Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience

[neeld]

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice. (read more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science))



Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status. The term comes from the Greek root pseudo- (false or pretending) and "science" (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"). An early recorded use was in 1843 by French physiologist François Magendie, who is considered a pioneer in experimental physiology. (read more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience))


Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience (http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html)


Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.

Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.

Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it.

Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.

Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.

Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature.

Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough.

Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.

Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.

Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none exists, by omitting crucial information and important details.

Pseudoscience does not progress.

Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).

Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.

Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events, and suspect claims—rather than from well-established regularities of nature.

Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion, sentiment, or distrust of established fact.

Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic theories that contradict what is known about nature.

Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all.

Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.

Pseudoscience claims that the phenomena it studies are "jealous."

Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario.

Pseudoscientists often appeal to the ancient human habit of magical thinking.

Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.

[uprooted_kentuckian]

You aren't saying that people here sometimes use psuedoscience are you? Ah come on. Take the antivaccination threads. Those antivaxxers back everything with evidence from their moms best friends cousin and the opinions of doctors who have been dead a hundred years and thus never understanding microbiology. But wait, they did post a study that involved something like 8 patients, surely that is real science.

Nah, no psuedoscience here.

[Imp]

~smile~

[Cooter]

Pseudoscience has no need for silly things like control groups.

[fruits&nuts]

Pseudoscience is easy to spot. It's what most "scientists" practice today. Bigpharma depends on it.

True scientists can sometimes be found by finding those that have been shut out by the mainstream. The more that mainstream "scientists" try to shut someone up, the greater the chance that they're trying to shut up a true scientist. There are thousand of examples. Here's one:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/

[neeld]

Pseudoscience is easy to spot. It's what most "scientists" practice today. Bigpharma depends on it.

True scientists can sometimes be found by finding those that have been shut out by the mainstream. The more that mainstream "scientists" try to shut someone up, the greater the chance that they're trying to shut up a true scientist. There are thousand of examples. Here's one:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/

Thanks for the example nuts! I'm impressed how you managed to work some classic crank paranoia in there too. Good Job!

Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).

Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion, sentiment, or distrust of established fact.

Cranks claim that their ideas are being suppressed by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their allegedly revolutionary insights becoming widely known,

[Imp]

~smile~

[Cooter]

Cranks claim that their ideas are being suppressed by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their allegedly revolutionary insights becoming widely known,

Yep. Certainly, there are plenty of examples of legitimate scientists who had to overcome a doubting establishment or power structure (Galileo and Einstein come to mind), but their work could actually be verified experimentally and, hence, ultimately carried the day. Alas, many a crank feels like their failure to convince people is evidence that they are right (just like Galileo!), instead of an opportunity to present evidence to convince the doubters.

[uprooted_kentuckian]

Pseudoscience is easy to spot. It's what most "scientists" practice today. Bigpharma depends on it.

True scientists can sometimes be found by finding those that have been shut out by the mainstream. The more that mainstream "scientists" try to shut someone up, the greater the chance that they're trying to shut up a true scientist. There are thousand of examples. Here's one:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/

Yep, nicely timed.

[lorna-organic]

I saw a TV show last night about a young woman who was one of the first liver transplant recipients. She was four years old, when she received the transplant. Multiple doctors had said nothing could be done for her. Her mother managed to conduct a national campaign asking for help for her daughter at various rallies and on TV shows. The mother refused to believe nothing could be done to save the life of her daughter.

A medical doctor, thought to be a quack by his peers at the time, came forward and offered to do a liver transplant for the little girl, if a suitable donor could be found. An eighteen month old tot died of a brain tumor. She was a suitable donor. It was one of the first surgeries of its kind. That four year old is now a masters student in microbiology, studying to be a medical doctor.

[uprooted_kentuckian]

Thats wonderful, but not analogous. Liver transplants began in 1967. Trine was the first in Florida in the early 80's, but the procedure was not thought of as quackery, simply experimental. There is a huge difference.

[HillsideDigger]

Dr. Carl Baugh who is aired on certain TV networks weekly is a good example of pseudoscience. He is with some creation research institute in Texas.

He frequently offers artifacts that he and others have found (or faked) which he says proves that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

He could objectively study a guided creation versus an unguided natural appearance and development of the universe but instead he is hung up on offering fake evidence of a young Universe (of course, that sells a lot better to his targeted prey).

[uprooted_kentuckian]

I've seen him, or someone like him. Pure nonsense.

[Imp]

"that sells a lot better to his targeted prey). "

Says most of the whole thing right there.

[Essex]

Lysenkoism is a more apt term to describe what we see.

You can spot lysenkoists by their reliance on rock concerts and college students who know little or nothing to advance their "science". You can spot them by their comic books aimed at younger people who have no idea what is being pushed at them. You can spot them when they say "The debate is over" and call those who wish to debate "deniers". You can spot them by their hypocrisy, by their lavish lifestyle being in direct contradiction to how they urge others to live.

[Blueaussi]

Oh, good word!

Lysenkoism: : a biological doctrine asserting the fundamental influence of somatic and environmental factors on heredity in contradiction of orthodox genetics

Or http://www.skepdic.com/lysenko.html for the long explanation.

[winter_unfazed]

Dr. Carl Baugh who is aired on certain TV networks weekly is a good example of pseudoscience. He is with some creation research institute in Texas.

He frequently offers artifacts that he and others have found (or faked) which he says proves that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

He could objectively study a guided creation versus an unguided natural appearance and development of the universe but instead he is hung up on offering fake evidence of a young Universe (of course, that sells a lot better to his targeted prey).

Interesting that you should say that, because less than a week ago I talked to a creation research scientist who was concerned with this very same thing among other creation scientists. He said that many of them focus too much on fossils and not on the objective/observational sciences such as molecular biology and developmental biology.

Nevertheless, I do think the human/dinosaur coexistence fossils are real. Small pleisosaurs are said to have existed into relatively recent historic times (a small one was photographed in Japan, 1977), and in Congo a plant-eating dinosaur was described by early explorers (some believe that a remnant population lives there to this day). Skepticism toward these claims is understandable, but don't forget about the Chacoan peccary, or the okapi, or the platypus, or the giant squid, or the American marten. All of those creatures were once said to be mythical or at best extinct.

[winter_unfazed]

Lysenkoism is a more apt term to describe what we see.

You can spot lysenkoists by their reliance on rock concerts and college students who know little or nothing to advance their "science". You can spot them by their comic books aimed at younger people who have no idea what is being pushed at them. You can spot them when they say "The debate is over" and call those who wish to debate "deniers". You can spot them by their hypocrisy, by their lavish lifestyle being in direct contradiction to how they urge others to live.

Are you alluding to the climate-change issue?

It's true that there are deniers, those who claim that the earth is not getting warmer. "Why" is a whole different question.

And judging a theory by the "hypocrisy" of its proponants is very ad-hominem.

[gerry]

Sounds like the second hand smoke issue. All the evidence is anecdotal. I've seen some of the anecdotal evidence in my own home. The only scientific study, which was done by the American Cancer Society, found no connection between second-hand smoke and non-pre-existing respiratory illness.

Now we're getting third-hand smoke ... :(

Why don't they just ban smoking altogether??

On another topic, we hear about how many deaths are caused by smoking. I wonder if anyone will ever release the figures about how many smokers don't die of cancer or related illnesses. I doubt it because it runs against their agenda.

gerry

[fruits&nuts]

Interesting that you should say that, because less than a week ago I talked to a creation research scientist who was concerned with this very same thing among other creation scientists. He said that many of them focus too much on fossils and not on the objective/observational sciences such as molecular biology and developmental biology.

Nevertheless, I do think the human/dinosaur coexistence fossils are real. Small pleisosaurs are said to have existed into relatively recent historic times (a small one was photographed in Japan, 1977), and in Congo a plant-eating dinosaur was described by early explorers (some believe that a remnant population lives there to this day). Skepticism toward these claims is understandable, but don't forget about the Chacoan peccary, or the okapi, or the platypus, or the giant squid, or the American marten. All of those creatures were once said to be mythical or at best extinct.

There's real science that suggests that dinosaurs were around until fairly recently. Here's one bit of real science - donosaur blood cells. Fake scientists would have us believe that blood cells did not decompose for 70 million years. That is true pseudoscience:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

[Tutter]

from the article:
"Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” "

It seems the scientist in question is in complete disagreement with your assessment of her work.

[Blueaussi]

Sounds like the second hand smoke issue. All the evidence is anecdotal. I've seen some of the anecdotal evidence in my own home. The only scientific study, which was done by the American Cancer Society, found no connection between second-hand smoke and non-pre-existing respiratory illness.


What?! Here's 96 pages of studies down on second hand smoke, and that was pulled up on a quick google.

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/SHSBibliography.pdf

[uprooted_kentuckian]

Given the unfiltered toxins in second hand cigarette smoke, I'm not sure how anyone believes it doesn't cause disease.

[jemarmy]

Thanks for the example nuts! I'm impressed how you managed to work some classic crank paranoia in there too. Good Job!

Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).

Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion, sentiment, or distrust of established fact.

Cranks claim that their ideas are being suppressed by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their allegedly revolutionary insights becoming widely known,

I know this may be outside the scope of interest of many on here, but the part in bold reminds me of American obstetrical practice. Despite many well done studies and examples of healthy obstetrical practice in other developed countries, this system refuses to let go of many demonstribly harmful practices.
OBs quite often pull the "good mom, bad mom" card out, saying that if a mother doesn't submit to his way, (c-section or induction, for example) she is a bad mother.

I'll spare ya'll and stop there. Just saying mainstream can also be pseudoscience.

[gerry]

What?! Here's 96 pages of studies down on second hand smoke, and that was pulled up on a quick google.

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/SHSBibliography.pdf

Someone finally started doing research? None of this was to be found when I checked it out 3 years ago. Only the ACS study of 40 years.

Given the unfiltered toxins in second hand cigarette smoke, I'm not sure how anyone believes it doesn't cause disease.

Did I say that? No, I said there had been no research studies done, and it seems Blueaussi proved me wrong.

gerry
who ain't perfect yet and tends to fall behind the times sometimes. :)

[Cooter]

Did I say that? No, I said there had been no research studies done, and it seems Blueaussi proved me wrong.

gerry
who ain't perfect yet and tends to fall behind the times sometimes. :)

Wow, gerry - whatever else you may think, you have my respect! Few will admit when they are wrong, much less on the internet!

[winter_unfazed]

Sometimes (particularly in medicine), a treatment will be labelled as "scientifically unproven", but that's only because it's scientifically UNSTUDIED.