Pseudoscience

From RationalWiki
Not to be confused with "sudo: science", when you ask Linux to Style over substance
do experiments and it goes ([Link] Pseudoscience
v=tax4e4hBBZc) too far ([Link]
v=zxb1zoj-hcM&list=PLhHcMbVmbwCcwvWVo-
RJX_NOlRDarwJN6).
If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of
Popular pseudosciences
science, why not prove it properly and be hailed as the new
Newton?
Alternative medicine
Of course, we know the answer. You can't do it. You are a
Creation science
fake.
Racialism
Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow[1]
Random examples
Pseudoscience describes any belief system or methodology which Anti-relativity
tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails Crust displacement
to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that Fasting
are the marks of true science. JPANDS
Moon
Promoters of pseudoscience often adopt the vocabulary of science, Noetic science
describing conjectures as hypotheses, theories, or laws, providing Piltdown Man
"evidence" from observation and "expert" testimonies, or even Tachyon energy
developing what appear to be mathematical models of their ideas. The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego
However, in pseudoscience there is no honest attempt to follow the in Human History and the
scientific method, provide falsifiable predictions, or develop double Dawning of A New Era
blind experiments. v - t - e ([Link]
title=Template:Pseudosciencenav&action=edit)
Although pseudoscience is designed to appear scientific, it lacks all of
the substance of science.

Contents
1 History
2 Why pseudoscience exists
3 Impact
4 Characteristics of pseudoscience
4.1 In a nutshell
5 Claims
5.1 Use of vague and/or exaggerated claims
5.2 Unfalsifiable ideas
5.3 Stasis of the idea
5.4 "Evidence"
5.4.1 Lack of peer review, and claims of vast establishment conspiracies
5.4.2 Use of outdated or refuted scholarly works
5.4.3 No interest in replication or outside verification
5.4.4 Frequent changes in methodology without changing the conclusions
5.4.5 Refusal to use the scientific method or claiming it cannot be used
5.4.6 Reliance on negative proofs
5.4.7 Reliance on outside or unrelated fields for results
 6 Presentation
6.1 Misuse of scientific terms
6.2 Misrepresentation of terms
6.3 External motivation
6.3.1 Religious
6.3.2 Political
6.3.3 Commercial
7 Fields commonly plagued by pseudoscience
7.1 Medicine
7.1.1 Supernatural
7.1.2 Super-Natural!
7.2 Biology
7.3 Physics
7.4 Mathematics
7.5 Social sciences and the humanities
7.5.1 History
7.5.2 Linguistics
7.6 Economics
8 "Sound science"
9 See also
10 Further reading
11 External links
12 References

History
With the rise of the Enlightenment movement and the success of the
physical sciences in describing the natural world, a new-found respect for
science was developing in the western world. As a result, charlatans
everywhere attempted to capitalize on this phenomenon by hawking a
range of "scientifically proven" remedies, potions, treatments, and devices
to cure the woes of man and bring peace and well-being to all. The term
"pseudoscience" developed in response to these con men. One of 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.

A happy Richard Dawkins
By the beginning of the 20th century, science had further extended the
boundaries of human understanding. With the development of quantum
mechanics and relativity, science was presenting reality as a strange place, challenging people's ability to
understand the mess of particles and high velocities that make up everything we think we know. These ideas
persisted and proved themselves because of their ability to make predictions that could be verified
experimentally. Against this backdrop one of the most famous modern philosophers of science, Karl Popper,
tried to establish what separated out the true science of people like Albert Einstein from intuitively less
rigorous concepts such as psychoanalysis. Popper decided that the key was falsifiability. True science made
specific predictions that could be proven false by examining empirical reality. Pseudosciences rarely cared
about making predictions, and if they did they were unfalsifiable or impossible to test.
After Popper, philosophy entered the stage of social constructionism, with
(damn-fool) philosophers arguing that science was an illusion. Some, such
as Paul Feyerabend, argued that it was impossible to separate science and
pseudoscience, and in the end such a separation is undesirable anyway.

The reality of pseudoscience and recognition of the harm it causes was,

and remains, a unifying idea behind skepticism and the work of most
practising scientists. With the emergence of New Atheism and its
emphasis on critical thinking, a groundswell of effort to combat modern
(and sometimes very non-modern) pseudoscience has developed. The
popularisation of debunking pseudoscience may have begun with Harry
Houdini, who spent his later days taking on spiritualists and mediums. In
the latter half of the 20th century, people like James Randi, Carl Sagan,
and Richard Dawkins published books and made television appearances A bored James Randi
tackling these subjects. Relative newcomers Ben Goldacre, who wrote the
best-seller Bad Science, and Simon Singh, who is currently winning a libel case after calling out chiropractors
on their unsupportable claims, have furthered the trend. Meanwhile, skeptical groups and knowledge bases
continue to expand on the internet and Skeptics in the Pub has changed from a small gathering in London to a
worldwide event often attracting hundreds to each meeting. All of these groups and individuals have actively
and publicly fought against woo, quacks, cranks, creationism, and the thousands of other manifestations of
pseudoscience.

Why pseudoscience exists

A lot of people seem to think that they understand science, or that they're "scientifically minded",
or at the very least that they're rational. They prove it by boldly joining Facebook groups for people
who claim to not only love science, but "fuckingly" so. But claiming to love science without
actually having a scientific understanding is like claiming to love writing without being able to
read. And a disturbingly large number of people believe in bullshit precisely because they have no
scientific understanding.

Maddox, How to tell if you believe in bullshit[2]

If pseudoscience is so incoherently dumb, why do people believe it? There are a few explanations.

Poor scientific literacy: This approach argues that, because many people don't understand science, how it
works, or what makes something not science, that said scientifically illiterate people are susceptible to
science-imitating pseudoscience, which has all the apparent authority of science but very little of the hard-
to-understand actual research.[3][4][5]

Confirmation bias: People want to believe that what they think is true, is true.[6] Furthermore, people
want to believe things that make "sense",[7][8] that are comforting,[7][8] and that align with their personal
experiences,[7][8][3][4] which pushes them towards what they like, rather than what is more likely true.
This is compounded by the fact that the brain is good at finding biases in others, but not in itself.[9]

Popular misinformation: When something is popular, yet wrong, it can often become an established
"fact" merely through virtue of being repeated so many times.[3][4] Sometimes this misinformation is due
to popular science fiction/fantasy which either is based on old obsolete concepts or just plain poor present
science. Another source is the dreaded "technobabble" which in theory is to simulate how theories beyond
our current understanding would sound to us by mimicking how modern scientific theories would sound
to someone of 200 to 300 years ago but in practice tends to produce scientific gibberish like, "Reverse the
polarity of the neutron flow."
 Excitement: Many claims in pseudoscience are exciting ideas, and believing them potentially makes life
more interesting. UFOs are a good examplethe thought that we're being visited, and that you, yes you,
might be able to spot them yourself, is terribly exciting to many people. It also makes for an outlet for
vivid imaginations of what the aliens might be like. By contrast, the lack of evidence for alien visitation
and the realities of interstellar travel (due to the immense distances involved) are downright boring to
many.

Wishful thinking: Some pseudoscientific ideas could be a great help to people if they were true. Cold
fusion is an obvious example, as that could solve many of our energy problems quite easily if only it
actually worked. Similarly, if say positive thinking had a physical effect on reality, that could have
tremendous potential to help people. It's been shown not to work, though.

Impact
See the main article on this topic: Impact of science

Science is pretty damn great. Pseudoscience wastes effort that could have gone towards science and
misinforms people about science, which hurts its ability to do great things. This obstruction can and has
resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

Characteristics of pseudoscience
See the main article on this topic: Demarcation problem

The problem of determining whether something is science or not is called the demarcation problem. Why is it
an issue?

Obviously nobody identifies their beliefs as pseudoscience, because that would imply that what they believed
was wrong; if they thought they were wrong, then they would change their beliefs, and would avoid believing
what they think is pseudoscience. Self-identification is out.

Furthermore, many proto-sciences have fit some of the hallmarks of pseudoscience before they turned into
modern sciences. For example, heroic medicine was the precursor to modern medicine, but used very little
empirical testing and had nearly unfalsifiable ideas. The question is, when medicine was shifting from heroic
to modern medicine, when did it become science? Where was the line?

Many attempts to resolve the problem have been proposed, including assumptions of methodological
naturalism, logical positivism, or complete empiricism. Furthermore, characteristics such as falsifiability (and
more, laid out below) are key to something being considered a science.

In a nutshell

inFact: 5 Ways to Tell Science from Pseudoscience

Claims
Use of vague and/or exaggerated claims

If someone were to propose that the planets go around the sun

because all planet matter has a kind of tendency for movement,
a kind of motility, let us call it an 'oomph,' this theory could
explain a number of other phenomena as well.

So this is a good theory, is it not? No. It is nowhere near as

good as the proposition that the planets move around the sun
under the influence of a central force which varies exactly
inversely as the square of the distance from the center.

The second theory is better because it is so specific; it is so

obviously unlikely to be the result of chance. It is so definite
"A good day for buying patio that the barest error in the movement can show that it is wrong;
furniture."[10] but the planets could wobble all over the place, and, according
to the first theory, you could say, 'Well, that is the funny
behavior of the "oomph".'

Richard Feynman[11]

One of the easiest ways to avoid being proven false is to not make any specific claims at all. Predictions in
science are all about specificity and exactness. Operational definitions have to be clearly defined and shared;
what you are measuring, how you will measure it and how you will determine if any results are significant are
all hallmarks of good science. Pseudoscientific claims very rarely have specific, testable scientific predictions,
and instead rely on vague and ambiguous language, often encompassing grandiose claims.

Astrology is one of the prime examples of this, as its vague claims allows its "predictions" to apply widely to
many people at once and its clever language allows it to be very wrong, but save face. For example, ask an
astrologer who you have never met before to describe your personality. He may reply, "You consider yourself
a very selfless person but there are times you have acted rather selfishly." This statement is true for pretty
much everyone.

In quack medicine a pseudoscience promoter might claim a given treatment "removes toxins from your
system", never saying what toxins, or how they will be removed, or how you can tell if they have been
removed. The toxins are the true cause of disease, never saying how they cause disease, and that removing
them will cure you of all known afflictions. In the few cases like this where the claims are specific, they can
be tested and are often left wanting. In the case of Kinoki Foot Pads, the manufacturers claimed they removed
numerous chemicals such as benzene and mercury (most of which weren't supposed to be in the body
anyway) and lab trials found none of them in the pads.

In other areas of science, it is popular to claim that one has discovered a "unifying theory" that explains all of
reality through special "energy" and "forces". Or that your perpetual motion machine works from hitherto
undiscovered principles of magnetism.

Unfalsifiable ideas

See the main article on this topic: Falsifiability

As Popper laid out seventy years ago, one of the primary demarcations between real science and
pseudoscience is that pseudoscience relies on pushing ideas that cannot be falsified. Unfalsifiable claims
shield pseudoscience from criticism since there can be no "proof" of an unfalsifiable idea.
 The easiest way to distinguish the pseudoscientific method from the
scientific method is to look whether there are testable predictions, and see
whether the experiments set out to test the theory or simply to confirm it.
Can apparently negative results be handwaved? Can negative results be
twisted around to fit the theory anyway? A good case study here is in the
case of Ron Satz, who regularly claims that his Theory of Everything
explains a particular result only for him to state that the theory still
explains it when that result is called into question.

Unfalsifiability can manifest itself in different forms. The most general

sense is when an idea is proposed that is "not even wrong", meaning that
it can never be tested or can never be formulated in such a way as to make
empirical predictions. For example, some young earth creationists claim
that God created the world with the appearance of old age. As there is no
difference between a world that is old and one that merely looks old, the
Karl Popper hypothesis cannot be tested in a scientific way.

Sometimes specific concepts and claims within a pseudoscience can be falsified, such as the efficacy of
alternative medicines. When this happens, the usual tactic is to change the criteria for falsification a strategy
known as "moving the goalposts". Intelligent design (ID) is constructed almost completely from this approach
by altering the criteria by which evolution can be disproved every time new research is carried out. Many of
the specific claims of intelligent design, such as irreducible complexity, can and have been falsified when the
naturalistic evolutionary pathways are found. ID advocates then move the goalposts to another irreducibly
complex feature, until that is disproved, and so on. However, the general concept that a supernatural entity
designed life in its current form remains an unfalsifiable idea. Since we can neither prove nor disprove this
"hypothesis" it lies outside of the domain of science, and adorning it with scientific trappings is a textbook
example of pseudoscience.

Moving the goalposts is also common in more liberal theologies that try to place God as the overseer of the
natural world. Whatever cannot be explained by science, well, that is God. And when science comes up with
an explanation, well then, we move God to whatever still can't be explained. This God of the gaps mentality is
generally unfalsifiable as there will always be such gaps ready to be filled by God, even if specific claims
might be falsifiable.

Stasis of the idea

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's

a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they
would actually change their minds and you never hear that old
view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as
often as it should, because scientists are human and change is
sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the
last time something like that happened in politics or religion.

Carl Sagan[12]

Pseudoscience is embraced by its proponents with almost religious fervor.

Since the idea can never be wrong, there is very little that needs to be
changed or should be changed. This is most aptly seen in pseudosciences
that have been around for generations such as homeopathy or
acupuncture. One is hard pressed to find significant differences between
Acupuncture: You'll only feel a the basic idea proposed 300 or 3,000 years ago and the beliefs and
little prick.
practices of modern day quacks.
This is in marked contrast to real science, where stasis of even a few years is rare let alone decades or
centuries. The difference between physics as proposed by Isaac Newton and the modern day is huge. Despite
what creationists like to claim, Charles Darwin's idea of evolution by natural selection has gone through huge
changes with the advent of genetics, developmental biology and hundreds of other fields.

While progress in science can be rough, and personalities can clash, nothing can compare to the outright
hostility of a pseudoscience promoter when faced with having his ideas developed or changed. Any such
attempts will usually mark the upstart as a member of the establishment out to undermine truth once again.

"Evidence"

In science evidence is valued when it is collected in a rigorous manner

and is as divorced as possible from personal bias. The classic example is a
controlled, double-blind study. Though naturalistic observation is
sometimes used, it is not proof of a theory. Furthermore, when it is used, a
substantial quantity of data is usually involved. The use of statistics and
an emphasis on statistical significance is also a strong hallmark of
legitimate science.

In pseudoscience the importance placed on the value of evidence is almost

reversed. Rigorous and controlled experiments, large data sets, and
statistical reasoning are replaced with an emphasis on personal, anecdotal
evidence and testimonials. Another major emphasis is on expert opinion.
Anyone with letters after their name who is willing to say something
positive about the idea is quoted to provide evidence the idea is valid. (It's
a minor red flag when someone insists on attaching "Dr." or "Ph.D." to
their name.)

Well known examples of this are the ridiculous lists of scientists that question Darwinian evolution put
together by creationists. This is nicely countered with Project Steve, which shows the ridiculous nature of this
technique. Often the expert or scientist quoted in support of a pseudoscientific idea may not actually support it
and the quote is taken out of context. This is called quote mining and is a great indicator of pseudoscience.
Other times the individual quoted is not a scientist at all, but instead something like a doctor or an engineer
or is a legitimate scientist, but in a different field altogether. A good example of the latter is physicists
appearing in the evolution lists mentioned above: a physicist's opinion on biological questions carries no more
weight than a biologist's opinion would matter about, say, the properties of the Higgs boson.

One final problem is that pseudoscience promoters are only interested in evidence that confirms the initial
idea. This confirmation bias means that any evidence that might contradict the idea is ignored.

Lack of peer review, and claims of vast establishment conspiracies

One of the single most important aspects of true science is replication and verification, particularly from third
parties not involved in the original experiments. This is the heart of peer review, where new ideas are laid out
before fellow scientists with all the details of how to replicate and extend the research. While the social
dynamics of peer review are not foolproof, and many interesting issues can emerge, there is still nothing
better for advancing human knowledge. It is, of course, not surprising that people who promote pseudoscience
want to avoid peer review like a plague.

If an idea has not been published in a single peer-reviewed journal, it is safe to say it likely would not pass the
peer review process, at least not in its current state. Most people with even the faintest interest in science have
at least a passing knowledge of the peer-review system, and so pseudoscience promoters often have to offer
hand-wavy explanations for why their ideas have not been published anywhere. In alternative medicine, it is
common to blame Big Pharma for wanting to hide the fact that some natural product cures all known illnesses
because it will hurt their profits despite the fact that such a thing would generate more profit, and Big
 Pharma would be dying to get their hands on it and
monopolize it! In biology, creationists often claim that
evolution is propped up by a vast atheist and materialist
conspiracy, as if every Ph.D. student ended their final
viva with their supervisor taking them to one side for "a
little chat". This "big conspiracy" is perhaps the most
common tactic, but more imaginative excuses do exist, A peer-
such as Jason Lisle claiming that his theory on how to reviewed
solve the starlight problem doesn't need to pass through journal
the peer-review system of major science journals because
you wouldn't expect evolutionist papers to pass through
creationist journals.
The Illuminati are everywhere
When pseudoscientific papers are published, they are
often published in pseudo-journals, which pretend to use "peer review" but are less rigorous
than one would expect of the scientific mainstream. Pseudoscience promoters will sometimes
start their own journals that are "reviewed" only by fellow promoters. These journals are
A "peer-
often easily identified by their poor standards for inclusion, or their lack of inclusion in
reviewed"
scholarly indexes such as ISI Web of Knowledge (or even Google Scholar). One of the most
obvious characteristics of pseudo-peer review is a total lack of interest in replicating or journal
verifying the "work" of others in the field. Which brings us to the next point

Use of outdated or refuted scholarly works

Sometimes a pseudoscience supporter will present a scholarly article from a work in the related field as
"proof" that the claim is not pseudoscientific, but via further research it can be shown that this sole study was
a glitch or later proven false.

For example, K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al., "Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo
Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials," Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843 at first
glance supports homeopathy but this paper was refuted in "The end of homoeopathy" The Lancet, Vol. 366
No. 9487 p 690. The Vol. 366 No. 9503 issue (Dec 27, 2005) and by 14 studies from 2003 to 2007.[13]

This by far is the more dangerous form of pseudoscience as it gives a (generally false) air of legitimacy to a
claim.

No interest in replication or outside verification

While closely related to a refusal to submit to peer review, the total lack of interest in any form of replication
or outside verification is an important issue in and of itself. Whereas real science is a work in permanent
progress with many people around the world replicating experiments, exchanging results, working out details
and deriving further hypotheses; pseudoscience is presented as a completed package, a done deal.
Pseudoscientific ideas may claim to have unified physics, cured the sick, reduced all of mathematics to an
algebraic proof, and created limitless energy. They claim there is no need to go any further, just embrace the
idea and enter utopia. In contrast real scientists love it when others pick up their work and use it as a basis for
further research if nothing else, it pumps up their citation numbers.

Often the pseudoscience promoter will use the techniques of vague language to make outside verification
impossible, or will offer the secrets only to those people who are deemed worthy or pay large sums of money.
If by chance, someone attempts to replicate or verify the idea and fails they must be either stupid or a paid
shill for the evil conspiracy out to hide the truth.

This embracing of the idea that the problem is solved and needs no verification is also the source for our next
major characteristic of pseudoscience.
Frequent changes in methodology without changing the conclusions

As an alternative to the above, pseudoscience can be overly eager to update its claims and ideas. While
science is always a "work in progress" to some extent and undergoes rapid change, new hypotheses and
theories are both formed on top of existing ones and more importantly generate new claims or avenues of
exploration. Relativity, groundbreaking as it was, did not completely discard Newtonian physics; indeed,
Einstein was able to formulate his theory through the classic Maxwell Equations. However, in this hallmark of
pseudoscience, previous hypotheses and mechanisms are dropped wholesale as soon as something slightly
more promising comes along while still keeping the same basic conclusion. Transhumanism as a movement
in the 1960s has almost no resemblance to transhumanism in the 21st century, yet people are still somehow
promised a future of immortal supermen through the power of science. Fad diets in particular are prone to
this, spewing out technobabble on how this newly discovered trick will trim the hell out of your wallet
waistline while not explaining why all the previous dozens of false claims were based on exactly as little
actual science.

Refusal to use the scientific method or claiming it cannot be used

Pseudoscience promoters rarely discuss experimental evidence when promoting their falsehoods. But in
debates that inevitably emerge they must sometimes face the question of why they don't submit their ideas to
the basic practice of science. This is commonly seen in medical woo where the gold standard of the double
blind study would clearly show the ideas to be false. Most promoters will refuse to do the studies, and often
claim that their ideas are somehow impossible to test through standard means.

Particularly in medical trials, as it's important to know that any observation is attributable only to the
hypothesised mechanism, such as a new drug or surgery, and not to a confounding variable. The
pseudoscientific method actively ignores this, or attempts to claim some exemption from it. Even when it
comes to apologists talking about prayer, if someone states that something "works", then they must have a
criterion by which they can support that statement. There is effectively no difference between something that
people say can't be tested for, and something that simply doesn't work. A large part of the pseudoscientific
method is devoted to convincing people that this isn't true.

This special pleading is often hidden in a positive light. For example, promoters of "alternative medicine" will
claim that the "whole body" approach to healing requires full disclosure between the doctor and patient.
Homeopaths claim that true remedies must be tailor-made and thus cannot be tested against any kind of
standard.

Another technique is claiming that attempts to apply skepticism or testing to the idea would destroy it. This
objection is common in various forms of psychic woo where skeptics are alleged to disrupt the delicate
"telepathic waves". Many pseudoscience concepts based around supernatural causes will claim that their
particular cures are carried out by an agency of some sort that will not willingly be tested in such a manner.

Reliance on negative proofs

In science ideas are never really proven, which is demonstrated in the old adage that "proof is for math and
alcohol". Pseudoscience promoters however are big fans of the negative proof. They push the idea that
somehow the "truth value" of an idea is a binary claim, that if an idea is not proven false it must be true.
However, most of their claims are positive claims and as such would require evidence to back them up. The
burden of proof is on the promoter, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Reliance on outside or unrelated fields for results

Especially applicable to "almost science" are ideas which place an undue burden on fields of science or
engineering not directly covered by the topic to make it work. While modern science is noteworthy for hand-
holding between disciplines and real scientific projects are sometimes unable to be immediately implemented
due to real-world limitations, pseudoscience always ends up passing the buck to a more trustworthy
discipline. For example, advocates for cryonics often claim that their bizarre method of revivification will be
completely validated and viable once nanotechnology catches up. Or that cold fusion is just around the corner,
once engineers design a viable containment reactor.

Presentation
Misuse of scientific terms

One of the easiest ways to gain the trappings of science is to describe pseudoscience using
the words of science, or terms that sound scientific (often aptly described as technobabble or
equivocation). This is easiest to do with scientific concepts that are poorly understood by the
general public (which, admittedly, includes the vast majority of scientific concepts). New The device
Agers are particularly fond of "energy" as a catchall term. Another favorite target for pictured is
pseudoscience promoters is the use of quantum woo, where waves, particles, strings and called "The
force lines magically come together to produce amazing consequences. Law of Attraction Quantum
proponents, for example, claim that you can manifest anything you want into reality (money, Xrroid
fame, sex, a better hairstyle) by focusing on it and "collapsing wave functions" in reality. Consciousness
Interface".
Other techniques often involve not misusing existing terms, but rather creating whole new
Honestly!
terms in a style that seems scientific. An excellent example of this is the creationist
baraminology and baramin, which is their fancy replacement for the old PRATT that animals
only evolve within "kinds".

Misrepresentation of terms

Another facet of pseudoscience that occurs in popular culture is the misrepresentation of a term.

The most obvious example of this is "life expectancy" as seen in the In Search of episode "The Man Who
Would Not Die" (About Count of St. Germain) where it is stated "Evidence recently discovered in the British
Museum indicates that St. Germain may have well been the long lost third son of Rkczi born in
Transylvania in 1694. If he died in Germany in 1784, he lived 90 years. The average life expectancy in the
18th century was 35 years. Fifty was a ripe old age. Ninety was forever."

Even though it talks about life expectancy as being an average, the statement still presents ages past that
average as being very rare, which is not exactly true. The life expectancy generally quoted is the at birth
number, which is an average that includes all the babies that die before their first year of life as well as people
that die from disease and war. Let's say you have two people born the same day: one dies at the age of 2, but
the other lives to the age of 80. The average age of those two people is 41 ((80+2)/2), and if you averaged
three people of 2, 3, and 80 you would get an average age of only 29! It doesn't take that many child deaths to
send the average down. Just living to the age of 5 nearly doubled your life expectancy from 25 to 48. Most of
the overall advances in life expectancy have, in fact, come from reducing infant and childhood mortality; the
average life expectancy for people who reach adulthood has, barring dips caused by wars and pandemics, only
gone up by a few years.[14]

Even with these averages, you still had people who lived a long time. For example, Benjamin Franklin died in
1790 at the age of 84, and Ramesses II is thought to have lived 90 years.

External motivation
Major commonalities in political, religious, and commercial pseudoscience are outlined here.
A huge red flag should go up when an idea is pushed against the backdrop of a strong agenda that, on the
surface, should have nothing to do with the idea being proposed at all. This can often be seen when an
individual suddenly starts promoting a pseudoscientific idea shortly after a major political or religious
conversion, or a list of "supporters" of an idea are all unified in some sort of philosophy or religion.

Religious

The most ready example of this can be found with creationism and
intelligent design, where the goal of discrediting evolution is merely a
means to an end of discrediting secularism and promoting fundamentalist
Christianity in its place.

Political

Pseudoscience can also thrive as the backdrop of political ideology.

Lysenkoism thrived in the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin as an

"alternative" to evolution by natural selection, because it was put forward
as part of the Communist ideology. Evolution and Mendelian genetics,
meanwhile, were declared to be "bourgeois pseudoscience", and their
supporters were sent to the gulags, which is exactly the way science's peer This proves everything. Doesn't
review process works.[15] it?

Likewise, Nazi Germany promoted Deutsche Physik because Nazi

ideologues felt that relativity was too connected to Jews like Albert Einstein.

Pseudoscience is also often used to repress minorities or "undesirables", such as the "scientific racism" that
was used to support eugenics programs.

In modern politics, the influence of the religious right has led to a politicization of science that links religious
and political motivation in pushing various forms of pseudoscience, from creationism to global warming
denialism, while in a more bipartisan example of crankery, opposition to GMOs and vaccines is often derived
less from science and more from a particularly paranoid strain of public health/consumer advocacy (with left-
wing examples often adding environmentalism to the mix, and right-wing examples adding distrust of
government regulatory agencies).

Commercial

See the main article on this topic: Pseudoscience in advertising

Often, commercial interests will find ways to bend "science" to allow easier sells. A clear example is in the
tobacco industry, which for decades denied any link between smoking and lung cancer, and devised tests to
"prove" exactly that. Why? Because if smoking isn't bad for you, then it's harder to regulate tobacco and
easier to convince customers to buy your product.

Fields commonly plagued by pseudoscience

Medicine

Probably the single most destructive form of pseudoscience is quack medicine. Its toll financially, and in
terms of human health and life, is immense. At face value, quack remedies for mild headaches or "feeling
down" may seem harmless; the placebo effect as well as other factors may lead people to believe that they
actually work. Alternative medicines prey on a minority of bad experiences with conventional medicine to
draw people into their use, first for mild conditions and then serious ones.
This leads to patients forgoing conventional (i.e., proven) medicine for a
range of ailments that are far more serious, from cancer to AIDS.

There are two major categories of pseudoscience in medicine.

Supernatural

The first is supernatural, psychic, and paranormal healing. This faith

healing is popular with televangelists like Benny Hinn. Some religious
sects, such as Christian Science, are based exclusively around the
pseudoscience that every major illness can be cured through supernatural
means and this often results in death from easily preventable or curable
illnesses. This form of healing doesn't need to be overtly religious;
quantum woo such as the Law of Attraction, or techniques like psychic Thanks, science!
surgery and Reiki, are often non-theistic but still "supernatural" in origin.
Some "ancient traditions" such as acupuncture and chakras also generally
fall into this category.

Super-Natural!

The second category avoids supernatural claims, but instead relies on poorly supported or discredited
"science", often appealing to its "natural" qualities. Often this kind of pseudoscience takes the form of
pushing various vitamin or herbal supplements as magic cures for diseases. Other forms include taking
outdated concepts of disease and cures and claiming they are just as accurate or more accurate than modern
medicine. Homeopathy is a great example of this, based on a 200-year old theory of disease that wasn't even
widely accepted when it was first proposedand, perhaps more importantly, was compiled before the germ
theory was ever established. Finally, when terrible things happen, the desire to "blame" someone leads to false
scapegoats. This is most clearly seen in the anti-vaccination movement, particularly about the role of
thiomersal in autism. Some of the arguments used by the anti-nuclear movement also fall into this category.

Biology

Biology is subjected to probably the best known and most widespread

pseudoscience of all creationism. Whatever the manifestation, whether
old Earth, young Earth, or intelligent design, creationism has been a
prolific and long standing pseudoscience. It all stems from the perceived
threat of evolution to religion.

While creationism has certainly dominated as the main pseudoscience in

biology it is not the only one. Historically, Lysenkoism and eugenics have
both been extraordinarily deadly. Purported differences between the innate
Intelligent design advocate abilities of different races such as in The Bell Curve share many
Michael Behe, inventor of characteristics with pseudoscience. Many of the pseudosciences in
irreducible complexity a medicine overlap with biology, with denying AIDS or even the germ
supposedly scientific idea that has theory of disease and replacing it with ridiculous concepts like
defied precise definition and been homotoxicology.
consistently disproven for 20
years. Physics

Physics has been home to some of the weirdest forms of pseudoscience.

Because its concepts are particularly arcane to most lay people it sometimes seems to be possible to pass off
just about any incoherent drivel as "science". By invoking the magic word "quantum", suddenly the most
ridiculous, utterly impossible statements become easily accepted as true.
This pops up all over the place with cranks like Deepak Chopra and his
quantum healing, or Esther Hicks and her Law of Attraction.

In June 2017, the error-prone dreamer Robert Morningstar wrote of a new

game he had invented "It unifies the metaphysical principles of Taoism
and Tai Chi Ch'uan with Einstein's Relativity Theory and Quantum
Mechanics to produce novel ways of moving through curved space-time."
The game, Thunderball, consists of two people chucking balls at each
other.

While Grand Unified Field Theories and Theories of everything are

legitimate concepts in theoretical physics (investigating those are
basically why the LHC was built), woo promoters often abuse such
esoteric concepts when peddling their wares to a general public. Not Deepak Chopra
content for Grand Unified Theories to just unite electromagnetism, the
strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force, but also the mind, body
and soul. Cranks with no training in physics or math frequently submit their own Theories of Everything,
which are universally laughed out of the room by actual experts, if acknowledged at all.

Another very popular subject for physics-based pseudoscience is free energy. Whether through magnetism or
orgone or any other made-up substance, people have claimed for generations to have the solution to our
world's energy needs in their garage. Cold fusion, similar to free energy, had its heyday in the media before its
original perpetrators were exposed as frauds. However, cranks regularly rant on internet forums that they have
cold fusion powering their freezers right now. These ideas merge with engineering into claims of perpetual
motion machines or devices that can generate more energy than they consume.

And finally we have straight-out denialism coated in "scientific" language with things like the moon landing
hoax or anti-relativity tirades.

Mathematics

Pseudomathematics is probably one of the most under-appreciated fields of pseudoscience, which is too bad,
since there is a wealth of great material. One of the biggest areas for exploitation is in the area of "proofs" and
"theorems." Cranks love to "prove" theorems that have not yet been proven by real mathematicians, or to
"disprove" theorems that have been proved, and even better to "prove" already proven theorems using high
school algebra. Andrew Wiles and his proof of Fermat's last theorem has been a major lightning rod for
cranks. Another favorite is squaring the circle.

In addition to proofs, there is a range of pseudoscience proponents that like to try their hand at destroying core
concepts in mathematics. The imaginary number is a common target, as well as irrational numbers. Finding an
exact solution to Pi remains the most popular application of pseudoscience in this category.

Social sciences and the humanities

Various social sciences are absolutely rife with pseudoscience. The field is
particularly dangerous because some "experts" actually "accept" many of
the ideas in the field, not least because the so-called social sciences aren't
actual sciences at all. That is, they don't apply the scientific method to
their disciplines; in the days before "science" became a magic buzzword,
the social sciences were known as liberal arts.

In psychology, psychoanalysis provides a classic example; Popper

selected this pseudoscience to compare to the theory of relativity. Many of Rorschach test
the diagnostic and testing methodologies in psychology, things like
repressed memories, multiple personality disorder and the Rorschach test, are based on nothing but
pseudoscience.[16][17][18]

Management provides another rich field for pseudo-scientific approaches and ideas.[19]

History

As the analysis of history is generally non-experimental, the discipline is not "scientific" in popular
understandings of the term. Except in cases where propositions can be definitively demonstrated or
discounted through, for instance, the analysis of archaeological evidence, it makes little sense to talk about
history as a pseudoscience.

That said, history can also be practiced in an intellectually dishonest manner, giving us pseudohistory.
Pseudohistory is the handmaiden of conspiracy theories, harnessed to trouble conventional time-lines or to
prove the existence of nefarious plots such as the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory or the 9/11
truth movement. Pseudohistory is also used to support nationalism, by portraying one nation as being superior
to all others. This supposed superiority is often invoked as justification for everything from irredentism to
genocide.

What distinguishes history from pseudohistory is the rigorous application of the historical method , refraining
from resorting to ad hoc explanations (e.g. aliensdidit or Goddidit), and the ability to formulate hypotheses
that fit with existing results of historical research (contrast the latter with the exponents of alternate historical
chronologies).

Linguistics

Common forms of pseudolinguistics are spurious claims of relationships between language families, or of
great antiquity or historical primacy, often for nationalistic reasons. Pseudolinguistics also sometimes takes
the form of nonscientific theories about how language influences thought. Undeciphered writing systems,
ancient and modern, can attract highly speculative ideas and claims of translation.

Economics

Starting in the Reagan Administration, it became fashionable to claim that throwing money at businesses
(thereby relieving them of some of the need to make money) would cause them to hire more people and
expand their businesses. Its most vocal proponents are, of course, the owners of big businesses, who stand to
profit the most from it. The consistent failure of this policy to actually work largely goes unnoticed by the
general public.

"Sound science"
See the main article on this topic: Sound science

Pseudoscience is sometimes referred to as "junk science." However, the term "junk science" has become
associated with anti-environmental bullshit due to corporate mouthpiece Steve Milloy's use of the term.
Milloy runs a blog called "Junk Science" where he obfuscates and denies global warming, risks associated
with the use of DDT, and other environmental problems. Michael Fumento, another shill, has furthered this
use of the phrase. In general, when a pundit is being interviewed or writing a column about environmental or
health issues, the term "junk science" usually translates to "science that will be very inconvenient for my
funders" and "sound science" translates to "some bullshit I just made up to deny the problem."

See also
 List of pseudosciences
Pseudoscience in advertising
Woo
Policy-based evidence making
Anti-science, rejecting science outright
Folk science, "other ways of knowing"
Empiricism, how science works
The Fine Art of Baloney Detection, Carl Sagan's take
John Grant, another author on the subject

Further reading
Gardner, Martin (1957). Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science. Dover.

External links
Pseudoscience ([Link] from Psiram
Pseudoscience ([Link] from Wikipedia
Pseudoscience ([Link] from The Skeptic's Dictionary
Astronomical Pseudoscience Resource List ([Link]
guides/astronomical-pseudo-science-a-skeptics-resource-list/)

References
8. Shermer, Michael; Gould, Steven J. (2002). Why
1. Dawkins, C. Richard (1998). Unweaving the Rainbow: People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience,
Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder. Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New
London: Allen Lane. p. 128. York: Holt Paperbacks. ISBN 0-8050-7089-3.
2. How to tell if you believe in bullshit 9. Understanding The Believing Brain: Why Science Is
([Link] the Only Way Out of Belief-Dependent Realism
Maddox on YouTube ([Link]
3. Barry Singer and Victor A. Benassi. "Occult Beliefs: believing-brain/) by Michael Shermer (April 2011)
Media Distortions, Social Uncertainty, and Scientific American.
Deficiencies of Human Reasoning Seem to be at the 10. This was a genuine horoscope, published in the
Basis of Occult Beliefs." American Scientist , Vol. 69, Khaleej Times.
No. 1 (JanuaryFebruary 1981), pp. 4955. 11. The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist
4. Raymond A. Eve and Dana Dunn. "Psychic Powers, ([Link]
Astrology & Creationism in the Classroom? Evidence id=SVHTdQfK8KYC&pg=PT13&lpg=PT13&dq=%2
of Pseudoscientific Beliefs among High School 2If+someone+were+to+propose+that+the+planets+go
Biology & Life Science Teachers". The American +around+the+sun+because+all+planet+matter+has+a+
Biology Teacher , Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jan., 1990), pp. 10 kind+of+tendency+for+movement,+a+kind+of+motilit
21. y%22&source=bl&ots=KypuIPs0ay&sig=nnkQyYb7v
5. What does Scientific Literacy look like in the 21st rzboeWP4SCiXZuce3E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKE
Century? wiU9Y-
([Link] FzsrQAhVJjFQKHdoWCB4Q6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&
does-scientific-literacy-look-like-in-the-21st-century) q=%22If%20someone%20were%20to%20propose%20
by Caleb Lack (10 October 2013) Great Plains that%20the%20planets%20go%20around%20the%20s
Skeptic. un%20because%20all%20planet%20matter%20has%2
6. Devilly, GJ (2005). "Power therapies and possible 0a%20kind%20of%20tendency%20for%20movement
threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry". %2C%20a%20kind%20of%20motility%22&f=false)
Australia and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 39 by Richard P. Feynman (2009). Basic Books. ISBN
(6): 439. 9780786739141.
7. Lindeman M (December 1998). "Motivation, 12. Carl Sagan (1987) Keynote address at CSICOP
Cognition and Pseudoscience". Scandinavian Journal conference, as quoted in Do Science and the Bible
of Psychology 39 (4): 25765. PMID 9883101 Conflict? (2003) by Judson Poling, p. 30. ISBN
([Link] 0310245079.
13. Clinical Trials (2003-2007) 17. In State ex rel H.H. (1999) under cross examination
([Link] Dr. Bogacki stated under oath "many psychologists do
[Link]/Homeopathy/Clinical%20Trials%2 not believe much in the validity or effectiveness of the
0on%20Homeopathy%20Published%20from%202003 Rorschach test".
%20to%[Link]) 18. US v Battle (2001) ruled that the Rorschach "does not
14. Kanazawa, Satoshi. "Common misconceptions about have an objective scoring system".
science II: Life expectancy." 19. Beyond Management: Taking Charge at Work by Mark
([Link] Addleson (2011). Springer. ISBN 9780230343412. "At
fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions- work, ordinary human acts of organizing are
about-science-ii-life-expectancy) Psychology Today, surrounded by dense, almost impenetrable layers of
20 November 2008 (recovered 4 March 2015). procedures and jargon held together by pseudo-
15. Imre Lakatos, Science and Pseudoscience science. What we call 'management' is a morass of
([Link] rules, regulations, and rigid structures that spring from
[Link]), Science and a command and control mentality, coupled with an
Pseudoscience (transcript) obsession for measuring and an insatiable appetite for
([Link] data. This is because, as a so-called 'science',
[Link]), Dept of management is meant to be empirical and objective
Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method, 1973. [] underneath the pseudo-science and impressive
16. Jones v Apfel (1997) stated (quoting from Attorney's language of 'scorecards,' 'value propositions,' 'human
Textbook of Medicine) that Rorschach "results do not capital,' and 'data mining,' management is a cause of
meet the requirements of standardization, reliability, or widespread dissatisfaction at work as well as a source
validity of clinical diagnostic tests, and interpretation of organizational breakdowns."
thus is often controversial".
Articles on RationalWiki related to pseudo-studies
Pseudoarchaeology - Pseudoastronomy - Pseudohistory - Pseudolaw - Pseudolinguistics - Pseudomathematics
- Pseudoscience - Pseudopsychology - Pseudoscience list - Pseudoscience in advertising - Pseudoskepticism
- Pseudovitamin

Retrieved from "[Link]

Categories: Cover story articles Pseudoscience

This page was last modified on 24 October 2017, at 05:34.

Unless explicitly noted otherwise, all content licensed as indicated by RationalWiki:Copyrights.
For concerns on copyright infringement please see: RationalWiki:Copyright violations