| • Science | • People | • Locations | • Timeline |
| Contents | ||
A pseudoscience is any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is a kind of counterfeit or masquerade of science which makes use of some of the superficial trappings of science but does not involve the substance of science.
Advocacy of pseudoscience may occur for a number of reasons, ranging from simple naivety about the nature of science and the scientific method, to deliberate deception for financial benefit.
Some people consider some or all forms of pseudoscience to be harmless entertainment. Others, such as Richard Dawkins, consider all forms of pseudoscience to be harmful, whether or not they result in immediate harm to their followers.
Pseudoscience fails to meet the criteria met by science generally (including the scientific method), and can be identified by a combination of these characteristics:
Pseudoscience is distinguishable from revelation, theology or spirituality in that it claims to offer insight into the physical world by "scientific" means. Systems of thought that rely upon "divine" or "inspired" knowledge are not considered pseudoscience if they do not claim to be scientific or to overturn well-established science. There are also bodies of practical knowledge which are not claimed to be scientific. These are not pseudoscience.
Pseudoscience is also distinguishable from misleading statements in some Popular science, where commonly held beliefs are thought to meet the criteria of science, but often don't. The issue is muddled, however, because it is believed that "pop" science blurs the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public.
Pseudoscience also differs from protoscience. Protoscience is a term sometimes used to describe a hypothesis which has not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method, but which is otherwise consistent with existing science or which, where inconsistent, offers reasonable account of the inconsistency.
Pseudoscience, in contrast, is characteristically wanting adequate tests or the possibility of them, occasionally untestable in principle, and its supporters are frequently strident in insisting that existing scientific results are wrong. Pseudoscience is often unresponsive to ordinary scientific procedures (e.g., peer review, publication in standard journals). In some cases, no one applying scientific methods could disprove a pseudoscientific hypothesis (i.e. untestable claims) and failure to do so is often cited as evidence of the truth of the pseudoscience.
The boundaries between pseudoscience, protoscience, and "real" science are often unclear to non-specialist observers. They can even be obscure to experts. Many people have tried to offer objective criteria for the term, with mixed success. Often the term is used simply as a pejorative to express the speaker's low opinion of a given field, regardless of any objective measures.
If the claims of a given pseudoscience can be experimentally tested it may be real science, however odd, astonishing, or intuitively unacceptable. If they cannot be tested, it is likely pseudoscience. If the claims made are inconsistent with existing experimental results or established theory, it is often presumed to be pseudoscience. Conversely, if the claims of any given "science" cannot be experimentally tested it may not be a real science, however obvious or intuitively acceptable.
In such circumstances it may be difficult to distinguish which of two opposing "sciences" are valid; for example, both the proponents and opponents of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming have recruited the help of scientists to endorse contradictory "scientific" positions, because of differing political goals. This enlistment of science in the service of politics is sometimes called " junk science".
Other examples of new scientific disciplines that some consider protoscience include:
However, these fields are not considered protoscientific by most scientists; they are genererally considered real science, albeit subjects that may offer only a low probability of revealing significant results.
The difference between these subjects as science and pseudoscience may be seen by these examples: Scientists involved in SETI and CETI do not claim that they know for certain that intelligent extraterrestrials exist, although most consider the possibility likely (see Drake equationThe Drake equation (also known as the Green Bank equation is a famous result in the speculative fields of xenobiology, astrosociobiology and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. This equation was devised by Dr. Frank Drake in the 1960s in an atte). They test their beliefs against available data. There is controversy in biology about whether evidence of extraterrestrial microbial life has been found (fossilized in meteorites or as part of the Viking programNASA's Viking program consisted of two unmanned space missions to Mars, Viking 1 and Viking 2. Each mission had a satellite designed to photograph the surface of Mars from orbit, and to act as a communication relay for the Viking lander that each mission's exobiology experiments).
Ultimately, whether something is pseudoscience or not has less to do with the ideas under study than the approach used to study or justify them. AcupunctureAlternative medicine Ming dynasty. Acupuncture (from Lat. acus ‘a needle’, and pungere ‘to prick’) is the practice of inserting very thin needles in particular acupuncture points on the body to improve health and well-being, and is one component of tradit, for instance, while it involved a prescientific system, is not inherently pseudoscientific. This is because most of the claims can be tested scientifically. and so acupuncture can be viewed as a protoscience. Of course, a scientific investigation might fail to support the claims of acupuncture. In the presence of a number of tests that successfully falsify a particular claim, insisting that the claim is still scientifically supported is pseudoscience.