Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Pseudoscience
| Part of a series on |
| Science |
|---|
 |
| General |
| Branches |
| In society |
| Part of a series on the |
| Paranormal |
|---|
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.[Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.[4] It is not the same as junk science.[7]
The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has scientific, philosophical, and political implications.[8] Philosophers debate the nature of science and the general criteria for drawing the line between scientific theories and pseudoscientific beliefs, but there is widespread agreement "that creationism, astrology, homeopathy, Kirlian photography, dowsing, ufology, ancient astronaut theory, Holocaust denialism, Velikovskian catastrophism, and climate change denialism are pseudosciences."[9] There are implications for health care, the use of expert testimony, and weighing environmental policies.[9] Recent empirical research has shown that individuals who indulge in pseudoscientific beliefs generally show lower evidential criteria, meaning they often require significantly less evidence before coming to conclusions. This can be coined as a 'jump-to-conclusions' bias that can increase the spread of pseudoscientific beliefs.[10] Addressing pseudoscience is part of science education and developing scientific literacy.[11][12]
Pseudoscience can have dangerous effects. For example, pseudoscientific anti-vaccine activism and promotion of homeopathic remedies as alternative disease treatments can result in people forgoing important medical treatments with demonstrable health benefits, leading to ill-health and deaths.[13][14][15] Furthermore, people who refuse legitimate medical treatments for contagious diseases may put others at risk. Pseudoscientific theories about racial and ethnic classifications have led to racism and genocide.
The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative, particularly by its purveyors, because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Therefore, practitioners and advocates of pseudoscience frequently dispute the characterization.[4][16]
- ^ Bowler J (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea (3rd ed.). University of California Press. p. 128. ISBN 978-0-520-23693-6.
- ^ Parker Jones, O., Alfaro-Almagro, F., & Jbabdi, S. (2018). An empirical, 21st century evaluation of phrenology. Cortex. Volume 106. pp. 26–35. doi: doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2018.04.011
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Magendie1843was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c Hansson SO (2008), "Science and Pseudoscience", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Section 2: The "science" of pseudoscience, ISSN 1095-5054, archived from the original on 6 September 2008, retrieved 8 April 2009
- ^ Shermer (1997).
- ^ Gordin MP (2012). The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe. University of Chicago Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-226-30443-4.
- ^ Kaufman AB, Kaufman JC (12 March 2019). Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science. MIT Press. p. 471. ISBN 978-0-262-53704-9.
Pseudoscience is different from junk science...
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Imre-Lakatoswas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Hansson SO (3 September 2008). "Science and Pseudo-Science, Section 1: The purpose of demarcations". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Archived from the original on 5 September 2015. Retrieved 16 April 2011.
From a practical point of view, the distinction is important for decision guidance in both private and public life. Since science is our most reliable source of knowledge in a wide variety of areas, we need to distinguish scientific knowledge from its look-alikes. Due to the high status of science in present-day society, attempts to exaggerate the scientific status of various claims, teachings, and products are common enough to make the demarcation issue pressing in many areas.
- ^ Rodríguez-Ferreiro J, Barberia I (21 December 2021). "Believers in pseudoscience present lower evidential criteria". Scientific Reports. 11 (1): 24352. Bibcode:2021NatSR..1124352R. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-03816-5. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 8692588. PMID 34934119.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Hurdwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Gropp RE (1 August 2003). "Evolution Activists Organize to Combat Pseudoscience in Public Schools". BioScience. 53 (8): 700. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0700:EAOTCP]2.0.CO;2. ISSN 0006-3568. S2CID 84435133.
- ^ Vyse S (10 July 2019). "What Should Become of a Monument to Pseudoscience?". Skeptical Inquirer. Center for Inquiry. Archived from the original on 9 December 2019. Retrieved 1 December 2019.
- ^ "How anti-vax pseudoscience seeps into public discourse". Salon. 13 January 2019. Archived from the original on 15 December 2020. Retrieved 16 December 2020.
- ^ "Anti-vaccination websites use 'science' and stories to support claims, study finds". Johns Hopkins. Science Daily. Archived from the original on 16 July 2021. Retrieved 16 December 2020.
- ^ Frietsch U (7 April 2015). "The boundaries of science/ pseudoscience". European History Online. Archived from the original on 15 April 2017. Retrieved 15 April 2017.
Cite error: There are <ref group=Note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}} template (see the help page).
Previous Page Next Page
