[size=+2]How to recognise pseudoscience[/size]
Here's a brief list I have put together of things to look for when you're presented with dubious but scientific-sounding claims and you suspect you may be dealing with a pseudoscientist. This list is far from complete.
[size=+1]The "theory" and its presentation[/size]
Sloppiness
Pseudoscientific theories are often poorly presented. The author may write without using paragraphs, or write over-long sentences. Or there may be a lot of spelling errors. Often there is an overuse of emphasis - the overuse of CAPITAL LETTERS or underlining or bold text or colours.
The author might start discussing concepts without defining terms, as if jumping into the middle of a train of thought with no introduction. Pseudoscience websites and papers and books are often confusing. A website might be a collection of scanned random clippings from various sources, scribblings by the author, citations of other pseudoscientific works or web pages, citations of ancient or outdated books, and some random text, all jammed together in a haphazard way. Any sources that are relied upon are seldom checked for accuracy by the author. Sometimes there is a deluge of information - e.g. a 100 page website that never clearly presents the best arguments for the "theory" being presented.
Pseudoscientific theories also often turn out to be internally inconsistent. A statement on page 3 directly contradicts something else on page 17. When readers draw attention to such mistakes, they are usually met with abuse rather than correction or revision.
Pseudoscientific arguments are often logically inconsistent, too. e.g. Statement A is supposed to "prove" statement B, but in fact there is no discernable relation between the two.
Pseudoscientists are indifferent to standard criteria of valid scientific evidence. Meaningful, controlled, repeatable experiments or definite numerical predictions are unimportant, while unverifiable eyewitness testimony and dubious anecdotes are accepted without query.
Absence of connectivity to existing science
While sloppiness is a sign of a messy mind, a far more telling warning sign that something is pseudoscientific is a complete lack of evidence of the author's familiarity with (let along expertise in) the existing body of scientific knowledge.
The presented ideas almost invariably fail to build on existing scientific knowledge, but attempt to "start from scratch", often by claiming that a well-accepted scientific theory is completely wrong. The author will argue from apparent exceptions, anomalies, and strange events that have been observed rather than from well-established observed regularities in nature. Sometimes, the author attempts to explain a "mystery" or else create one where none exists. Often, the new "theory" is claimed to require a complete "revolution" in science. The proponent imagines that this will excuse his lack of knowledge of existing science.
Pseudoscientists often have a faulty or nonexistent understanding of basic and well-established principles of the field that their theory is trying to "improve". Proponents are usually unqualified in the field, and display a lack of knowledge of it. Errors are rationalised away or ignored, or else met with hostility.
The mainstream scientific literature is either ignored or misinterpreted. Not uncommonly, an entire new "theory" is based on a basic misconception about some piece of science. Also not uncommon is an obsessively narrow focus. The pseudoscientist may want to "correct" just one small thing that they don't like in established science. But being unaware of the basic science, they can't see the implications that such a small "correction" would actually have for the rest of science as an interconnected whole. This doesn't worry the pseudoscientist, even if it is pointed out.
When it comes to the pseudoscentist's own theory, however, suddenly the "big picture" comes into sharp focus. That one small change often leads to a new "theory of everything". For example, the whole of physics suddenly needs revision due to the author's "radical" reconsideration of Newton's second law of motion. Or "quantum consciousness" and its implications for a theory of everything are discussed without any apparent need for a basic understanding of quantum theory.
Arguments from ignorance are common: the pseudoscientist's main line of argument is often speculation (read fantasy) based on what is NOT known rather than what IS known. This is often accompanied by an attempt to set up a false dichotomy: if science can't (presently) explain X, then the only viable alterntive is my pet theory.
Dogmatism
Pseudoscience is fundamentally dogmatic. It is usually linked to an emotion-based belief the author has developed (for whatever reason), and any criticism of the "theory" is taken as a personal slight against the author. Pseudoscientists consider it permissible (even necessary) to fight off such "attacks" with personal (ad hominem) attacks directed back at the original "attackers". Often these involve questioning the character, motives or credentials of the perceived attacker. All critics are accused of being "closed minded" as a matter of course.
A feature of dogma is that followers are expected to have faith rather than to base their opinions on evidence. Thus, the aim of the pseudoscientist is not so much to convince people that his idea is correct, but to convert people to "belief" in the idea. Proponents often have a very high personal regard for their own abilities, combined with an unshakable confidence in their own infallibility - not unlike cult leaders. Also, believers are often asked to believe in spite of the facts rather than because of them (see also the section on the "great conspiracy", below).
The pseudoscientific theory usually starts with a hypothesis that is both emotionally appealing and spectacularly implausible. Any actual research or evidence-gathering is done more in an effort to justify the pre-formed belief than to actually test the hypothesis (and see also the dicussion of confirmation bias below).
Once the theory has been around in public for long enough - e.g. to do the rounds of internet discussion forums - something else is noticed: the "work" never advances or changes. Pseudoscience is characterised by intellectual stagnation - another feature of dogma. When errors are pointed out, they are seldom corrected. The first edition of any pseudoscientific book is usually the last, even if the book remains in print for decades (compare scientific textbooks, which are constantly revised in the light of new discoveries). An author may have a long discussion with scientists on one internet forum, wherein he is carefully corrected regarding a number of fundamental errors and misconceptions, only to reappear at a different forum or a on the same forum a few years later peddling exactly the same faulty material or arguments.
Longevity, being relatively rare in pseudoscience, equals kudos among other pseudoscientists. The general principle is that the older an idea, the more likely it is to be true. Never mind that the idea was debunked decades (or centuries) ago - tweak it and give it another run if it fits well with your "new" theory. Refer to it as "wisdom of the ancients".
General Public is targeted
Pseudoscientists (especially the ones trying to sell something) avoid normal scientific peer review processes like the plague. Instead, they market their "theories" direct to the general public. Often, but not always, it turns out that somebody with a "revolutionary" theory is making at least part of his living selling questionable products of some kind (e.g. "miracle cures", e-books describing the "theory", or a dubious invention).
Pseudoscientists publish without any independent review of their work. They aren't worried about accuracy or errors in their work. There is usually no pre-publication attempt at falsification. If, on the off-chance, a pseudoscience does submit his work to a real scientist, then his inevitable rejection is rationalised away.
One advantage of pitching a new theory to a non-expert public audience is that the author doesn't need to abide by the pesky demands and conventions of real science. For example, if he has a new theory of physics but he can't actually do any mathematics, then he can take one of at least two approaches: (a)complain that physics is "too mathematical" anyway and that therefore maths is not required, or (b) attempt to dazzle the audience with random mathematical equations copied from textbooks or the internet, secure in the knowledge that the vast majority of the audience won't be able to sort the gibberish from real mathematics. Also, pseudoscientists do not appreciate that in physics mathematics is a modelling tool. Some imagine that physics is nothing more than mathematical manipulation. Others believe that physicists only use maths because they are "blind to simpler explanations".
Testablility/falsifiability
Every scientific theory worth its salt ultimately makes prediction that can be tested by experiment or observation in the real world. In contrast, pseudoscientific theories are often constructed explicitly to be immune to actual testing. For example, a theory can be so vague and conceptually splippery that it makes no firm predictions. It can be difficult to tell even what is being claimed. Or, the theory might posits unobservable entities whose effects are indistinguishable from observed effects.
Invariably, it turns out that any "studies" that have actually been done by the pseudoscientist are so vaguely described or poorly executed that no-one can reproduce them, or even figure out what exactly was done.
Verbosity/impenetrable language and conceptual hijacking
Pseudoscientific theories are full of jargon and over-complex words. Authors invent new terms, or else use their own meanings of established terms. This is inevitably confusing, especially since proper definitions of terms are rarely given.
Pseudoscientists like to dress up their writings with jargon borrowed from legitimate science. Since neither the pseudoscientist nor his target audience know the scientific meanings of words such as "energy", "vibrations", "resonance", "quantum" and "dimension", these words are readily available to dress up a "work" to make it look scientific. Even better, the pseudoscientist can mash scientific terms together to create new non-scientific concepts such as "quantum consciousness" or "zero-point free energy".
Lack of explicit mechanisms
Pseudoscientific theories are often presented as a "just so" story that we are meant to come to believe. The story tells us how the scientists got it wrong, and how the universe "really" works. It details how things came to be the way they are, starting from the "theory's" tenets. What is lacking is any scientific mechanism for how the various events in the story could plausibly have happened.
For example, a new astronomical theory might describe how the planets left their orbits and wandered around at random in the early solar system, without ever providing a plausible explanation of the physical forces that could rip a planet from its orbit. Or consider astrology. Suppose that the stars at the moment of our birth really do influence our behaviour throughout life. How, exactly, could they do that? Where's the physics?
[size=+1]The pseudoscientist[/size]
Let's turn now to a few common characteristics of the pseudoscientist himself. (In physics, it is usually a "he". In astrology, it is often a "she". Psychics can be either. I'll stick to "he" for the purposes of this article.)
Two things strike you immediately about the average pseudoscientist. First, he is isolated. Second, he is grandiose.
I have already discussed the disconnection of the pseudoscientist from the scientific literature and the scientific community. But it's also worth mentioning that pseudoscientists, especially those with a pet theory, are almost always not really connected with their own peers either. They may belong to an internet forum or chat group where pseudoscientific theories can be presented and discussed. But there's usually no real "peer review" in such groups. Instead, there tends to be mutual encouragement to continue the "work" and to fight the good fight against the non-believers. Other pseudoscientists have as much or less chance than a real scientist of actually understanding a fellow pseudoscientist's work and picking out flaws; the most they have to offer is moral support. Sometimes, two pseudoscientific theories actually obviously clash, and in such cases sparks can fly between the proponents. But usually, the real scientists are the greater common enemy.
In the odd case where a pseudoscientist actually does some experimental work on his own, this work is never reproduced by other pseudoscientists. Usually, the author is the only person to do the experiment.
A few signs of the grandiosity of the pseudoscientist:
[size=+1]Methods of argument and "proof"[/size]
When you get into a discussion with a pseudoscientist, look for the following features:
Confirmation bias
Typically, the pseudoscientist refuses to consider evidence that disproves his theory. He will sometimes even flatly deny the existence of evidence presented. He will only ever cite evidence in favour of his theory and will happily cherry-pick favourable facts if necessary.
Pseudoscientists usually work backwards from their conclusion to support for it. They will claim that certain facts "support" the theory when the facts are actually problematic if you look more deeply. The pseudoscientist believes the result because of the theory and not the theory because of the result. Contrary results, on the other hand, are ignored or dismissed.
Attempt to shift burden of proof
For the pseudoscientist, the onus is on skeptics to "prove me wrong". The pseudoscientist does not expect to have to provide evidence for his claims. In fact, in most instances he studiously avoids having his claims put to the test.
Over-reliance on analogy and metaphor
A common motif in the pseudoscientist's "just so" stories is the misuse of scientific analogies or metaphors, which are often drawn from popular science sources. The pseudoscientist pushes these metaphors to breaking point. For example, an entire new "theory" may be based on the idea that gravity is a "rubber sheet" in space.
Anecdotes used as evidence
Anecdotal evidence has some place in scientific theory, but no theory should depend solely on anecdotal evidence for support. And 100 anecdotes are little better than 1 (e.g. UFO sightings). Pseudoscience if often heavily reliant on subjective validation; personal observation is always valued more highly than a controlled experiment.
Special pleading
If a pseudoscientific claim fails a test or is refuted in an argument, the pseudoscientist often changes tactics. For example, he might suddenly claim that "normal" scientific methods can't be used to test his claims because there is something so special about them that the normal methods don't apply. This can be accompanied by the claim that scientists need to open their eyes to new methods.
After the fact, ad hoc explanations are often given for why something didn't work as advertised. e.g. "ESP won't work in the presence of skeptics."
Another fallback position is to back off on a claim, saying "It was only to get you to think. I wasn't serious." However, until this claim is made there is no way to tell the serious claims of the pseudoscientist from the non-serious ones. The pseudoscientist never tells us in advance that he is presenting something he knows to be in error in order to make us think.
Conspiracy theories
Theories are often portrayed as something "they" don't want you to know about. This is reassurance to existing "believers" as well as a temptation for those who are already distrustful of mainstream science (and unable to distinguish pseudoscience from science, of course).
Rejection of pseudoscience by mainstream science is explained as suppression of revolutionary ideas, rather than as due to faults with the ideas. Or, scientists are claimed to have various vested interests (they will lose money or their jobs if they do not dispute the pseudoscience etc.)
The Grand Scientific Conspiracy is also used as a marketing ploy: "Buy the miracle cure that Big Pharma doesn't want you to know about!"
[size=+1]Some common beliefs of pseudoscientists[/size]
Finally, it's worth touching on some beliefs of pseudoscientists that perhaps go some way towards explaining their mindset. Here are a few:
[size=+1]Sources:[/size]
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/scipseud.htm
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/BillInfo/Quack.html
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=1843
http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=pseudoscience.php
Here's a brief list I have put together of things to look for when you're presented with dubious but scientific-sounding claims and you suspect you may be dealing with a pseudoscientist. This list is far from complete.
[size=+1]The "theory" and its presentation[/size]
Sloppiness
Pseudoscientific theories are often poorly presented. The author may write without using paragraphs, or write over-long sentences. Or there may be a lot of spelling errors. Often there is an overuse of emphasis - the overuse of CAPITAL LETTERS or underlining or bold text or colours.
The author might start discussing concepts without defining terms, as if jumping into the middle of a train of thought with no introduction. Pseudoscience websites and papers and books are often confusing. A website might be a collection of scanned random clippings from various sources, scribblings by the author, citations of other pseudoscientific works or web pages, citations of ancient or outdated books, and some random text, all jammed together in a haphazard way. Any sources that are relied upon are seldom checked for accuracy by the author. Sometimes there is a deluge of information - e.g. a 100 page website that never clearly presents the best arguments for the "theory" being presented.
Pseudoscientific theories also often turn out to be internally inconsistent. A statement on page 3 directly contradicts something else on page 17. When readers draw attention to such mistakes, they are usually met with abuse rather than correction or revision.
Pseudoscientific arguments are often logically inconsistent, too. e.g. Statement A is supposed to "prove" statement B, but in fact there is no discernable relation between the two.
Pseudoscientists are indifferent to standard criteria of valid scientific evidence. Meaningful, controlled, repeatable experiments or definite numerical predictions are unimportant, while unverifiable eyewitness testimony and dubious anecdotes are accepted without query.
Absence of connectivity to existing science
While sloppiness is a sign of a messy mind, a far more telling warning sign that something is pseudoscientific is a complete lack of evidence of the author's familiarity with (let along expertise in) the existing body of scientific knowledge.
The presented ideas almost invariably fail to build on existing scientific knowledge, but attempt to "start from scratch", often by claiming that a well-accepted scientific theory is completely wrong. The author will argue from apparent exceptions, anomalies, and strange events that have been observed rather than from well-established observed regularities in nature. Sometimes, the author attempts to explain a "mystery" or else create one where none exists. Often, the new "theory" is claimed to require a complete "revolution" in science. The proponent imagines that this will excuse his lack of knowledge of existing science.
Pseudoscientists often have a faulty or nonexistent understanding of basic and well-established principles of the field that their theory is trying to "improve". Proponents are usually unqualified in the field, and display a lack of knowledge of it. Errors are rationalised away or ignored, or else met with hostility.
The mainstream scientific literature is either ignored or misinterpreted. Not uncommonly, an entire new "theory" is based on a basic misconception about some piece of science. Also not uncommon is an obsessively narrow focus. The pseudoscientist may want to "correct" just one small thing that they don't like in established science. But being unaware of the basic science, they can't see the implications that such a small "correction" would actually have for the rest of science as an interconnected whole. This doesn't worry the pseudoscientist, even if it is pointed out.
When it comes to the pseudoscentist's own theory, however, suddenly the "big picture" comes into sharp focus. That one small change often leads to a new "theory of everything". For example, the whole of physics suddenly needs revision due to the author's "radical" reconsideration of Newton's second law of motion. Or "quantum consciousness" and its implications for a theory of everything are discussed without any apparent need for a basic understanding of quantum theory.
Arguments from ignorance are common: the pseudoscientist's main line of argument is often speculation (read fantasy) based on what is NOT known rather than what IS known. This is often accompanied by an attempt to set up a false dichotomy: if science can't (presently) explain X, then the only viable alterntive is my pet theory.
Dogmatism
Pseudoscience is fundamentally dogmatic. It is usually linked to an emotion-based belief the author has developed (for whatever reason), and any criticism of the "theory" is taken as a personal slight against the author. Pseudoscientists consider it permissible (even necessary) to fight off such "attacks" with personal (ad hominem) attacks directed back at the original "attackers". Often these involve questioning the character, motives or credentials of the perceived attacker. All critics are accused of being "closed minded" as a matter of course.
A feature of dogma is that followers are expected to have faith rather than to base their opinions on evidence. Thus, the aim of the pseudoscientist is not so much to convince people that his idea is correct, but to convert people to "belief" in the idea. Proponents often have a very high personal regard for their own abilities, combined with an unshakable confidence in their own infallibility - not unlike cult leaders. Also, believers are often asked to believe in spite of the facts rather than because of them (see also the section on the "great conspiracy", below).
The pseudoscientific theory usually starts with a hypothesis that is both emotionally appealing and spectacularly implausible. Any actual research or evidence-gathering is done more in an effort to justify the pre-formed belief than to actually test the hypothesis (and see also the dicussion of confirmation bias below).
Once the theory has been around in public for long enough - e.g. to do the rounds of internet discussion forums - something else is noticed: the "work" never advances or changes. Pseudoscience is characterised by intellectual stagnation - another feature of dogma. When errors are pointed out, they are seldom corrected. The first edition of any pseudoscientific book is usually the last, even if the book remains in print for decades (compare scientific textbooks, which are constantly revised in the light of new discoveries). An author may have a long discussion with scientists on one internet forum, wherein he is carefully corrected regarding a number of fundamental errors and misconceptions, only to reappear at a different forum or a on the same forum a few years later peddling exactly the same faulty material or arguments.
Longevity, being relatively rare in pseudoscience, equals kudos among other pseudoscientists. The general principle is that the older an idea, the more likely it is to be true. Never mind that the idea was debunked decades (or centuries) ago - tweak it and give it another run if it fits well with your "new" theory. Refer to it as "wisdom of the ancients".
General Public is targeted
Pseudoscientists (especially the ones trying to sell something) avoid normal scientific peer review processes like the plague. Instead, they market their "theories" direct to the general public. Often, but not always, it turns out that somebody with a "revolutionary" theory is making at least part of his living selling questionable products of some kind (e.g. "miracle cures", e-books describing the "theory", or a dubious invention).
Pseudoscientists publish without any independent review of their work. They aren't worried about accuracy or errors in their work. There is usually no pre-publication attempt at falsification. If, on the off-chance, a pseudoscience does submit his work to a real scientist, then his inevitable rejection is rationalised away.
One advantage of pitching a new theory to a non-expert public audience is that the author doesn't need to abide by the pesky demands and conventions of real science. For example, if he has a new theory of physics but he can't actually do any mathematics, then he can take one of at least two approaches: (a)complain that physics is "too mathematical" anyway and that therefore maths is not required, or (b) attempt to dazzle the audience with random mathematical equations copied from textbooks or the internet, secure in the knowledge that the vast majority of the audience won't be able to sort the gibberish from real mathematics. Also, pseudoscientists do not appreciate that in physics mathematics is a modelling tool. Some imagine that physics is nothing more than mathematical manipulation. Others believe that physicists only use maths because they are "blind to simpler explanations".
Testablility/falsifiability
Every scientific theory worth its salt ultimately makes prediction that can be tested by experiment or observation in the real world. In contrast, pseudoscientific theories are often constructed explicitly to be immune to actual testing. For example, a theory can be so vague and conceptually splippery that it makes no firm predictions. It can be difficult to tell even what is being claimed. Or, the theory might posits unobservable entities whose effects are indistinguishable from observed effects.
Invariably, it turns out that any "studies" that have actually been done by the pseudoscientist are so vaguely described or poorly executed that no-one can reproduce them, or even figure out what exactly was done.
Verbosity/impenetrable language and conceptual hijacking
Pseudoscientific theories are full of jargon and over-complex words. Authors invent new terms, or else use their own meanings of established terms. This is inevitably confusing, especially since proper definitions of terms are rarely given.
Pseudoscientists like to dress up their writings with jargon borrowed from legitimate science. Since neither the pseudoscientist nor his target audience know the scientific meanings of words such as "energy", "vibrations", "resonance", "quantum" and "dimension", these words are readily available to dress up a "work" to make it look scientific. Even better, the pseudoscientist can mash scientific terms together to create new non-scientific concepts such as "quantum consciousness" or "zero-point free energy".
Lack of explicit mechanisms
Pseudoscientific theories are often presented as a "just so" story that we are meant to come to believe. The story tells us how the scientists got it wrong, and how the universe "really" works. It details how things came to be the way they are, starting from the "theory's" tenets. What is lacking is any scientific mechanism for how the various events in the story could plausibly have happened.
For example, a new astronomical theory might describe how the planets left their orbits and wandered around at random in the early solar system, without ever providing a plausible explanation of the physical forces that could rip a planet from its orbit. Or consider astrology. Suppose that the stars at the moment of our birth really do influence our behaviour throughout life. How, exactly, could they do that? Where's the physics?
[size=+1]The pseudoscientist[/size]
Let's turn now to a few common characteristics of the pseudoscientist himself. (In physics, it is usually a "he". In astrology, it is often a "she". Psychics can be either. I'll stick to "he" for the purposes of this article.)
Two things strike you immediately about the average pseudoscientist. First, he is isolated. Second, he is grandiose.
I have already discussed the disconnection of the pseudoscientist from the scientific literature and the scientific community. But it's also worth mentioning that pseudoscientists, especially those with a pet theory, are almost always not really connected with their own peers either. They may belong to an internet forum or chat group where pseudoscientific theories can be presented and discussed. But there's usually no real "peer review" in such groups. Instead, there tends to be mutual encouragement to continue the "work" and to fight the good fight against the non-believers. Other pseudoscientists have as much or less chance than a real scientist of actually understanding a fellow pseudoscientist's work and picking out flaws; the most they have to offer is moral support. Sometimes, two pseudoscientific theories actually obviously clash, and in such cases sparks can fly between the proponents. But usually, the real scientists are the greater common enemy.
In the odd case where a pseudoscientist actually does some experimental work on his own, this work is never reproduced by other pseudoscientists. Usually, the author is the only person to do the experiment.
A few signs of the grandiosity of the pseudoscientist:
- It is seldom enough to modify just one small area of science. Instead, it is much more common to see claims that a new theory will "revolutionise" the whole of physics.
- Pseudoscientists have an inordinate confidence in themselves and an almost religious faith that their own personal feelings, intuitions, beliefs and hunches provide a reliable guide to scientific truth. Anybody who fails to see this is labelled "blind".
- Many theories evidence a complete failure to specify any limits to the theory or conditions under which theory will NOT apply.
- The pseudoscientist does not flinch from making claims that directly contradict what is known about nature.
- Theories and component objects/entities are often named after the author, whose name appears prominently everywhere the theory is published.
- The pseudoscientist is annoyed that real scientists mostly ignore his great work and believes that scientists should drop everything to examine his ill-expressed "revolutionary" ideas.
- A common cry is "They all laughed at Galileo, too!"
[size=+1]Methods of argument and "proof"[/size]
When you get into a discussion with a pseudoscientist, look for the following features:
Confirmation bias
Typically, the pseudoscientist refuses to consider evidence that disproves his theory. He will sometimes even flatly deny the existence of evidence presented. He will only ever cite evidence in favour of his theory and will happily cherry-pick favourable facts if necessary.
Pseudoscientists usually work backwards from their conclusion to support for it. They will claim that certain facts "support" the theory when the facts are actually problematic if you look more deeply. The pseudoscientist believes the result because of the theory and not the theory because of the result. Contrary results, on the other hand, are ignored or dismissed.
Attempt to shift burden of proof
For the pseudoscientist, the onus is on skeptics to "prove me wrong". The pseudoscientist does not expect to have to provide evidence for his claims. In fact, in most instances he studiously avoids having his claims put to the test.
Over-reliance on analogy and metaphor
A common motif in the pseudoscientist's "just so" stories is the misuse of scientific analogies or metaphors, which are often drawn from popular science sources. The pseudoscientist pushes these metaphors to breaking point. For example, an entire new "theory" may be based on the idea that gravity is a "rubber sheet" in space.
Even the most successful analogies in the history of science breakdown at some point. Analogies are a valuable guide as to what facts we may expect, but are never final evidence as to what we shall discover. A guide whose reliability is certain to give out at some point must obviously be accepted with caution. We can never feel certain of a conclusion which rests only on analogy and we must always look for more direct proof
(Thouless, 1968)
(Thouless, 1968)
Anecdotes used as evidence
Anecdotal evidence has some place in scientific theory, but no theory should depend solely on anecdotal evidence for support. And 100 anecdotes are little better than 1 (e.g. UFO sightings). Pseudoscience if often heavily reliant on subjective validation; personal observation is always valued more highly than a controlled experiment.
Special pleading
If a pseudoscientific claim fails a test or is refuted in an argument, the pseudoscientist often changes tactics. For example, he might suddenly claim that "normal" scientific methods can't be used to test his claims because there is something so special about them that the normal methods don't apply. This can be accompanied by the claim that scientists need to open their eyes to new methods.
After the fact, ad hoc explanations are often given for why something didn't work as advertised. e.g. "ESP won't work in the presence of skeptics."
Another fallback position is to back off on a claim, saying "It was only to get you to think. I wasn't serious." However, until this claim is made there is no way to tell the serious claims of the pseudoscientist from the non-serious ones. The pseudoscientist never tells us in advance that he is presenting something he knows to be in error in order to make us think.
Conspiracy theories
Theories are often portrayed as something "they" don't want you to know about. This is reassurance to existing "believers" as well as a temptation for those who are already distrustful of mainstream science (and unable to distinguish pseudoscience from science, of course).
Rejection of pseudoscience by mainstream science is explained as suppression of revolutionary ideas, rather than as due to faults with the ideas. Or, scientists are claimed to have various vested interests (they will lose money or their jobs if they do not dispute the pseudoscience etc.)
The Grand Scientific Conspiracy is also used as a marketing ploy: "Buy the miracle cure that Big Pharma doesn't want you to know about!"
[size=+1]Some common beliefs of pseudoscientists[/size]
Finally, it's worth touching on some beliefs of pseudoscientists that perhaps go some way towards explaining their mindset. Here are a few:
- The world as described by science is too "ordered" and "constrained". There is not enough room for "magic" and "miracles".
- There are hidden powers in nature that can be harnessed by the human mind, if only one has the right mind-set and is dedicated enough.
- Nothing that can be conceived is impossible.
- "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
- Any science that is contrary to common sense must be wrong.
- Science is too complicated. True science should be simple and comprehensible to anybody. Corollary: you don't need to know maths to do physics.
- Magical thinking: "Nothing is a coincidence". "Everything is connected. We only need to look for the patterns to see this." (Makes me think of the film A beautiful mind.)
[size=+1]Sources:[/size]
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/scipseud.htm
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/BillInfo/Quack.html
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=1843
http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=pseudoscience.php