Pseudoscience

A typical illustration of the 19th century’s brakes: In the 1820s, the scientists claimed that they could measure the "protuberances" of the individual’s skull to predict the traits of their personality. Strongly discredited in the 1840s, it was the first discipline to be called pseudoscience and is still considered as such until today.

The pseudoscience or pseudoscience (in Greek: Ψευδοεπιστήμη, romanization: Psevdoepistími; 'false science') is that affirmation, belief or practice ('pseudotherapy or 'false treatment') that is presented as scientific and factual, but is incompatible with the scientific method. the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable statements; reliance on confirmation bias instead of rigorous rebuttal testing; little or no willingness on the part of his followers to accept external evaluations from experts; and in general, the absence of systematic procedures for the rational development of theories.

An area, practice, or body of knowledge may reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the criteria of scientific inquiry, but manifestly does not meet the requirements of scientific inquiry. Science is distinguished from revelation, theology and spirituality in that it offers an understanding of reality through knowledge gained through empirical research and experimentation. Biased science reporting can blur the lines between science and pseudoscience for the general public and can also include science fiction. Some pseudoscientific beliefs are widely held, even among journalists and secular school science teachers.

The problem of demarcating between science and pseudoscience has political implications, as well as presenting scientific and philosophical problems. Distinguishing between the two has practical importance in areas such as health care, legal expertise, environmental policy, and education in science. science. It is part of science education and literacy to differentiate scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs, such as those found in astrology, alchemy, quackery, and occult beliefs, which are often fallaciously linked to scientific concepts.

The term pseudoscientific is often seen as inherently pejorative, as it suggests that something is vaguely or even falsely presented as science when it is not. Consequently, adherents of ideas categorized as pseudoscientific they usually reject this label.

Term and etymology

Connotations of the term pseudoscience

The term pseudoscience is often regarded as inherently negative, as it suggests that something is being misrepresented as science, perhaps even intentionally. or defend pseudosciences normally discuss such a label but, on the other hand, there are members of the scientific community who question the pejorative use of the label as a qualifier for new theories, theses or research.

Etymology

The term pseudoscience or pseudoscience is a neologism formed from the Greek root pseudo, "false", and the Latin word science, "knowledge." Although the term as such has been used since at least the late 18th century, the concept of pseudoscience as something other than real or authentic science seems to have emerged in the mid 19th century. One of the earliest uses of the word "pseudoscience" comes from 1844 in the Northern Journal of Medicine. An earlier use of the term is also recorded in 1843, in the work of the French physiologist François Magendie.

Definition of science and pseudoscience

Science and the scientific method

Although the elements that determine whether a body of knowledge, methodology or practice is scientific may vary according to the field of action, there are certain general principles with which the scientific community is generally in agreement. The basic notion is that all experimental results must be reproducible, and capable of being verified by other researchers. These principles are intended to ensure that experiments can be reproduced under the same conditions, allowing through subsequent research to determine whether a hypothesis or theory about of a phenomenon is both valid and reliable. To be considered scientific, a study must apply the scientific method in all its areas, and cognitive bias must be controlled or eliminated through random sampling, specific techniques such as double blinding, and other methods. It is expected that all data collected, including specifications of environmental or experimental conditions, will be documented and available for peer review, allowing further experiments to confirm or refute previous results.

In general, and to the extent that it may be applicable, scientific methodology requires that theories can be submitted to rigorous empirical tests, while pseudosciences will either not be able to apply refutation systems (since they are formulations ambiguous), or their supporters will protect the theory (for example, with auxiliary or ad hoc hypotheses, formulated a posteriori), instead of subjecting it to tests that might refute it.

Science and falsifiability

Karl Popper introduced in the middle of the XX century the concept of falsifiability to distinguish science from non-science. A result is "falsifiable" when it can be shown to be wrong, that is, when a theoretical experiment can be designed to show whether it is false. Thus, "falsifiable" can be considered as science, while those that are not "falsifiable" they are considered non-science. For example, the statement that "God created the Universe" it can be true or false, but no experiment can be designed to prove one thing or the other; it is simply beyond the capacity of science, ergo, it is not "falsifiable" and, therefore, it is non-science. Popper used astrology and psychoanalysis as examples of pseudoscience, and Einstein's theory of relativity as an example of science. He then classified the non-scientific formulations into philosophical, mathematical, mythological, religious and/or metaphysical categories on the one hand, and pseudoscientific on the other, although he did not give clear criteria for defining each.

Pseudoscience versus other accepted sciences

The term pseudoscience has pejorative connotations, because it is used to indicate that subjects so labeled are erroneously or misleadingly presented as scientific. For this reason, those who cultivate certain "pseudoscience", normally reject this classification. The name has been applied to disciplines such as certain hypotheses of quantum physics and other sciences that do not rigorously use the scientific method, such as the social sciences, psychoanalysis, graphology, parapsychology and cryptozoology due to the nature of their difficult study objects. to apply the same scientific rigor to it as in other disciplines, however this is relative and some of these disciplines accused of being pseudoscientific are accepted as scientific by universities, scientific associations, medical centers, governments, etc., for example, psychoanalysis.

Many times the discussion about a concept or field of knowledge revolves more around its consideration as science or pseudoscience than about the real facts and methods. Philosopher of science Larry Laudan has stated that the concept pseudoscience has no scientific meaning and is mostly used to describe a subjective appreciation: "If we wanted to stand firm on the side of reason, we should get rid of from terms like 'pseudoscience' and 'unscientific' from our vocabulary; they're just empty words serving an emotive function." Similarly, Richard McNally asserts that "the term pseudoscience has become little more than a scurrilous buzzword for disregard one's own opponents in media discussions', and that 'when therapeutic entrepreneurs make claims in favor of their treatments, we should not waste time trying to determine whether these qualify as pseudoscientific. Instead they should ask questions like: How do you know your treatment is working? What are your proofs?".

Characteristics of pseudosciences versus sciences

Non-scientific characteristics of pseudosciences

The authors who differentiate between real sciences and pseudosciences point out characteristics whose simultaneous presence, not necessarily all at once (polythetic definition), helps to recognize pseudosciences as such:

• They do not have internal and external consistency. That is, they endure logical contradictions and do not integrate with other sciences.^{[chuckles]required]}
• They do not apply methods such as the characteristic of sciences, those whose validity can be accepted regardless of the observer's expectations. But, Norwood Russell Hanson, in his book Patterns of discovery 1958, and relying on Ludwig Wittgenstein's posthumous work, particularly in his Philosophical Research, points out how the observation of any fact is always subject to the observer's expectations.
• They're dogmatic. Their principles are raised in such terms that they do not admit refutation, unlike the sciences, where the conditions of refutation of hypotheses or theories are determined or can be determined precisely. Although the latter is not of strict application to the social sciences, which often do not produce (or intend to produce) precise results, and come from premises to be interpreted with a certain degree of subjectivity.^{[chuckles]required]}
• They proclaim theories for which they do not provide empirical evidence, which often openly contradict known and accepted experimental observations or results. Although this type of problem also occasionally appears in the sciences (see for example: Horizon problem).^{[chuckles]required]}
• They are inconsistent with the theoretical body of related disciplines, invalidating the admitted explanations without offering better alternatives for the explanation of the same phenomena or recognizing the need to do so.
• They're immutable. By not having experimental bases, they do not change even to new discoveries (as a special exception are the sciences a priori, specifically mathematics and logic. The highest theoretical authority is still attributed to the founder or founders of discipline, and its teachings are treated as sacred scriptures.^{[chuckles]required]}
• They use dark language before the public, or use terms that have a precise meaning in science with totally different senses.^{[chuckles]required]}
• They do not meet the Occam knife strategy (also known as the principle of parsimonia), which is a heuristic method of creative search for solutions that proposes that, on equal terms, the simplest explanation is the one that should be considered the most likely. Or when they fulfill it, it is based on the use of "clusters" (e.g., creationism explains everything based on one entity: God).
• They're not looking for general laws.^{[chuckles]required]}
• Disqualify science criticism, often using fallacies ad hominemconspiring or persecuting when their approaches are challenged.^{[chuckles]required]}
• They invoke immaterial or supernatural entities, such as life force, divine creation, metaphysical unconsciousness, quintessence, etc. of those who proclaim at the same time, contradictoryly, who intervene in observable phenomena, but who are inaccessible to empirical research. Although also in physics it is speculated with entities that, today, are inaccessible to empirical research, but are supposed to intervene in observable phenomena (see for example: Higgs Bonus), and in psychology immaterial entities such as "intelligence".^{[chuckles]required]}
• The promoters of theory make little effort to develop a theory that overcomes the problems it faces. They lack the self-critical vocation of true scientists.
• They proclaim and demand that their scientific character be recognized, but only before the general public, giving up or being very reluctant to test their explanations to the established scientific community. The fact of claiming scientific status the difference of other fields, such as religion or metaphysics.^{[chuckles]required]}

Some authors related to epistemic relativism or the so-called «strong program» (or «standard») of the sociology of science (Barry Barnes, Steve Shapin and David Bloor), the School of Paris, (Bruno Latour and Michael Callon), the Bath group (Harry Collins and Steven Yearley), the group of North Americans and their "Ethnomethodology" (Harold Garfinkel and Michael Lynch), question whether it is possible to rigorously and objectively differentiate the limit that demarcates the & #34;science" of "pseudoscience", in some cases supporting positions openly contrary to certain conceptions of what science is and criticizing the scientific method. These relativist positions were answered by scientists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont in their book Intellectual Impostures (1997),.

Critics of pseudoscience such as Richard Feynman, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Michael Shermer, and Mario Bunge consider all forms of pseudoscience harmful, whether or not they cause immediate harm to their followers. These critics generally believe that advocacy of pseudoscience can happen for any number of reasons, ranging from simple candor about the nature of science and the scientific method, to deliberate deception for economic or political gain. It is not appropriate to treat any systematic body of beliefs as pseudoscience just because its postulates are not considered true, but it only makes sense to do so when the discipline in question claims its scientific nature without foundation. Some critics of pseudoscience regard some or all forms of pseudoscience as harmless pastimes.^{[citation needed]}

Explanations for the existence of pseudosciences

Psychological explanations

Pseudoscientific thinking has been explained in terms of psychology and social psychology. The human tendency to seek confirmation rather than refutation, to cling to comfortable beliefs, and to overgeneralize have been cited as common reasons for adherence to pseudoscientific thinking. According to Beyerstein (1991) humans are prone to make associations based on appearance, and often make mistakes in thinking about cause and effect.

Criticism of the term

Paul Feyerabend argues that a distinction between science and pseudoscience is neither possible nor desirable. Richard McNally, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, states: "The term 'pseudoscience' has become little more than an incendiary buzzword to quickly discredit an opponent through the media" and "When therapists claim to have achieved success with their practices, we should not spend our time trying to find out whether their practices can be called pseudoscientific. Instead, they should be asked: How do you know that your practice is working? What is your evidence?"

Pseudoscience, protoscience and science

Protoscience encompasses areas of knowledge in the process of consolidation. For example, alchemy in the 17th century fell into this category. When the principles on which they were based (such as the influence of planets on metals) were found to have no experimental support, they became a pseudoscience. The same can be said of parapsychology in the 19th century and early XX. Not all protosciences lead to pseudosciences. There are authors who consider that alchemy gave rise to chemistry and astrology to astronomy; although it should be noted that other historians of science dispute this point, regarding the occult and science as parallel traditions.

There is no agreement on the differentiation between protoscience, pseudoscience and science. There are examples of current scientific theories that were once criticized and labeled as pseudoscientific. The transition is characterized by more scientific research on the topic and the discovery of more evidence to support the theory. Thus, the theory of continental drift was, at the time, considered pseudoscientific.

The problem of the demarcation of sciences

Various attempts have been made to apply philosophical rigor to the demarcation of science with mixed results. These include Karl Popper's falsifiability criterion and the historical approach of Imre Lakatos, who criticizes it in his Methodology of scientific research programmes (Methodology of scientific research programmes). Historians and philosophers of science, mainly Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend, maintain from other epistemological perspectives of knowledge, which includes the social dimension, that a clear and objective distinction between science and pseudoscience is not always possible.

Mario Bunge, philosopher of science, is known for his position of including psychoanalysis among pseudosciences. Criticisms towards the inconsistency between theory and experience, or towards the speculative nature of the discourse are also sometimes directed from the natural sciences towards certain social sciences, such as economics or psycho-pedagogy. The Sokal scandal, by the name of the physicist who launched it, showed that from a certain orientation of postmodern Sociology of Science, it has also sometimes resorted to inconsistently using the language of so-called hard sciences, in what appears to be an irregular attempt at scientific legitimization, this being one of the lines of conduct frequently reproached towards the so-called pseudosciences.

For some sectors of the philosophy of science there is no perfectly defined, methodological and objective demarcation criterion to universally define what is science and what is pseudoscience, any attempt at differentiation is necessarily arbitrary and subjective.

Dangers of pseudoscientific medicine for health

A field in which pseudoscientific claims are frequently used is that of curing diseases.

Among the pseudotherapies without any results and even with contraindications or negative side effects that have been recommended to cure cancer are angelotherapy, biomagnetism, bioneuroemotion or biodecoding, family constellations, dianetics, alkaline diet, desensitization through eye movements, bach flower remedies, colon cleanse, homeopathy, iridology, iriogenetics, homotoxicology, miracle mineral supplement, naturopathy, osteopathy, ozone therapy, neurolinguistic programming, psychoanalysis, chiropractic, reflexology, acupressure, reiki, gerson therapy, gestalt therapy or humanistic therapy, neural therapy, orthomolecular therapy or orthomolecular medicine, chelation therapy and therapeutic touch. These pseudotherapies supported by pseudosciences are not recommended for the cure of cancer.

Among the most popular pseudoscientific therapies is acupuncture, despite the fact that the scientific consensus is clear in showing the lack of effectiveness over the placebo effect and the long list of adverse effects published in medical journals and by WHO including damage to organs and tissues and infections.

There is an important market of curative and diagnostic methods presented as curative mechanisms of validity demonstrated by studies, which in many cases use traditional magical methods, such as the imposition of hands or procedures without scientific foundation, such as dowsing or the use of pyramids. Most of these curanderismos, whose growing extension owes a lot to the internet, seek the credibility and prestige that science has, alleging, for example, unknown properties of water, the alleged action of quantum phenomena, or alleged energies of a diffuse nature.

Shark cartilage has been falsely promoted as a cancer cure based on the assumption that cancers do not exist in sharks. According to Ostrander, this practice has led to a continued decline in shark populations, and, more importantly, has driven patients away from effective cancer therapies. The authors suggest that "evidence-based mechanisms from the scientific community should be added to the learning of media and government professionals".

A special case, due to its extension, is that of homeopathy, whose inconsistency with scientific knowledge was already indicated during the lifetime of its founder, Samuel Hahnemann, and regarding which terms borrowed from quantum mechanics have recently been used (like entanglement) in an admittedly metaphorical way.

The same thing happens with foot reflexology, even going so far as to teach courses that are sometimes financed by the public health administration and aimed at midwives, people with scientific training and immersed in the health field, which can confuse the public giving appearance of being backed by science. These courses in Spain are taught by people without formal medical training, so their credibility leaves much to be desired. Anyone, regardless of their training, has access to reflexology courses and can obtain a diploma that qualifies them for the professional practice of said discipline.

Some alternative treatments of a pseudoscientific nature have produced serious accidents, even deaths; but it is generally accepted that the greatest danger to the health of patients occurs when, relying on an ineffective method, they renounce more effective measures, such as healthier habits or proven medical treatment.

In 2018, in Spain, the Association to Protect the Patient from Pseudoscientific Therapies published an open letter addressed to the Minister of Health María Luisa Carceo and the general public under the title Let's be clear: pseudosciences kill. It pointed out that death due to the use of pseudoscientific therapies and abandonment of official therapies were caused by the existing legal tolerance towards health practices carried out by non-professionals and outside international protocols, the neglect of institutions in compliance with laws already approved, the tolerance of medical colleges and the lack of information for patients.

In 2020, in a health context of the health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the first "international manifesto against the effects of pseudoscience" was published, signed by some 2,750 scientists from the field of the health of 44 countries.

Let's be clear: pseudosciences kill. And not only that, but they are practiced with impunity through European laws that protect them. [...] According to article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to medical assistance. Lying to the sick to sell them unserviceable products that can kill them violates the right of citizens to receive truthful information about their health. So, although a citizen has the right to give up a medical treatment being properly informed, it is also true that no one has the right to lie to him for economic gain at the expense of his life. [...]

Thus, the signatories of this manifesto declare that:

1. Scientific knowledge is incompatible with the postulates of pseudotherapy, such as homeopathy.
2. European laws that protect and protect homeopathy are inadmissible in a scientific-technological society that respects the right of patients not to be deceived.
3. Homeopathy is the most known pseudotherapy, but it is not the only one, nor the most dangerous one. Others like Acupuncture, Reiki, New Germanic Medicine, biomagnetism, iridology, orthomolecular therapy and a long etcetera are gaining ground and causing victims.
4. Measures must be taken to curb pseudotherapy because they are not harmless and produce thousands of affected.
5. Europe must work in the direction of creating laws that will help stop this problem.

European Manifesto Against Pseudotherapy

Pathologization, pseudo-disease and disease promotion

Pseudosciences and parasciences promote pathologization and medicalization: they try to show physiological or vital behaviors that are not health problems as treatable health problems.

Pseudosciences extend existing diagnoses to people who do not suffer from them, establish diagnoses without a proven scientific basis (see in psychiatry the dispute of the biopsychiatry controversy) and come to the creation of diseases without any scientific foundation —pseudo-diseases— (p.e. leaky gut syndrome or increased intestinal permeability) in order to create a clientele that buys his books and remedies.

List of pseudosciences

Authors such as Mario Bunge, Carl Sagan, Robert L. Park, James Randi, or Michael Shermer who defend a strict demarcation criterion between science and pseudoscience, consider that in the following fields a significant part of its practitioners present their discipline as equivalent to fields or areas of rigorous knowledge, sometimes formally imitating them in language or forms of communication, and adopting scientifically prestigious personal titles to the public such as "doctor" or "professor."

Table of pseudosciences or pseudoscientific therapies

The following table contains examples of some pseudosciences, (see list of pseudosciences):

Bibliography in Spanish

• 1988 - Martin Gardner, Science. The good, the bad, the false, Madrid, Alliance.
• 2000 - Carl Sagan, The world and its demons, Barcelona, Planet.
• 2000 - Richard Dawkins, Weaning the rainbow, Barcelona, Tusquets.
• 2002 - Mario Bunge, Crisis and reconstruction of philosophy, Barcelona, Gedisa.
• 2003 - Steven Weinberg, Face planting. Science and its cultural adversaries, Barcelona, Paidós.
• 2004 - VV.AA. Science and pseudosciences: realities and myths. Prologue of Manuel Toharia. Madrid, Equipo Sirius.
• 2017 - VV.AA., Myths and pseudotherapy created around cancer, 165 pags. Spanish Group of Patients with Cancer - GEPAC.
• 2018 - Edzard Ernst, A scientist in Wonderland. When the truth hurts(trad. Fernando López-Cotarelo), Next Door Publishers.