Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:15, 1 October 2002

A general definition of pseudoscience is "any body of knowledge purporting to be factual and scientific, but which has failed to be validated in accordance with the scientific method".

Pseudoscience is distinguished from protoscience in its deviation from the accepted scientific method. Protoscience is science regarded to be in accordance with the method, but which has yet to be properly tested and either supported or refuted. Such fields as acupuncture and lucid dreaming may perhaps be best categorized as protosciences, pending more evidence and theoretical underpinning. Typically, works of pseudoscience fail to meet the criteria laid down by the scientific method in one or more of the following ways:

• by asserting premises (claims without supporting evidence) as factual evidence,
• by asserting claims in contradiction of recorded evidence,
• by failing to provide an experimental framework for reproducible results, or
• by violating Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible).

Pseudoscience is distinguished from Revelation, Theology or Spirituality in that it claims to offer insight into the physical world by scientific means (i.e., means in accordance with the scientific method). Systems of thought that rely upon "divine" or "inspired" knowledge are not considered pseudoscience if they do not claim to be scientific per se. The motivations for the promotion of pseudoscience range from simple naivety about the methodological rigour of the scientific method, to deliberate deception for financial exploitation.

The problem of demarcation

It is important to note that what marks the boundries of science, and therefore what defines pseudoscience, has never properly been settled. 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 all metaphysical statements are meaningless. Later, Karl Popper attacked logical positivism and introduced his own criterion for demarcation based on falsifiability. This in turn was criticised, most notably by Thomas Kuhn, but also by Popper supporter Imre Lakatos who proposed his own criteria that distinguished between progressive and degenerative research programs.

Lakatos perhaps marks the start of a trend in the philosophy of science to relax the demarcation criteria. This trend has continued with some philosophers, including Paul Feyerabend and Larry Laudan, adopting the view that there is no single benchmark for the validity of ideas and that this segregation of knowledge is unhealthy for science.

Examples of pseudoscience

Examples of fields of knowledge that many consider in varying extents to be pseudoscientific include (alphabetically):

(Note that some of these fields are valid scientific fields which are also populated by less reputable "pseudoscientists")

• Applied kinesiology
• astrology
• cartomancy
• channeling
• creationism
• cryptozoology
• dowsing
• exobiology
• Intelligent Design theory
• iridology
• most fortune-telling methods
• many non-standard medical practices, including magnet therapy
• numerology
• parapsychology
• perpetual motion machines
• psychic phenomena
• Reciprocal System of Theory
• squaring the circle
• Transcendental Meditation

Pseudoscientific medical practices often become quite popular, in part because they often work well due to the placebo effect. 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.

See also: Junk science, Quackery, Protoscience, New Age, Sokal Affair, Pathological science, Cargo cult science

External links

• The Skeptic's Dictionary.

Although primarily the work of a single individual and considerably negative in its bias, this work is nonetheless a well-researched and cross-referenced presentation of pseudoscientific and related subjects.

• James Randi Educational Foundation.

The JREF organization investigates lots of claims and attempts to test them in controlled experimental conditions. No luck yet finding any evidence of anything not explainable by real science. Lots of good information on the website.