How can you tell science from pseudoscience?
How do you, as a layperson, decide what you think is science and what you think is pseudoscience?
Of course, there are elements in science that fit well into common technology that we prove daily (no one denies the existence of microwaves or the legitimacy of aspirin, for instance); but I’m curious about the things scientists know but can’t prove to the general public (either because it’s not applicable to technology, because the proofs require extensive educations to understand, or both).
How do you separate the astrology from the astronomy, the chemistry from the alchemy, the cutting edge from the science fiction? If someone tells you about a spectacular new medical technology, how do you decide if it’s a great breakthrough or a snake-oil health fad?
I work in physics (quantum and particle physics), and I’m curious about perspectives on this matter from people who aren’t scientists; I’m curious how everyday people decide what to trust as legitimate and what not to trust.
S A: I hope you don’t think I’m that incapable of detecting blatant plagiarism. Even if a copy-and-paste of an encyclopedia article on “pseudoscience” would answer the question (which, in this case, it doesn’t), it would be legally advisable to cite the source of such an article, like so: http://www.unprovenconcepts.com/Pseudoscience/encyclopedia.htm
- CAustin
Tags: Alchemy, Aspirin, Blatant Plagiarism, Educations, Proofs
October 30th, 2009 at 9:24 am
I use Occam’s Razor, use the most basic explanation. I also look if there is any biases that would come into play. Most of all, I just use common sense and research. I hope this has nothing to do with religion or anything of that sort.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:12 am
Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific or is made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the basic requirements of the scientific method.
The term pseudoscience is based on the Greek root pseudo- (false or pretending) and science (derived from Latin scientia, meaning knowledge). The first recorded use was in 1843 by French physiologist François Magendie considered a pioneer in experimental physiology.
The term has negative connotations, because it is used to indicate that subjects so labeled are inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating a “pseudoscience” normally reject this classification.
As it is taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific or whose proponents state is scientific but nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement, or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method. Professor Paul DeHart Hurd argued that a large part of gaining scientific literacy is “being able to distinguish science from pseudo-science such as astrology, quackery, the occult, and superstition”. Certain introductory survey classes in science take careful pains to delineate the objections scientists and skeptics have to practices that make direct claims contradicted by the scientific discipline in question.
Beyond the initial introductory analyses offered in science classes, there is some epistemological disagreement about whether it is possible to distinguish “science” from “pseudoscience” in a reliable and objective way.
Pseudosciences may be characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development.
Science (from the Latin scientia, ‘knowledge’), in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word.
Scince is based on facts and pseudoscience is a guess with very little proof.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:00 pm
According to ‘Irving Langmuir’s famous colloquium’ [see source]
Symptoms of sick science
The Davis-Barnes experiment and the N rays and the mitogenetic rays all have things in common. These are cases where there is no dishonesty involved but where people are tricked into false results by a lack of understanding about what human beings can do to themselves in the way of being led astray by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions. These are examples of pathological science. These are things that attracted a great deal of attention. Usually hundreds of papers have been published on them. Sometimes they have lasted for 15 or 20 years and then gradually have died away. Now here are the characteristic rules [see the box above]:
===> The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity. For example, you might think that if one onion root would affect another due to ultraviolet light then by putting on an ultraviolet source of light you could get it to work better. Oh no! Oh no! It had to be just the amount of intensity that’s given off by an onion root. Ten onion roots wouldn’t do any better than one and it didn’t make any difference about the distance of the source. It didn’t follow any inverse square law or anything as simple as that. And so on. In other words, the effect is independent of the intensity of the cause. That was true in the mitogenetic rays and it was true in the N rays. Ten bricks didn’t have any more effect than one. It had to be of low intensity. We know why it had to be of low intensity: so that you could fool yourself so easily. Otherwise, it wouldn’t work. Davis-Barnes worked just as well when the filament was turned off. They counted scintillations.
===> Another characteristic thing about them all is that these observations are near the threshold of visibility of the eyes. Any other sense, I suppose, would work as well. Or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
With the mitogenetic rays particularly, [people] started out by seeing something that was bent. Later on, they would take a hundred onion roots and expose them to something, and they would get the average position of all of them to see whether the average had been affected a little bit… Statistical measurements of a very small…were thought to be significant if you took large numbers. Now the trouble with that is this. [Most people have a habit, when taking] measurements of low significance, [of finding] a means of rejecting data. They are right at the threshold value and there are many reasons why [they] can discard data. Davis and Barnes were doing that right along. If things were doubtful at all, why, they would discard them or not discard them depending on whether or not they fit the theory. They didn’t know that, but that’s the way it worked out.
===> There are claims of great accuracy. Barnes was going to get the Rydberg constant more accurately than the spectroscopists could. Great sensitivity or great specificity…we’ll come across that particularly in the Allison effect.
===> Fantastic theories contrary to experience. In the Bohr theory, the whole idea of an electron being captured by an alpha particle when the alpha particles aren’t there, just because the waves are there, [isn't] a very sensible theory.
===> Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment. They always had an answer…always.
===> The ratio of the supporters to the critics rises up somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion. The critics couldn’t reproduce the effects. Only the supporters could do that. In the end, nothing was salvaged. Why should there be? There isn’t anything there. There never was. That’s characteristic of the effect.
END OF QUOTE
My own criteria are that true science predicts correctly, predicts reproducibly, and–alas–tells me something I would rather not believe.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:25 am
According to the ancient Vedic wisdom which is the vast knowledge and the original science of everything the way to understand actual Science or Absolute Truth (which can never be changed) is to learn it from someone who knows the Absolute Truth. How can one know they are hearing from the right source. Well they must come in a pure disciplic succession from the source of all Truth. For more understanding on The Absolute science and Truth read The Science of Self Realization and Bhagavad Gita as it is translated by Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada who is an authorized master in The Absolute truth because he is in a pure disciplic lineage stemming all the way from the source of Truth Krishna (also known as Allah, Jehovah, Vishnu, Rama, etc.) Simple for the simple and pure at heart. Purity is the force.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Falsifiability.
Pseudoscience always finds a way to interpret the results and be right.
Legitimate science suggests a hypothesis and if the data don’t add up then the hypothesis was not supported and you have to go with the null hypothesis until someone comes up with another testable fresh idea.