What is pseudoscience and how is it different from science

A few details are important to watch here. The first is the distinction between a claim that is falsifiable and a claim that has been falsified. Popper says that scientific claims are falsifiable and pseudo-scientific claims are not.

A claim that has been falsified demonstrated to be false is obviously a falsifiable claim because, by golly, it's been falsified. Once a claim has been falsified, Popper says the right thing to do is let it go and move on to a different falsifiable claim.

However, it's not that the claim shouldn't have been a part of science in the first place. So, the claim that the planets travel in circular orbits wasn't an inherently unscientific claim. Indeed, because it could be falsified by observations, it is just the kind of claim scientists should work with. But, once the observations show that this claim is false, scientists retire it and replace it with a different falsifiable claim. This detail is important! Popper isn't saying that science never makes false claims!

What he's saying is that the scientific attitude is aimed at locating and removing the false claims -- something that doesn't happen in pseudo-sciences. Another note on "falsifiability" -- the fact that many attempts to falsify a claim have failed does not mean that the claim is unfalsifiable. Nor, for that matter, would the fact that the claim is true make it unfalsifiable. A claim is falsifiable if there are certain observations we could make that would tell us the claim is false -- certain observable ways the world could not be if the claim were true.

So, the claim that Mars moves in an elliptical orbit around the sun could be falsified by observations of Mars moving in an orbit that deviated at all from an elliptical shape. Another important detail is just what scientists mean by "theory". A theory is simply a scientific account or description, or story about a system or a piece of the world. Typically, a theory will contain a number of hypotheses about what kind of entities are part of the system and how those entities behave.

The hypothesized behaviors are sometimes described as the "laws" governing the system. The important thing to note is that theories can be rather speculative or extremely well tested -- either way, they're still theories. Some people talk as though there's a certain threshold a theory crosses to become a fact, or truth, or something more-certain-than-a-theory. This is a misleading way of talking. Unless Popper is completely wrong that the scientist's acceptance of a theory is always tentative and this is one piece of Popper's account that most scientists whole-heartedly endorse , then even the theory with the best evidential support is still a theory.

Indeed, even if a theory happened to be completely true, it would still be a theory! You could never be absolutely certain that some future observation might not falsify the theory. So, for example, dismissing Darwin's theory as "just a theory" as if that were a strike against it is misunderstanding what science is up to. Of course there is some uncertainty; there is with all scientific theories.

Of course there are certain claims the theory makes that might turn out to be false; but the fact that there is evidence we could conceivably get to demonstrate these claims are false is a scientific virtue, not a sign that the theory is unscientific.

There's no conceivable evidence we could locate that could demonstrate the claims of these theories are false. Thus, these theories just aren't scientific. Science influences society through its knowledge and world view.

Scientific knowledge and the procedures used by scientists influence the way many individuals in society think about themselves, others, and the environment. The effect of science on society is neither entirely beneficial nor entirely detrimental. The visual imagination in particular has played a catalytic role in scientific discoveries and the formulation of new theories and ideas. Ostroff identified several strategies teachers can adopt to encourage older students to activate their dormant imaginations.

Imagination is the ability to produce and simulate novel objects, sensations, and ideas in the mind without any immediate input of the senses. The cognate term of mental imagery may be used in psychology for denoting the process of reviving in the mind recollections of objects formerly given in sense perception.

It is intriguing to wonder why perception differs from person to person, how imagination can evoke a creative frenzy or intrusive memories that debilitate those with PTSD. Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Skip to content Home Essay What is difference between science and pseudoscience? Ben Davis April 30, What is difference between science and pseudoscience? Is Psychology a pseudoscience? What is a sentence for pseudoscience? Is Linguistics a pseudoscience? Why is psychology not a science?

Is Psychology a humanity? Is Psychology a life science? Is General Psychology a humanities course? What subjects are classed as humanities? What subjects fall under humanities? Is Psychology a human services field? Who makes more money social worker or psychologist? Should I get a masters in social work or psychology? Is a psychologist better than a social worker?

Can a psychologist write prescriptions? Do social workers need therapy? Is a therapist and a counselor the same thing? What is one of the most important rights of social workers? Why is it important to respect the right of social workers? How important it is to know responsibilities of social workers? What is the main role of social worker? What makes a good social worker? What are the 3 goals of social work? A large number of lists have been published that consist of usually 5—10 criteria that can be used in combination to identify a pseudoscience or pseudoscientific practice.

This includes lists by Langmuir [] , Gruenberger , Dutch , Bunge , Radner and Radner , Kitcher , 30—54 , Grove , Thagard , — , Glymour and Stalker , Derksen , , Vollmer , Ruse , — and Mahner Many of the criteria that appear on such lists relate closely to criteria discussed above in Sections 4.

One such list reads as follows:. Some of the authors who have proposed multicriterial demarcations have defended this approach as being superior to any mono-criterial demarcation. Hence, Bunge , asserted that many philosophers have failed to provide an adequate definition of science since they have presupposed that a single attribute will do; in his view the combination of several criteria is needed.

This would mean that there is a set of features that are characteristic of science, but although every part of science will have some of these features, we should not expect any part of science to have all of them.

Irzik and Nola proposed the use of this approach in science education. However, a multicriterial definition of science is not needed to justify a multicriterial account of how pseudoscience deviates from science.

Even if science can be characterized by a single defining characteristic, different pseudoscientific practices may deviate from science in widely divergent ways. 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. The former type of pseudoscience has been called pseudo-theory promotion , and the latter science denial ism Hansson Pseudo-theory promotion is exemplified by homeopathy, astrology, and ancient astronaut theories.

Williams Other forms of science denial are relativity theory denial, tobacco disease denial, hiv denialism, and vaccination denialism. Many forms of pseudoscience combine pseudo-theory promotion with science denialism. However, as practiced today, creationism has a strong focus on the repudiation of evolution, and it is therefore predominantly a form of science denialism.

The most prominent difference between pseudo-theory promotion and science denial is their different attitudes to conflicts with established science.

Science denialism usually proceeds by producing false controversies with legitimate science, i. This is an old strategy, applied already in the s by relativity theory deniers Wazeck , — It has been much used by tobacco disease deniers sponsored by the tobacco industry Oreskes and Conway ; Dunlap and Jacques , and it is currently employed by climate science denialists Boykoff and Boykoff ; Boykoff However, whereas the fabrication of fake controversies is a standard tool in science denial, it is seldom if ever used in pseudo-theory promotion.

To the contrary, advocates of pseudosciences such as astrology and homeopathy tend to describe their theories as conformable to mainstream science.

The term scepticism skepticism has at least three distinct usages that are relevant for the discussion on pseudoscience. First, scepticism is a philosophical method that proceeds by casting doubt on claims usually taken to be trivially true, such as the existence of the external world.

This has been, and still is, a highly useful method for investigating the justification of what we in practice consider to be certain beliefs. Secondly, criticism of pseudoscience is often called scepticism. This is the term most commonly used by organisations devoted to the disclosure of pseudoscience. Thirdly, opposition to the scientific consensus in specific areas is sometimes called scepticism.

Unwillingness to accept strongly supported factual statements is a traditional criterion of pseudoscience. See for instance item 5 on the list of seven criteria cited in Section 4. It is particularly useful in relation to fact-finding practices that are not parts of science. Section 2. Generally speaking, conspiracy theories are theories according to which there exists some type of secret collusion for any type of purpose. In practice, the term mostly refers to implausible such theories, used to explain social facts that have other, considerably more plausible explanations.

Many pseudosciences are connected with conspiracy theories. For instance, one of the difficulties facing anti-vaccinationists is that they have to explain the overwhelming consensus among medical experts that vaccines are efficient. This is often done by claims of a conspiracy:.

Conspiracy theories have peculiar epistemic characteristics that contribute to their pervasiveness. Keeley In particular, they are often associated with a type of circular reasoning that allows evidence against the conspiracy to be interpreted as evidence for it. Frankfurt used the term to describe a type of falsehood that does not amount to lying.

A person who lies deliberately chooses not to tell the truth, whereas a person who utters bullshit is not interested in whether what s he says is true or false, only in its suitability for his or her purpose. Epistemic relativism is a term with many meanings; the meaning most relevant in discussions on pseudoscience is denial of the common assumption that there is intersubjective truth in scientific matters, which scientists can and should try to approach.

The distinction between science and pseudoscience has no obvious role in epistemic relativism. Some academic epistemic relativists have actively contributed to the promotion of doctrines such as AIDS denial, vaccination denial, creationism, and climate science denial Hansson , Pennock However, the connection between epistemic relativism and pseudoscience is controversial.

Others have denied that epistemic relativism facilitates or encourages standpoints such as denial of anthropogenic climate change or other environmental problems Burningham and Cooper , This convergence of theoretically divergent demarcation criteria is a quite general phenomenon.

Philosophers and other theoreticians of science differ widely in their views on what science is. Nevertheless, there is virtual unanimity in the community of knowledge disciplines on most particular issues of demarcation. There is widespread agreement for instance that creationism, astrology, homeopathy, Kirlian photography, dowsing, ufology, ancient astronaut theory, Holocaust denialism, Velikovskian catastrophism, and climate change denialism are pseudosciences.

There are a few points of controversy, for instance concerning the status of Freudian psychoanalysis, but the general picture is one of consensus rather than controversy in particular issues of demarcation. It is in a sense paradoxical that so much agreement has been reached in particular issues in spite of almost complete disagreement on the general criteria that these judgments should presumably be based upon. This puzzle is a sure indication that there is still much important philosophical work to be done on the demarcation between science and pseudoscience.

Philosophical reflection on pseudoscience has brought forth other interesting problem areas in addition to the demarcation between science and pseudoscience. 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.