What is science? What is Pseudoscience? Simanek A visitor to my web site asks "What is the definition of pseudoscience? Normally one would expect the practitioners of a discipline to define it, but in this case the practitioners of pseudoscience don't recognize the validity of the label.
The question translates to "How does one distinguish between science and pseudoscience. Even that isn't an easy task, for it has so many nuances. Whole books have been written on the subject. The scientist might answer "I know pseudoscience when I see it. Sometimes it's hard to tell cutting edge scientific speculation from pseudoscience. Let's recognize two uses of the word 'science'. First, it is an activity carried out by scientists, with certain raw materials, purpose and methodology.
Second, it is the result of this activity: a well-established and well-tested body of facts, laws and models that describe the natural world. Scientists accept that the observations and the results of science must be "objective. The edifice of law and theory that science builds must be representative of a "shared" perception that can be observed and verified by anyone equipped with good observation skills and appropriate measuring tools. Much of modern science uses language and concepts that go far beyond the directly and immediately observable, but there must always be logical links and experimental operational links between these concepts and things we can observe.
As part of the process of crafting scientific models and theories, scientists must brainstorm, innovate and speculate. That's the creative component of the activity. But they must also maintain a disciplined rigor to ensure that their theories and models fit into a logical and consistent interrelated structure. The final edifice called science allows deduction of predictions about the world, predictions that may be tested against observations and against precise measurements made on nature.
Nature is unforgiving of mistakes, and when experiments disagree with the predictions of scientific laws and models, then those laws and models must be modified or scrapped. Scientists' personal styles, prejudices and even limitations are ever-present realities in the process.
But rigorous and skeptical testing of the final result must be sufficiently thorough to weed out any mistakes. It's fairly easy to distinguish science from pseudoscience on the basis of the final product, the laws and theories. If the results 1 cannot be tested in any way, 2 have been tested and always failed the test, or 3 predict results that are contradictory to well established and well tested science, then we can fairly safely say that we are dealing with pseudoscience.
At the level of speculation, it's not so easy. Consider these two examples. Is the notion that hypothetical particles tachyons may travel faster than light a pseudoscientific idea? Well this speculation was proposed by scientists with perfectly respectable credentials, and other respectable experimenters took time to look for such particles. None have been found. We no longer expect to find any, but we do not consider the idea to have been "unscientific".
Is it scientific to hypothesize that one could build a perpetual motion machine that would run forever with power output, but no power input? Most scientists would answer "No. Examples include related demarcations such as that between science and religion, the relationship between science and reliable non-scientific knowledge for instance everyday knowledge , the scope for justifiable simplifications in science education and popular science, the nature and justification of methodological naturalism in science Boudry et al , and the meaning or meaninglessness of the concept of a supernatural phenomenon.
Several of these problem areas have as yet not received much philosophical attention. The purpose of demarcations 2.
Alternative demarcation criteria 4. Two forms of pseudo-science 6. Some related terms 6. The purpose of demarcations Demarcations of science from pseudoscience can be made for both theoretical and practical reasons Mahner , The demarcation issue is therefore important in practical applications such as the following: Climate policy : The scientific consensus on ongoing anthropogenic climate change leaves no room for reasonable doubt Cook et al.
Pennock Science education : The promoters of some pseudosciences notably creationism try to introduce their teachings in school curricula. Case 1 : A biochemist performs an experiment that she interprets as showing that a particular protein has an essential role in muscle contraction. There is a consensus among her colleagues that the result is a mere artefact, due to experimental error. Case 2 : A biochemist goes on performing one sloppy experiment after the other. She consistently interprets them as showing that a particular protein has a role in muscle contraction not accepted by other scientists.
Case 3 : A biochemist performs various sloppy experiments in different areas. One is the experiment referred to in case 1. Much of her work is of the same quality. She does not propagate any particular unorthodox theory. The following examples serve to illustrate the difference between the two definitions and also to clarify why clause 1 is needed: A creationist book gives a correct account of the structure of DNA. An otherwise reliable chemistry book gives an incorrect account of the structure of DNA.
A creationist book denies that the human species shares common ancestors with other primates. A preacher who denies that science can be trusted also denies that the human species shares common ancestors with other primates.
Alternative demarcation criteria Philosophical discussions on the demarcation of pseudoscience have usually focused on the normative issue, i. One such list reads as follows: Belief in authority : It is contended that some person or persons have a special ability to determine what is true or false.
Others have to accept their judgments. Unrepeatable experiments : Reliance is put on experiments that cannot be repeated by others with the same outcome. Handpicked examples : Handpicked examples are used although they are not representative of the general category that the investigation refers to. Unwillingness to test : A theory is not tested although it is possible to test it. Disregard of refuting information : Observations or experiments that conflict with a theory are neglected.
Built-in subterfuge : The testing of a theory is so arranged that the theory can only be confirmed, never disconfirmed, by the outcome. Explanations are abandoned without replacement. Tenable explanations are given up without being replaced, so that the new theory leaves much more unexplained than the previous one.
Two forms of pseudo-science Some forms of pseudoscience have as their main objective the promotion of a particular theory of their own, whereas others are driven by a desire to fight down some scientific theory or branch of science. This is often done by claims of a conspiracy: At the heart of the anti-vaccine conspiracy movement [lies] the argument that large pharmaceutical companies and governments are covering up information about vaccines to meet their own sinister objectives.
According to the most popular theories, pharmaceutical companies stand to make such healthy profits from vaccines that they bribe researchers to fake their data, cover up evidence of the harmful side effects of vaccines, and inflate statistics on vaccine efficacy. Jolley and Douglas Conspiracy theories have peculiar epistemic characteristics that contribute to their pervasiveness. Bibliography Cited Works Agassi, Joseph, Baigrie, B.
Bartley III, W. Boykoff, M. Boykoff, Bunge, Mario, The Need for Reconstruction , Amherst, N. Burningham, K. Cooper, Buttel, Frederick H. Taylor, Carlson, Shawn, Cioffi, Frank, Maibach, J.
Stuart Carlton, et al. Culver, Roger and Ianna, Philip, Derksen, A. Dolby, R. Dunlap, Riley E. Jacques, Dutch, Steven I, Feleppa, Robert, Fernandez-Beanato, Damian, Frankfurt, Harry G. Fuller, Steve, Gardner, Martin, Gleberzon, William, Glymour, Clark and Stalker, Douglas, Grove , J. Gruenberger, Fred J. Guldentops, Guy, Hansson, Sven Ove, Hoyninengen-Huene, Paul, The nature of science , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jolley, Daniel, and Karen M. Douglas, Keeley, Brian L. Kitcher, Philip, Abusing Science. Krystal, Arthur, Kuhn, Thomas S. La Salle: Open Court. Lakatos, Imre, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, et al. Langmuir, Irving, [] Laudan, Larry, Cohan and L. Laudan eds. Lewandowsky, Stephan, Toby D.
Pilditch, Jens K. Madsen, Naomi Oreskes, and James S. Risbey, Liebenberg, L. The Origin of Science. The evolutionary roots of scientific reasoning and its implications for citizen science , Cape Town: CyberTracker. Lugg, Andrew, Mahner, Martin, Mayo, Deborah G.
Merton, Robert K. Merton, The Sociology of Science. Moberger, Victor, Morris, Robert L. We also will then see the patterns or the commonality among them. What are the types of cognitive flaws that those practicing pseudosciences tend to make? Learn more about how to think about thinking itself. In essence, pseudoscientists use the processes of science, superficial processes, or similarities of science to science—to scientifically rationalize a conclusion that they wish to be true, rather than using the methods of science to determine if their belief is true or not.
What they have failed to do is make a concerted effort, therefore, to prove their own theories wrong. That should always be the first step of any scientist. When you come up with a new idea or hypothesis, the first step is to do everything possible to disprove your own theory. Find every way possible to conduct an experiment or an observation that can falsify the theory. When the theory or the hypothesis has survived every attempt you can think of to prove it wrong, only then is it reasonable to give it provisional assent, to think this is a theory that may be true.
Can they think of any methods you missed that could be an alternative to the theory that you have or that could potentially prove it wrong? The Galileo Process is a common red flag for pseudoscience. In this case, far-reaching claims that overturn entire segments of well-established science are extrapolated from very little research or small bits of evidence. This results from this chain reaction of pseudoscientific claims. Pye believes, for example, that there were ancient civilizations unknown to modern archeology, that aliens were somehow involved in human history—even evolution—and that this ties into observations of Big Foot and other humanoid creatures unknown to science.
In each case, when he has a specific explanation or a specific claim that conflicts with archeology, paleontology, biology, or even modern physics. By the end of it, you have replaced all of science with an alternative version of reality, or the idea that everything scientists claim must therefore be wrong. Learn more about the nature of perception. Another example is the comic book artist turned pseudoscientist, Neal Adams, who is a proponent of the hollow or growing Earth idea.
This is the notion that the planet Earth was much smaller in the historical past and has been slowly increasing in size over time, by the generation of new matter. He believes this is true because the continents of the Earth fit together like puzzle pieces. We know that they do fit together to some extent because of plate tectonics, but he thinks they fit together all the way around because at one point in time they were all connected on a small Earth, which later expanded with the oceans filling in the cracks that emerged in between.
However, there are major scientific problems with this theory. Where is this new matter coming from? Is the person or entity making the claims someone with genuine expertise in what they're claiming?
Are they hawking on behalf of someone else? Are they part of a distributed marketing scam? Do they use, for example, a Website or magazine or newspaper ad that's made to look sciencey or newsy when it's really one giant advertisement meant to make you think it's journalism?
What is the agenda? You must know this to consider any information in context. In a scientific paper, look at the funding sources. If you're reading a non-scientific anything, remain extremely skeptical. What does the person or entity making the claim get out of it?
Does it look like they're telling you you have something wrong with you that you didn't even realize existed I'm reminded of the douche solution commercials of my youth in which a young woman confides in her mother that sometimes, she "just doesn't feel fresh. What kind of language does it use? Does it use emotion words or a lot of exclamation points or language that sounds highly technical amino acids!
If you're not sure, take a term and google it, or ask a scientist if you can find one. Sometimes, an amino acid is just an amino acid. Be on the lookout for sciencey-ness. As Albert Einstein once pointed out, if you can't explain something simply, you don't understand it well. If peddlers feel that they have to toss in a bunch of jargony science terms to make you think they're the real thing, they probably don't know what they're talking about, either.
Does it involve testimonials? If all the person or entity making the claims has to offer is testimonials without any real evidence of effectiveness or need, be very, very suspicious.
Anyone-- anyone --can write a testimonial and put it on a Website. Now, my brain is packed with science facts, and I'm earning my PhD in aerospace engineering this year! If it could do it for me, The Science Consumer blog can do it for you, too!
0コメント