For decades, science and pseudoscience have been compared to each other using a wide variety of criteria. The question of what distinguishes the two is especially relevant today, but scientists and philosophers have historically struggled with this division and how to use it to defend the public from bogus discoveries and scams based on scientific-sounding gibberish. In general, pseudoscience is defined as a non-scientific doctrine whose supporters claim that it is scientific, but there are many other definitions, including those below.
Science . . .
- . . . is based on sound research and and changes over time as new research causes the revision or discarding of older ideas. This feature is apparent across all fields, since every scientific discipline, from physics to psychology, has undergone dramatic changes throughout its existence.
- . . . fulfills or endorses all or most of the following philosophical criteria:
- Logic
- Semantical (a realist view of meaning)
- Ontological (all real things are material and follow scientific laws)
- Epistemological (theories reflect facts about the real world)
- Reasonable ethics, including an aim to serve the greater good
- Sociological (created and regulated by a community of experts)
- . . . must be falsifiable. That is, it must be able to be proven wrong under some circumstances. Basically, this means that ideas must hold up against fair efforts to test them.
- Some researchers include the criteria that an idea must actually be tested in addition to being falsifiable, and that supporters of the idea accept any negative results.
- . . . investigates questions, including its own failures. If a researcher performs an experiment and their hypothesis not supported by the results, they must investigate why this would be and revise their ideas.
- . . . tests new ideas and leads to progressively greater knowledge of the world
Pseudoscience . . .
- . . . is not based on reliable research and does not change in response to new research or at all. Homeopathy demonstrates this feature well. The practice originated in the 1800s and is based on the idea that extremely tiny quantities of certain substances have medicinal purposes. The original experiments on homeopathy were poorly designed, and the field remained the same even as new discoveries in chemistry contradicted its claims. Homeopathy now defies most of the principles of chemistry.
- . . . fails to satisfy most or all scientific philosophical criteria, and may include idealism, such as:
- Idealist epistemology (there are things that do not have to conform to scientific laws). For instance, the belief that some people have special powers, such as telekinesis, that defy the laws of physics uses idealist epistemology.
- Dubious or flexible ethics, especially regarding experimentation. A psychic may say that their powers “do not appear on command” to avoid participation in a lab experiment, while at the same time offering frequent readings on the street that they claim are 100% accurate.
- In addition, supporters of an ideology-based pseudoscience may claim that “science is just one more opinion.” This tactic can be a part of any pseudoscience, but it is most notably used by groups who use pseudoscience for religious purposes, such as proponents of creationism or intelligent design.
- . . . includes ideas that are impossible or unreasonably difficult to disprove, and may be attached to “ad hoc” hypotheses that function as excuses in the event that evidence is produced against the idea. A great example is the statement “Bigfoot exists.” It is unlikely that Bigfoot is actually real, but no evidence against the existence of Bigfoot would ever convince believers. A skeptical question such as, “If Bigfoot exists, why have no Bigfoot corpses or skeletons been found?” will prompt the production of even more unfalsifiable (and often ridiculous) assertions, including: “Bigfeet decay unusually quickly.” “When a Bigfoot dies, it is always buried by another Bigfoot.” “No animal bodies are ever found unless they were killed by humans, and no Bigfoot has ever been killed by a human.” When a pseudoscientific idea is found to be inaccurate, supporters usually refuse to admit that they were wrong, rather than rejecting or revising the idea and moving on to further investigation.
- . . . does not investigate much and doesn’t question its failures. Astrology is one pseudoscience that ignores many potential investigations. For instance, astrologers claim that an individual’s personality is determined by the position of the sun, moon, planets, and stars at the moment of their birth. This idea prompts a number of questions, including how stars and planets would affect a person’s brain or why birth is the determining event as opposed to conception. However, astrology contains no answers to these questions, and most astrologers seem uninterested in looking into the glaring issues they pose for the field.
- . . . is unwelcoming to new ideas, and theories mostly conform to what is already believed. There are a number of reasons why Sigmund Freud’s ideas of psychoanalysis are pseudoscientific, but one of the most immediate is that the field rejects ideas that Freud himself did not invent. In one case, Karen Horney, a fellow psychoanalyst, tried to introduce the concept of “womb envy” to the field as a response to Freud’s theory of “penis envy.” Freud had declared that penis envy was a woman’s desire for male anatomy that led to a sense of inferiority and that all women experienced these feelings their entire lives. Horney, taking the idea further, theorized that men were also jealous of women and wished for the ability to give birth and participate in motherhood. However, Horney believed that both penis envy and womb envy were rare and that they involved desires for certain social and cultural roles held by the opposite gender, rather than a literal wish for different reproductive organs. Freud rejected the idea of womb envy and essentially told Horney that she’d only come up with the concept due to her own problems with penis envy!
The differences between science and pseudoscience is a topic that many have studied and worked on for a long time, and will without a doubt continue to be debated far into the future. Is it more important to define pseudoscience as a lack of investigation or as idealism? Is science more reliable than pseudoscience because it is based on better research or because it is more testable? As we encounter scientific-sounding claims in advertising and health care, and on social media, it’s important to keep these questions in mind. They may save us from the consequences of falling for a pseudoscientific claim.
References:
“Astrology – the Skeptic’s Dictionary – Skepdic.com.” Skepdic.com, skepdic.com/astrology.html.
Bunge, Mario. The Philosophy behind Pseudoscience. Skeptical Inquirer, 2006.
Hansson, Sven Ove. “Science and Pseudo-Science.” Plato.stanford.edu, 3 Sept. 2008, plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/ utm_campaign=OImrt19&utm_medium=organic&utm_source=instantmagazine
“Homeopathy – the Skeptic’s Dictionary – Skepdic.com.” Skepdic.com, 2015, skepdic.com/homeo.html.
Hu, Zhe, and Haofeng Sun. A Contrast Analysis of Sigmund Freud and Karen Horney’s Theory of Psychology. 2017.
Loxton, Daniel, and Donald R Prothero. Abominable Science! : Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and Other Famous Cryptids. New York, Columbia University Press, 2015.
Yadav, Riya. “Sigmund Freud and Penis Envy – a Failure of Courage?” BPS, 8 May 2018, www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/sigmund-freud-and-penis-envy-failure-courage.
