The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake

by Steven Novella

Pseudoscience refers to claims and procedures that superficially resemble science but lack the true essence of the scientific method. In practice there is a continuum from rank pseudoscience at one end to rigorous scien...

Science is simply common sense at its best; that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fa...

Science vs. Pseudoscience

When someone follows what looks superficially like a scientific process but the quality is hopelessly low and the process is fundamentally flawed, or distorted to achieve a predetermined end, we call that pseudoscience.

So far, there is no clear and concise solution to the demarcation problem that has been generally accepted by philosophers and scientists. There probably never will be, as the quality of science represents a continuous spectrum, not a simple dichotomy with an objective line of separation between two extremes.

Good Science

Good science uses observations about the world that are as objective, quantitative, precise, and unambiguous as possible. It uses these observations to test hypotheses and specifically to try to disprove those hypotheses. Those that survive repeated genuine attempts to disprove them are used to build theories that provide an explanatory framework for how the world works and to make predictions about future observations.

Good science is therefore skeptical of its own ideas, humble and conservative in its conclusions, and always open to new data and new interpretations.

Science is rigorous when it carefully isolates variables so as not to confuse cause and effect. It considers all the evidence, not just the evidence that supports a favored idea. Its logic is internally consistent and its judgments unbiased. Science is about minimizing bias, and good experiments blind subjects and experimenters to avoid bias. It checks ideas against other experts. A...

Features of Pseudoscience

1) Working Backward from Conclusions

The fundamental feature that separates the process of science from pseudoscience is that science is a genuine search for what is true, regardless of what that might be, whereas pseudoscience begins with a desired conclus...

Scientists should be their own most dedicated skeptics: They should work hard to disprove their hypotheses, seeking out disconfirming evidence, thinking of alternative hypotheses, and criticizing their own work.

2) Hostility Toward Scientific Criticism, Claims of Persecution

Criticism is a necessary and healthy part of the scientific process.

Scientists, therefore, learn to be thick-skinned. They also learn how to focus their criticism on the logic and evidence of an issue, rather than making personal attacks against those proposing a view different from their own.

Rather than accepting constructive criticism as a necessary part of the process, the pseudoscientist feels persecuted. In fact, it’s so common for pseudoscientists to compare themselves to Galileo (who was persecuted and turned out to be correct) that this phenomenon has its own name, the Galileo syndrome.

3) Making a Virtue out of Ignorance

Cutting-edge science is too advanced for anyone to have a reasonable chance of making a significant contribution unless they first have sufficient education in science. The pace of change in any active field of research is so rapid that a researcher must keep in contact with the community of scientists through journals, meetings, and seminars, just to keep up.

4) Reliance upon Weak Forms of Evidence While Dismissing More Rigorous Evidence

5) Cherry-Picking Data

6) Fundamental Principles Are Often Based upon a Single Case

D. D. Palmer, the originator of chiropractic, reported that he “discovered” the primary underlying principle of chiropractic when he cured a janitor of his deafness by manipulating his neck, thereby relieving (he believed) the pressure on the auditory nerve. Palmer conducted no experiments of any kind to verify his assumptions, but rather extrapolated all of classic chiropractic theory and practice from this single case.

Iridology has a similar history and is based upon the observation of a single owl. Apparently, Ignatz von Peczely, a Hungarian physician, noticed that an owl that had injured its wing had a particular fleck of color in the iris of its eye. He set the owl’s wing, which later healed well. Dr. Peczely then noticed that the fleck of color in the owl’s iris had disappeared. From this single observation, Dr. Peczely developed a system of diagnosing all human disease by the pattern of colors in the iris.

7) Failure to Engage with the Scientific Community

8) Claims Often Promise Easy and Simplistic Solutions to Complex Problems or Questions

Pseudosciences all tend to have a particular psychological appeal, of which providing easy answers is just one example. Others include alleged evidence of a supernatural or spiritual world, confirmation of deeply held religious beliefs, illusion of personal empowerment or control, or simply the appeal of the fantastical or unusual.

9) Utilizing Scientific-Sounding but Ultimately Meaningless Language

10) Lack of Humility—Making Bold Claims on Flimsy Evidence

11) Claiming to Be Years or Decades Ahead of the Curve

12) Attempts to Shift the Burden of Proof Away from Themselves

13) Rendering Claims Non-Falsifiable

14) Violating Occam’s Razor and Failing to Fairly Consider All Competing Hypotheses

15) Failure to Challenge Core Assumptions

23.

Skeptics’ Guide Entry: Denialism

Section: Science and Pse...

See also: Pseud...

Denialism or science denial refers to the motivated denial of accepted science using a se...

Denialism begins with the desire to deny an accepted scientific or historical fact, and therefore, like all pseudosciences, works backward from the desired conclusion.

There are ideological movements that deny the scientific consensus of anthropogenic global climate change, the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, the germ theory of disease, that the brain causes consciousness, the existence of mental illness, that HIV causes AIDS, and the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

Manufacture and Exaggerate Doubt

You can often tell the difference between science and denialism because, when true scientists ask a question, they want an answer and will give due consideration to any possibilities. Deniers, on the other hand, will ask the same undermining questions over and over, long after they have been definitively answered. The questions—used to cast doubt—are all they are interested in, not the process of discovery they’re meant to inspire.

Scientific theories become progressively more accepted as they survive serious attempts at proving them wrong. Such acceptance is provisional, however, as the next experiment or observation could potentially falsify any theory. Theories are favored when they have useful explanatory power and are consistent with other accepted theories as we slowly build one coherent model about how the universe works.

Deniers exaggerate our current level of doubt about a scientific theory and minimize what is known. They perversely withhold even their provisional assent.

Always Ask for More Evidence than Exists or Can Exist

They ask for evidence, and when that evidence is provided, they demand still more evidence. Nothing will ever satisfy them.

After preliminary research clarifies the questions being asked and how the evidence relates to current theories, scientists supporting competing theories will often put their nickel down—they’ll state exactly what evidence will refute their theory, refute competing theories, or will change their mind about which theory is superior. When the evidence comes in, scientists will actually change their mind. Of course, individuals don’t always change their mind with the evidence, but enough do to shift the consensus to the theory supported by the evidence.

All this goalpost moving can be tiring, however, so some deniers use a simpler strategy—they simply ask for more evidence than can possibly exist.

Use Semantics to Deny Categories of Evidence