence offered anecdotal in nature?
• Does the proponent of the subject claim that "air-tight" experiments have been performed that prove the truth of the subject matter, and that cheating would have been impossible?
• Are the results of the aforementioned experiments successfully repeated by other researchers?
• Does the proponent of the subject claim to be overly or unfairly criticized?
• Is the subject taught only in non-credit institutions?
• Are the best texts on the subject decades old?
• Does the proponent of the claim use what one writer has called "factuals" - statements that are a largely or wholly true but unrelated to the claim?
• When criticized, do the defenders of the claim attack the critic rather than the criticism?
• Does the proponent make appeals to history (i.e. it has been around a long time, so it must be true)?
• Does the subject display the "shyness effect" (sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't)?
• Does the proponent use the appeal to ignorance argument ("there are more things under heaven … than are dreamed of in your philosophy …")?
• Does the proponent use alleged expertise in other areas to lend weight to the claim?

source of this list

Case studies

Readings. Read the Wikipedia article on pseudoscience and the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts.

List and discuss any examples of pseudosciences that you think should not be on this list.

Are there other pseudosciences the should be added to the list of pseudosciences?

Creation science

Are attempts to create a science of creationism a pseudoscientific^[1] expression of religious fundamentalism^[2]?

Discussion

Read and discuss the Wedge strategy.

References

1. ↑ A community experiment with fully open and published peer review by Eugene V. Koonin, Laura F. Landweber and David J. Lipman in Biology Direct (2006) Volume 1, page 1.
2. ↑ Science and fundamentalism by Massimo Pigliucci in EMBO Reports (2005) Volume 6, pages 1106–1109.

See also

Subject classification: this is a science resource .

• Science and the nonphysical

External resources about pseudoscience

• Debunking Pseudoscience

• "Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience" by Rory Coker, Ph.D.

From LoveToKnow 1911

(There is currently no text in this page)