Close
today i learned (til)

How Can Science be Distinguished From Pseudoscience?

November 26, 2024

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.

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
My Experience with Biomechanics(BMED 3410) As a Biomedical Engineer
today i learned (til)
Treating U87 EGFP Glibolastoma Cells with Nickel Sulfate!
today i learned (til)
My DNA Replication Rap! Effort to Teach Students Science In Ways That They Understand
Articles, today i learned (til)
All Work and No Play

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.