What is pseudoscience? Simply put, it is a set of ideas, exhibited as scientific, when in fact they are not. It masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy, which it would not otherwise be able to achieve.
I am particularly interested in the subject, but I must
confess, I am truly just a rookie at it. I am intrigued by so many subject,
that when given scrutiny don’t hold up, and in some ways, I still find some of
them believable… or want to. That’s the unskeptical part of my brain still
wanting to believe, despite evidence to the contrary. I suppose we have a
little of that in all of us. Without it, there would be many less drugs,
miracle cures, books, movies, television shows, and experts on the subject.
Where would we be without the ghosts, UFOs, infomercials, astrologers, creationists,
etc. in our lives. It might be a pretty boring place.
There is so much to know, and the availability of good and
factual information, is difficult to decipher from what is presented as the
truth, but is in fact anything but.
The following is a collection of facts, descriptions, and narratives
collected on the subject, from multiple sources readily available to you. I
find them thought provoking, and elevates my curiosity to know more and enhance
the knowledge I do have. I hope you find some of some of the following
information interesting and in finds a way to peak your own curiosity. Some you
may not agree with, but that is part of what the scientific process is designed
to do. As Fox Mulder so often repeated, “The truth is out there”. Find it for
yourself, develop your own skills, but enjoy the ride, but above all, never
stop asking questions or being satisfied with the status quo.
Pseudoscience has one or more of the following features:
Hostility towards scientific criticism
Science requires criticism. Bad ideas and methods get
knocked down. Pseudoscientists can feel picked on by such criticism and cry
conspiracy. Science provides a system for validating ideas and forces
disconfirmation of wrong beliefs.
Ignorance is a virtue
Pseudoscientists can fancy themselves as being untainted by
the scientific community and therefore able to think outside the box. Science thrives
on creative thinking for problem solving and testing hypotheses to explain
existing data.
Start with a conclusion and work backwards
Pseudoscientists can start with a "theory" and
then retrofit or cherry pick evidence to fit the conclusion that they want.
Creationists are a good example of this pseudoscience feature. Scientists
modify or discard theories based on new evidence, granted that the process can
be slow.
Unnecessary jargon
Pseudoscientists can use jargon to dazzle and obfuscate
instead of illuminate. Scientists use jargon to increase precision and remove
ambiguity. Scientologists are a good example of this pseudoscience feature.
Shift the burden of proof
Pseudoscientists can shift the burden of proof away from
themselves and challenge others for disproof. But the burden of proof is on the
claimant. And the more extraordinary the claim, the higher the bar of evidence.
Failure to consider all hypotheses
Pseudoscientists can prefer sensational hypotheses over more
likely mundane ones, and they can even propose whole new laws of physics to
explain phenomena instead of considering existing ones.
Reliance on anecdotes
Pseudoscientists can rely heavily on personal testimonies
and anecdotes rather than well-documented studies. This is especially the case
with health and medicine. And it's a red flag when fundemental principles are
based on a single case, such as with chiropractic and iridology. Scientists
count the misses, not just the hits.
Simple solutions to complex problems
Pseudoscientific solutions can range from a universal theory
of everything to a single medicine, procedure or product that cures all ills.
As to why such simple solutions have been overlooked all this time can be
attributed to grand conspiracies.
What are the warning signs of bogus science?
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
The integrity of science rests on the willingness of
scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other
scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to
them initially.
Some scientific claims avoid even the scrutiny of reporters
by appearing in paid commercial advertisements. A health-food company marketed
a dietary supplement called Vitamin O in full-page newspaper ads. Vitamin O
turned out to be ordinary saltwater.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is
trying to suppress his or her work.
The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at
nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and
power in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of
a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very
limit of detection.
Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer,
or the Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some
level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the
signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is
probably not real and the work is not science.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
If modern science has learned anything in the past century,
it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. Because anecdotes have a very strong
emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of
science. The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or
antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test, by means of which we know
what works and what doesn't.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has
endured for centuries.
There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands
of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the
body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies
that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative
medicine" is part of that myth.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an
attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of
Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real
life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work
of many scientists.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain
an observation.
A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary
result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change
existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it
is almost certainly wrong.
Some pseudoscientific claims are based on an authoritative
text rather than observation or empirical investigation. Creation science
devotees, for example, make observations only to confirm dogmas, not to
discover the truth about the natural world. Such dogmas are static and lead to
no new scientific discoveries or enhancement of our understanding of the
natural world. The main purpose of creationism and intelligent design is to
defend a set of religious beliefs.
A scientific theory like the theory of natural selection is
not based on a text. Creationists* distort the truth when they call evolution
"Darwinism," as if the science were based on a belief in the
infallible words found in Origin of Species or Descent of Man and Selection in
Relation to Sex. Natural selection is one of several mechanisms put forth by
scientists to explain the fact of evolution. The various theories of evolution,
i.e., mechanisms that explain how evolution occurs, are defended not by
deference to texts but by empirical evidence from several scientific fields:
embryology, the fossil record, homology, genetics, biogeography, molecular
biology.
Pseudoscientists claim to base their ideas on empirical
evidence, and they may even use some scientific methods, though often their
understanding of a controlled experiment is inadequate. Many pseudoscientists
relish being able to point out the consistency of their ideas with known facts
or with predicted consequences, but they do not recognize that such consistency
is not proof of anything. It is a necessary condition but not a sufficient
condition that a good scientific theory be consistent with the facts. A theory
which is contradicted by the facts is obviously not a very good scientific
theory, but a theory or hypthesis that is consistent with the facts is not
necessarily a good theory. For example, "the truth of the hypothesis that
plague is due to evil spirits is not established by the correctness of the
deduction that you can avoid the disease by keeping out of the reach of the
evil spirits"
Ockham’s Razor:
“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” or “Plurality
should not be posited without necessity.”
The words are those of the medieval English philosopher and
Franciscan monk William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349).
Simple is Best
One of the principal techniques, if not the primary
technique of the practitioners of thought control and Deskeption, is the
unethical use of Knowledge Filtering through Simplicity. The core technique involves the mis-use
of Ockham’s Razor in two ways:
1. as an application to filter out unwelcome DATA as not
fitting my ‘simple’ truth.
2. as a way to enforce the ‘simplest’ explanation as already
proven, when in fact, no science has been done to support it.
These are both practices of pseudoscience.
Ockham’s Razor, or the discernment of Plurality versus
Singularity in terms of competing Hypotheses, is a useful tool in determining
whether Science should be distracted by bunk theories which would potentially
waste everyone’s time and resources. But it is an act of pseudoscience to apply
Ockham’s Razor to data.
Data stands on its own. Additionally, when found in abundance, and not eliminated
one at a time by the false anecdotal application of “Occam’s” Razor Knowledge
Filtering or through Plausible Deniability Extrapolation, can eventually be
formulated into a construct, which then will vie for plurality under the real
Ockham’s Razor, a useful science method principle. Data should not be dismissed
for the sole reason that it does not fit or that one does not like it. This is
pseudoscience.
The full text, along with other sources can be found with
the following links:
No comments:
Post a Comment