PSEUDOSCIENCE

Pseudoscience is a belief that masquerades as a real science, despite failing to follow the scientific method.

by Martyn Shuttleworth (2008)

Astrology, Intelligent Design, Occult Studies and Phrenology are examples of quasi-sciences. That is not to denigrate these beliefs, but they are not sciences, whatever the proponents claim, and they do not belong in the science classroom.

Sometimes, the boundaries are a little blurred. For example, researchers into extra-sensory perception and the power of the mind do perform scientific tests. Whilst few positive results have been found, it could still be classed as a genuine field that tries to stick to the scientific method.

Whether positive results are gained or not is largely irrelevant, only that the method is followed. This is an example of a pseudoscience gradually becoming an established science.

Another example is alternative medicine, which used to be classed as pseudoscience by the medical profession. Now, many fields such as herbalism, acupuncture, and chiropractics follow the protocols of scientific research. They are often classed as genuine fields, or indeed proto-science. Working the other way, phrenology, where many proponents believed that a person’s personality could be assessed by measuring the shape of the skull, is now debunked. It has sunk into the realms of pseudoscience.

Whilst some ‘pure’ scientists refer to many of the social sciences and market research as not proper science, they do at least attempt to follow the scientific method. A fairer term, in such cases, is quasi-science.

SIGNS THAT RESEARCH IS PSEUDOSCIENCE
Check the credentials of any researchers, as it is easy to be swayed by qualifications, and pseudo scientists are very good at switching fields.
For example, a professor of quantum physics typically knows less about biology than first year biology undergraduate, so why are they qualified to comment upon evolution?

Pseudosciences are often selective with facts, selecting results that suit their needs. Peer reviewing and replication are essential to science, so any experiment that does not allow this process cannot be taken seriously.

Parapsychology is a very good example. If researchers into ESP and telekinesis follow the scientific method, and accept results for what they are, then their work can be classed as science. Unfortunately, many pseudo researchers in this field distort findings and try to fit the results to their theory, rather than using them to try to refine hypotheses. The Atkins diet is another example of verification error, resulting in potentially dangerous practices.

Pseudoscience often uses the media as a first stop, rather than submitting their work for peer review. No genuine researcher would dream of publishing their results until they had passed all of the rigors of the scientific method.

Pseudoscience often claims that it is right and that everybody else is wrong, instead of trying to fit in with established scientific protocols. Many pseudo-sciences now claim to be complimentary to science, rather than alternative, and this view is fair in many cases.

Acupuncture, Cognitive Behavior Therapy and Reflexology are good examples. Physicians and consultants often refer patients, believing that there may be some benefit if these therapies are used alongside regular medicine. The fact that these methods are also prepared to subject their methods to scientific debate often earns them the name of proto-science.

Pseudoscience is often about making money, through selling books, claiming that the research is something that science cannot explain. The reason why science cannot explain everything is that often it does not care. Most researchers are not going to waste time and resources studying a field that is full of cranks.

For example, the pyramid scam selling e-books claiming that water used in your car engine saves gas is physically impossible. Scientists often finds other explanations than those of the pseudoscience. Hypnotherapists charging many dollars an hour are not interested in healing anybody, but in making the client return week after week.

Pseudoscience often tries to create problems and mysteries that are not there, usually linked to making money. The Bermuda Triangle spawned a range of books and films, but Occam’s razor showed that a plane or ship is statistically no more likely to go missing there than anywhere else. This was not before an extensive array of books and films about the subject.

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY
To summarize, the boundaries between science and pseudoscience are often blurred. Some practices straddle the divide, like complimentary medicine, and others can begin as a pseudoscience and develop into a science. If they follow the scientific method, and allow scrutiny, then they may develop into a full-blown field
The common denominator for the rest is money. Every pseudoscience has money or an unethical motivation at the root, and dresses crankery up as science to persuade the public. This is the reason that the scientific method was developed, to drive the charlatans out.


Shuttleworth, Martyn (2008). Pseudoscience. Retrieved [Date of Retrieval] from Experiment Resources: http://www.experiment-resources.com/Pseudoscience.html

We should be careful classifying "Alternative medicine" any which way because there are so many different practices lumped under this umbrella term.


Herbalism (in general) has always been recognized by scientists as potentially beneficial - it is the foundation of our own modern pharmacology. Its also been recognized as potential dangerous (given the lack of precise dosage controls and the variability in potency) and potentially useless (given the enthusiasm for some herbal treatments which have failed to show efficacy)

Acupuncture has failed to deliver repeatable, specific, non-placebo benefits in large studies which are consistent with the chinese theory underlying acupuncture. The benefits which have been found (in controlled studies) with acupuncture are also found if you stick the needles in sites other than the meridian points. In other words, the act of sticking a needle in yourself anywhere you want sometimes appears to help with pain and nausea - which would seem to undermine the entire energetic/meridian theory of acupuncture.


I like this part of the text:

Interesting article. Being a science major myself, I definitely understand the importance of strictly following the scientific method. What I would like to point out in addition to the article is that some of these "pseudo sciences" we call them might actually have strong correlation data to support their claims. I believe that sometimes that is where the media and non-science study people get tricked into trusting these "sciences" In order to make an empirical claim that one variable caused a definite change in another, we must conduct an experiment following the scientific method. There is not enough room on this post to accurately describe that process. At least with any degree of justice. I want to say more must alas a family meal is calling. I hope everyone has a wonderful Merry Christmas and remember a scientist is a skeptic. He/She must be.

I disagree by definition. Currently becuase supposed therapies are alternative, they do not get subjected to the same rigors, ie scientific method with peer review and large RCT to back it up, or they ignore modern principles such as proper controls, and this causes the confusion. It also takes a post modern view on the placebo effect, which is clearly anti-scientific.

CAM hijacks real long term medical therapies, even nutrition, and pretends that its alternative, ITS NOT, nutrition has been a long time, well understood NOT alternative medical topic. The "alternative" therapies that work are just co-opted science calling it alternative to give alternative some validity. Its word play at best to try to get insurance companies to cover pseudo-scientific topics, by calling real medicine alternative to make the not science look better.

The reality is that if a therapy is efficacious then its medicine, if its not then its not medicine.

If we do not yet know the level of efficacy for a given hypothetical therapy then its not yet medicine, its research.

By definition Alternative medicine is not medicine, becuase if it was medicine, it would not be alternative.

If it was verified via rigorous scientific research to be effective, it would then just be called medicine.



BTW long time no type there massage!

Didn't mean to double post, but this was a very on topic post from SBM.



http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9418#more-9418

Are you disagreeing with suggestion that we should be careful making generalizations about CAM? If so, how do you define CAM? My understanding is that meditation, prayer, chiropractors, massage, acupuncture, hypnosis, reflexology, homeopathy and more all fall under CAM - regardless of the circumstances of application.

Being cautious about generalizations cuts both ways: some CAM enthusiasts want to believe that if meditation were proven to address blood pressure issues, this would validate homeopathy (which is stupid and wrong). But just because homeopathy is a load of crap, doesn't automatically mean that acupuncture is. (We need to investigate acupuncture separately to determine if its a load of crap.)





Yes, yes, and it leads to people having believing a treatment is effective when it isn't. We both know that there are huge number of ignorant and indiscriminating people being taken advantage of by the feel good marketing campaigns for ******** products/methods in the CAM world, this leads many of us to want to speak out against CAM...but for me these kinds of lies (promoting non-effective CAM treatments) are not reason to reject everything that falls under the CAM umbrella at all times.



I realize that this kind of BS happens today, but i'm not convinced this is the full story for how and why certain modalities get designated certain ways. When I was a teen I studied A&P from old medical textbooks, and learned firsthand how amazingly, stupidly closeminded the scientific medical establishment was a half centaury ago. When I later obtained modern pre-med A&P texts - well it really puts the history in perspective to have them side by side with the several-decades-old textbooks. A few years later I became immersed in the CAM world, and learned that many of the anti-allopathy strawman arguments present by the CAM cool-aid drinkers were not total fabrications - they were based on beliefs that had previously actually been held by the medical establishment.

Of course SBM trumps CAM, because the SBM community and methods will take in account new evidence, if the evidence is strong.

My point is: it seems to me that there are reasons other than 'complete lack of effectiveness evidence' for why some modalities are designated as CAM. The history of being completely rejected, by the medical establishment might play a role, even if supporting evidence was found later. The attachment to completely ridiculous models for why a treatment might work may play a role.


You seem to be coming from the perspective that 'CAM, by definition, is hogwash' and while I would love for the legions of mass hypnotized buyers of homeopathic products to take a step back and consider that possibility....in the end I'm not sure its the most fair or intelligent way to divide the world (mainstream and CAM).




You are absolutely correct, and we appear to be moving in the wrong direction as a society.



Is it so simple? I think additional qualities are necessary to become medicine, such as being effective to treat a specific condition thats recognized as 'that which should be treated'; something which can reasonably be prescribed to people as a treatment method (versus a preventative maintenance method - routine exercise isn't considered medicine by mainstream medicine), and probably also reliably effective for a wide range of people.

For me, this leaves a lot of grey area between 'recognized, effective medicine' and '******** CAM'. Massage, exercise, meditation, chiropractice are in that grey area.





Glad to see you posting again!

This article says it way better than I can.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9418

I believe its a mistake to intermingle philosophy and science. As long as practitioners are taught real science, and required to practice real science to get insurance funding . . .

I agree that its a mistake, but I'm not convinced that all 'healing modalities' that arise from that intermingling are worthless.



Yes! And for so many other things too, like getting public funding, being able to use certain words (like 'therapy') in their marketing, being sanctioned in any way by the government, etc.

Right!! And then invent a method by which we have to put up with arguments about too much governance by government. We complain if the government takes money for keeping order in society, but when we see disorder, we demand the governement to respond with a ruling, like allowing or disallowing the usage of some words by some or the other.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT1kqVGqI1s&feature=grec_index
Science . . . I think not. CAM, yep. I want science in my medicine. Words matter, Medicine is important and I want mine science based. If other want non-science based that is fine, but for the purposes of determining effective medical treatments QI is meaningless. Not becuase it cannot be studied, but becuase it does not exist.

Vitalism by any other name.