Pseudoscience
From SkepticWiki
Contents |
[edit] Definition
Pseudoscience refers to research that superficially appears to be science but that lacks some of the underlying key aspects. Often, these include components such as peer review, publication, replication, or important methodological practices such as experimentation, proper controls, the use of a placebo, and so forth.
As might be expected, the question of whether a given field is (pejoratively) "pseudoscience" can be controversial, but astrology like most other forms of divination and homeopathy like most other forms of alternative medicine are often considered to be pseudoscientific.
[edit] Discussion
The problem of separating science from pseudoscience generally is a philosophically difficult one, in part because of the difficulty of exactly defining science. Most practitioners (and philosophers) of science, however, would agree that the following are marks of pseudoscience:
- Asserting claims based purely on theory without experimental evidence
- Asserting as "scientific" truth statements that cannot be falsified
- Asserting claims that contradict "accepted" scientific understanding without experimental evidence
- Asserting claims based on experiments with methodological flaws that are known to be invalidating, such as a clinical study without placebo controls
- Citing findings from established science (especially from relativity theory, quantum mechanics, and/or chaos theory) in an apparently unrelated and irrelevant context
- Refusal to participate in normal scientific practice such as journal publication or peer review
- Claiming hostility to one's findings from the scientific establishment
and perhaps most importantly
- Adjusting the interpretation of findings to fit a preconceived conclusion
It is important to note that merely contradicting established scientific knowledge is not, per se, a mark of pseudoscience; science in fact progresses by finding situations where the results of a properly-done experiment contradict the established belief structure and adjusting our belief structures appropriately.
Not all pseudoscience is deliberate. Science itself operates with the assumption that people easily and frequently deceive themselves, usually without being aware of doing so. As a result, scientific practice emphasises a system of checks that expose instances of self-deception. These involve a great deal of work and are difficult to do consistently. Further, they challenge the normal human tendency toward pride and to confuse honesty with accuracy as well as the tendency to react to a challenge with hostility. As a result, many legitimate scientific investigations have resulted in pseudoscience. A notable example is the story of N-Rays.
Other efforts at pseudoscience are so overt or insidious that it is reasonable to conclude that they are deliberate.
[edit] Cargo Cult Science
The physicist Richard Feynman coined the term cargo cult science to describe a particular dynamic among pseudoscientific pursuits.
A “cargo cult” is one of various religious movements in the South Pacific islands. Its practitioners act upon memories of the sudden arrival of “cargo” during World War II. They believe that mimicking the observed rituals of the Allied soldiers will again cause an influx of valuable commodities to their economy. This motivates them to build airstrips, control towers, and to attempt contact to distant powers on makeshift radios.[1]
To Feynman, this served as a metaphor for the practice of pseudoscience. Like the cargo-cultists mimicking the outward appearance of a naval field, pseudoscientists mimic all the outward trappings of science; experimentation, collection of data, use of technical terms, use of specialized equipment. Like the cargo-cultists who do no truly understand the connection between their activities and the arrival of cargo, pseudoscientists do not truly understand the relationship between the activities of science, and the arrival of knowledge. Like the failed cargo-cultists attempting even greater fidelity in their rituals, pseudoscientists react to failure by pursuing the failed methodology with even greater intensity.
