Spotting the pseudo-science

[Tony Williams]

(an extract from my SFF blog):

While on this subject, there was an amusing item by Amanda Gefter in New Scientist magazine (28/2/09) concerning how to spot attempts to disguise religiously-inspired (or other unscientific) work as science. Samples of some key phrases to look for:
"Darwinism": scientists rarely use the term – they use "evolution" instead
"irreducibly complex": implying that it couldn't have evolved from something simpler
"academic freedom": when appealed to, usually means the freedom to teach creationism
"common sense": when appealed to; science works on theories based on evidence and may reach conclusions entirely opposed to common sense.
"scientific materialism": implying that the immaterial exists
"quantum physics" in an article which is clearly not about physics ("quantum" being the latest mystical buzz-word to give apparent respectability to bonkers notions)
There's more, but this gives the general idea!

[newatheist]

The trouble with these creationists using these terms all the time is that they are becoming mainstream, I was watching "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" a few days ago words 'Darwinism' 'Darwinist' and 'evolutionist' were used quite a few times.

[Matt]

Dawkins uses "Darwinism" quite often in the selfish gene.

[Mojo]

The word "allopathy" as a description of current medicine is a pretty good indication that the person using it has an "alternative medicine" agenda.

[Trinoc]

The word "allopathy" as a description of current medicine is a pretty good indication that the person using it has an "alternative medicine" agenda.
Of course, one could counter that the use of the words "quack" and "woo" are a pretty sure sign the person has a skeptical agenda.

[Tim the Mage]

"scientific materialism": implying that the immaterial exists


This is a Marxist term - it is the thing that Marxist-Leninists describe as the basis for viewing their philosophy as a science. It combines the axiom of the dialectic with the idea of 'historical materialism' to create the theory.

It's utter bollocks of course.

[ZERO]

When you see the term "open minded" you're usually expected to be anything but.

[farmersboy]

In much the same was as a 'humble opinion' usually isn't...

[Mulder]

Don't forget 'skeptical' to describe any explanation for a weird event that doesn't include the paranormal.

[Tim the Mage]

Dawkins uses "Darwinism" quite often in the selfish gene.

...but I think quite carefully to describe application of the conceptual idea outside evolutionary biology?

[cjr23]

(an extract from my SFF blog):

While on this subject, there was an amusing item by Amanda Gefter in New Scientist magazine (28/2/09) concerning how to spot attempts to disguise religiously-inspired (or other unscientific) work as science. Samples of some key phrases to look for:

Snip: great article. The problem I find is that actually we really are reduced to this; pseudoscience is a subjective reaction, and we know it when we see it, but there is no useful definition available. I've just been rereading the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on pseudoscience and the demarcation debate for a thing I'm doing on Philosophy of Science, and it is incredibly difficult to find a formal definition. I can't post links, but google the bolded terms and you'll find the article.

Anyway nice list. :)

cj x

[Mulder]

Today's 'pseudoscience' could just become tomorrow's science. Of course, most new ideas that are ridiculed probably deserve it. However, as I've never been able to define pseudoscience to my own satisfaction, I don't usually use the word. Instead, I examine every new idea as it comes up and apply a simple test: does it (a) explain all the stuff the current theory does and (b) explain anything the current theory doesn't?

I find that many new ideas tend to concentrate on (b) while forgetting about (a) and that's where they fall down. Explaining an anomaly is fine so long as it still explains 'normal' too!

[Trinoc]

Something is pseudoscience, not because of the factual statements it makes (rightly or wrongly) but because of the methodology. Studying any subject, even something like homeopathy or astrology, using evidence and the proper scientific method, is science. Studying perfectly good scientific ideas, like quantum entanglement, say, with reference to subjective experiences, auras, telepathy, etc., is pseudoscience.

[Mulder]

Something is pseudoscience, not because of the factual statements it makes (rightly or wrongly) but because of the methodology. Studying any subject, even something like homeopathy or astrology, using evidence and the proper scientific method, is science. Studying perfectly good scientific ideas, like quantum entanglement, say, with reference to subjective experiences, auras, telepathy, etc., is pseudoscience.

Nope, I still don't get it. Psychology studies use subjective experiences. Is that pseudoscience?

[Trinoc]

Nope, I still don't get it. Psychology studies use subjective experiences. Is that pseudoscience?
But the subjective experiences are the things being studied ... they aren't being used as evidence for some other alleged physical phenomenon.

[Admin]

One of the defining features of science is that its predictions, theories and conclusions can be tested in some way - the criterion of falsifiability.

So I find that a really useful way of deciding whether something is science or pseudoscience is to see whether it is (potentially) falsifiable. If not, then it's pseudoscience.

That's the approach taken here: What is Pseudoscience? (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=pseudoscience.php)

I'm sure that's not a perfect solution to this problem but it is a useful one. For example, it distinguishes between pseudoscience and false conclusions in science. Bad science can be detected and corrected whereas pseudoscience cannot (within its own modus operandi).

[Mulder]

What if an idea produced by pseudoscience turns out to be correct? Would that validate the method?

[Admin]

What if an idea produced by pseudoscience turns out to be correct? Would that validate the method?

I think it would just be a 'false cause' fallacy.

Sometimes we get the right answer for the wrong reasons.

It might be right but it wouldn't validate the method.


A bit like saying that you can find the square of a number by doubling it. 2+2=4 and 22=4

That example is correct but the method is wrong.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I can think of odd examples from the history of astronomy. There is Kepler's early Mysterium Cosmographicum, which seems to have been based on a mystical view of solid geometry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysterium_Cosmographicum

However, Kepler abandoned it when he realized it didn't agree with observation, so perhaps it should better be seen as a step away from mysticism and towards a scientific approach.

Then there is Bode's Law, which looked as if it might be a good guess about the structure of the Solar system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titius-Bode_law

It has had its ups and downs, but interest in it petered out when it became clear that it was at best a coincidence. Nevertheless, in pre-internet days I sometimes saw it mentioned by pious pamphleteers eager to discern the handiwork of a mathematically-minded deity.

I think the upshot is that science murders its brainchildren, while pseudo-science coddles them.

[Grumpy]

Pseudoscience = Internally inconsistent science

[Tony Williams]

Pseudoscience = Internally inconsistent science
I'm not so sure - something can be internally consistent but still dead wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, pseudoscience is something which is pretending to be science but for which there is no convincing, verifiable evidence.

[tolman]

What if an idea produced by pseudoscience turns out to be correct? Would that validate the method?
Surely, the implication of 'turns out to be correct' is that there is some way of working out if an idea is or isn't worth taking seriously that is more reliable than the assertions initially made for the idea by pseudoscience.

If that is the case, then if you're going to end up doing actual science before accepting a pseudoscientific idea as correct, are you really talking about 'validating a method', or more just 'not dismissing ideas out of hand'?

Science can get speculative ideas from all kinds of sources, from noticing discrepancies as a result of long methodical work, through to brainstorming, dreams or chemically-induced ramblings. Even though the latter sources can be useful sources of possible leads, that's only after quite a lot of filtering the results and dismissing the dumb ones.
There's no real 'validation' of those methods, just a recognition that the results aren't necessarily always nonsense.

One huge problem pseudoscience faces is a self-inflicted one - that of confidence or assertions of correctness going beyond the evidence. Speculative ideas are great as sources of inspiration, but they can be easier to cope with if they stay treated as speculation until shown to be reliable.

Psychologically, I suppose that there's often a general human problem of one person tending to assume other people are similar, and even where that can basically be being generous to others, there's a definite downside. Apart from wind-ups, the only time I'd be likely to give a nonsense justification for an idea would be when I couldn't provide a sensible one..

If someone came to me with an idea they'd just thought up, and they were openly wondering if it was good or rubbish, I might tend to be more likely to be open-minded about it than if they claimed it was correct and provided a bullshit justification, since in the latter case, I might well wonder if they'd actually tried to provide proper support for the idea and fallen back on pseudoscience jargon as a result of failing, or if they were knowingly giving a nonsense justification because they knew the idea was a non-starter.

Even though I'm well aware that some people just don't get real science, it isn't easy to completely factor that knowledge into my gut/emotional reactions, and 'whether it's worth spending time checking out a suggested idea from someone convinced they are Right' is to quite an extent a subjective choice.