SCIENCE VS. PSEUDOSCIENCE: WHERE IS THE DIFFERENCE? John Casti (in Paradigms Lost) provided an tends to emphasize the existence and sup- excellent summary of the characteristics of posed unsolvability of mysteries. This is a pseudo-science, which I briefly discuss here as rather sterile position, since if a mystery is a user-friendly guide for critical thinking. Phi- by definition insoluble, then why wasting losopher Karl Popper proposed his criterion of ones’ time thinking about it? falsification as a way to distinguish between science and pseudoscience. The idea is that sci- 3. Appeals to myths. This is the idea that an- ence makes falsifiable predictions, while pseu- cient myths must be based on some kind of doscience does not because one can always go real events, which became distorted in the back and modify the prediction a posteriori so course of oral transmission from generation that it fits the facts. Unfortunately for Popper, to generation. While this can certainly hap- the demarcation problem is not so simple to re- pen, just because some cultures share solve, mostly because science itself does not (usually superficially) similar myths, that follow what I have termed above “naïve” falsi- does not imply that the underlying events ficationism. A better way to think about this are the same, or even ever happened. An problem is as a continuum from “hard” sciences alternative explanation is that human minds such as physics and chemistry (where experi- tend to work in a similar fashion, and there- mental manipulation is possible) to “soft” ones fore provide similar explanations for things like biology and geology (where the element of they do not understand. historicity becomes more heavy) to proto- scientific disciplines (most of the social sci- 4. Casual approach to evidence. Evidence is ences, for which often overarching theories are the cornerstone that sets aside science from lacking or difficult to support empirically) to any other human intellectual endeavor, in- clear pseudosciences such as astrology and cluding (to a large extent) philosophy. parapsychology (where not only the theory is Given its pivotal role, admissible evidence unsound when compared to anything else we has to be solid and reliable. If we cite a know about the functioning of the universe, but “fact,” we have to be reasonably sure that it the empirical evidence clearly rejects the claims indeed corresponds to a verifiable piece of of the discipline’s practitioners). Here is Casti’s evidence. Hearsay is not admissible. set of criteria for distinguishing between sci- ence and pseudoscience: 5. Irrefutable hypotheses. Scientific progress can be made only if a hypothesis is at least 1. Anachronistic thinking. If an argument is potentially open to dismissal. If your hy- based on the wisdom of the ancients (who, pothesis is not refutable (i.e., falsifiable) no remember, knew much less about the world matter what the evidence, then it is useless than any junior high school graduate (of course, it may still be true, but there is should), or on the use of outmoded scien- no way to verify it). tific terminology, there is good reason to be suspicious. 6. Spurious similarities. A very insidious trap of human thinking is drawing parallels be- 2. Seeking mysteries. While science’s objec- tween concepts or phenomena that seem tive is to solve mysteries, pseudo-science reasonable, and that require an in-depth analysis to be verified or discarded. For ex- ample, one can draw mystical significance gers will repeat the same arguments in sup- from the fact that one’s car plate number is port of their profession. Science is a process the same as one’s civic address. But a mo- of a completely different nature, where the ment of reflection would easily lead you to primary element is continuous revision and conclude that this is simply a coincidence. correction to accommodate new evidence. In other cases, however, the parallel may seem more compelling. In general, simi- 10. Shift the burden of proof on the other side. larities can yield genuine insights into the The reader should be weary of statements matter under consideration, but they re- such as “but it has not been disproved.” First, quire a higher standard of verification than there are simply not enough scientists and the one provided by a first intuition. funding to verify or disprove every claim that has ever been made. That is not positive evi- 7. Explanation by scenario. It is pretty easy, dence for that claim, however, but simply of if one has just a little bit of imagination, to our ignorance (or disinterest) on the matter. explain something by telling a story, that is Second, when one proposes an alternative to by imagining a reasonable scenario. Scien- a very well established theory, the burden of tists are sometimes guilty of this practice proof is logically and squarely on the side of (widespread, for example, among evolu- the newcomer. When Copernicus suggested tionary psychologists). In fact, scenarios that the Earth rotates around the Sun, and not can be useful, because they may point the vice versa, people did not just believe him inquiry in the right direction. However, because nobody had proven him wrong (on when scenarios remain just-so stories, not the contrary, most people did not even con- backed by data, they are not useful tools sider his arguments!). Other astronomers de- because many scenarios can be proposed to manded evidence, and it took more than a explain the same data, but presumably only century for the theory to be accepted. one is actually correct. 11. A theory is legitimate simply because it’s 8. Research by literary interpretation. This new, alternative, or daring. This is the occurs when the proponent of a pseudo- “Galileo” effect. Proponents of new theories scientific position claims that statements are fond of recalling the many examples of by scientists are open to alternative, scientists who had been derided, ignored, or equally valid interpretations. This ap- worse persecuted because of their radical proach treats scientific literature as one theories, which then proved to be correct. might consider a novel or a painting: no What this line of reasoning ignores, of one interpretation (not even the one es- course, is the fact that for every Galileo who poused by the author!) is necessarily better eventually succeeded there were thousands of than any other. In science, this is a far cry crackpots who did not. For every example of from the reality of things. Scientific state- a daring, new scientific theory which ends up ments are the more useful the more precise being accepted, there are many, many exam- and unambiguous they are. Ideally, a scien- ples of wrong theories, forever rejected and tific hypothesis or theory should have one confined to the limbo of pseudoscientific his- and only one possible interpretation, and tory. Novelty per se is no evidence. this is either correct or not. 9. Refusal to revise. One of the hallmarks of (text by Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, pseudoscience is the refusal to revise one’s University of Tennessee) own positions in the face of new evidence. No matter how many studies are conducted Distributed by Skeptic & Humanist Web on the ineffectiveness of astrology, astrolo- www.rationallyspeaking.org .