When Does a Claim Become Pseudoscience?

[Dr B]

Hello all

I have an interesting question for you all. For you, when does something like a belief system actually become a pseudoscience? For me, you are free to hold whatever beliefs you like, but the point at which you start to claim your beliefs are a 'truth' or factual claim that rivals science - thats when it can become a pseudoscience.

In other words religion does not necessarily have to be a pseudoscience as its claims often have no implication for it. It is only when people claim religion is factual or true or rivals science - do i think the problem emerges.

Whats your take on it?

[Zendal Darkman]

Hello all

I have an interesting question for you all. For you, when does something like a belief system actually become a pseudoscience? For me, you are free to hold whatever beliefs you like, but the point at which you start to claim your beliefs are a 'truth' or factual claim that rivals science - thats when it can become a pseudoscience.

In other words religion does not necessarily have to be a pseudoscience as its claims often have no implication for it. It is only when people claim religion is factual or true or rivals science - do i think the problem emerges.

Whats your take on it?

My take would be when a belief system starts to claim manifestations in the physical world. If a belief system were to make claims of heaven and being able to speak to god through prayer I would not consider it a pseudoscience. If it were to claim that prayers heal the sick, then that aspect of it would be a pseudoscience.

I suppose you could classify Christianity as mostly a belief system with pseudoscience elements inherent within it.

[Mojo]

My take would be when a belief system starts to claim manifestations in the physical world. I would say not so much when they claim manifestations in the real world, but when they also claim that the manifestations are not just a matter of faith, and start twisting real science to support their ideas. Hence I have less objection to the idea of the Roman Catholic Church claiming miracle cures at Lourdes than I do with homoeopathy, although I think both ideas are nonsense. If homoeopathy would admit to being a religion or form of sympathetic magic I would have less objection to it.

[Admin]

Hmmmm.... :ponder: good question.

I wrote something about beliefs here: http://www.skeptics.org.uk/explanation.php?dir=articles/explanations&article=beliefs.php

Belief: an acceptance that something is true but without absolute certainty of such.

I think it's justification of belief that is the important factor. It's how beliefs are justified that determines how likely they are to be true (or close to the truth). I am an advocate of evidence-based belief; that is beliefs that are justified by having tangible evidence to support them.

It's the reliance on faith, wishful thinking and dogma that leads us into pseudoscience. Like Homeopaths postulating the idea that the 'essence' of their remedy is transferred to the sugar pills. It fits in with their belief system by explaining what they would like to be true, but how do they justify this belief? They can't.

[Dr B]

So, it seems we are agreed.

A matter of faith is not a matter of fact. Blind faith is not a pseudoscience (even though it may be irrational) - only at the point of claiming provisional truths does something qualify for scientific scrutiny and hence - in the case of quack ideas - become a pseudoscience