1.4.3: Pseudoscience

Learning Objectives

• Explain characteristics of pseudoscience which distinguish it from science.
• Identify examples of pseudoscience that have these characteristics.

Pseudoscience, basically "fake-science," consists of scientific claims which are made to appear factual when they are actually false. Many people question whether pseudoscience should even contain the word "science" as pseudoscience is not really science; as it disregards the scientific method altogether. Also known as alternative or fringe-science, pseudoscience relies on invalid arguments called sophisms, a word Webster dictionary defines as "an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an argument used to deceive." Pseudoscience usually lacks supporting evidence and does not abide by the scientific method. That is, pseudo-theories fail to use carefully cultivated and controlled experiments to test a hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis must include observable, empirical and testable data, and must allow other experts to test the hypothesis. Pseudoscience does not accomplish these goals. Several examples of pseudoscience include phrenology, astrology, flat earth, vaccine denial, and intelligent design.

Distinguishing Pseudoscience

In order to distinguish a pseudoscience, one must look at the definition of science, and the aspects that make science what it is. Science is a process based on observations, conjectures, and assessments to provide better understanding of the natural phenomena of the world. Science generally always follows a formal system of inquiry which consists of observations, explanations, experiments, and lastly, hypothesis and predictions. Scientific theories are always challenged by experts and revised to fit new theories. Pseudoscience, however, is mostly based on beliefs and it greatly opposes contradictions. Their hypotheses are never revised to fit new data or information. Scientist continually disprove ideas to achieve a better understanding of the physical world, whereas pseudo-scientists focus on proving theories to make their claims seem plausible.

Pseudoscience beliefs often tend to be greatly exaggerated and very vague. Complicated technical language is often used to sound impressive but it is usually meaningless. For example, a phrase like "energy vibrations" is used to sound remarkable but a phrase like this is insignificant and does not really explain anything. Furthermore, pseudoscience often consists of outrageous, yet unprovable claims. Thus, pseudoscientists tend to focus on confirming their ideas, rather than finding evidence that refutes them. The following dialogue contains the thought-processes behind pseudoscience.

1. My friend and I think unicorns exist
2. Science has no evidence about unicorns.
3. Science therefore cannot prove if unicorns do or do not exist.
4. One day my friend, a very trustworthy person, said she saw a unicorn in the field by her house. There is no other evidence, other than the fact that my friend saw it.
5. Unicorns exist and any scientist who tries to deny the existence of unicorns is a fun-sucking, hostile human being.

The dialogue above features many key characteristics of pseudoscience. The speaker makes their point valid though the two facts alone that their friend had a personal experience and that science has no proof to prove the theory wrong. Finally, the speaker insults anyone who would challenge the theory. In science, challenges to a theory are accepted as everyone has the same common goal of improving the understanding of the natural word. Below is a table that lays out the key characteristics of Science and Pseudo-Science

SCIENCE	PSEUDOSCIENCE
Science never proves anything.	Pseudoscience aims to prove an idea.
Self-correcting methodology which involves critical thinking.	Starts with a conclusion and gives easy answers to complex problems.
An on-going process to develop a better understanding of the physical world by testing all possible hypotheses.	Often driven by social, political or commercial goals.
Involves a continual expansion of knowledge due to intense research.	A field has not evolved a lot since the beginning. If any research is done, it is done to justify the claims, rather that expand them.
Scientists constantly attempt to refute other scientists' works.	An attempt to disprove the beliefs is considered hostile and unacceptable.
When results or observations are not consistent with a scientific understanding, intense research follows.	Results or observations that are not consistent with current beliefs are ignored.
Remains questionable at any time. There are two types of theories: those that have been proven wrong by experimentation and data, and every other theory. Thus, no theory can be proven correct; every theory is also subject to being refuted.	Beliefs of the field can not usually be tested empirically so will likely not ever be proven wrong; Thus, pseudoscientists believe that they are right just because no one can prove them wrong.
Concepts are based on previous understandings or knowledge.	Pseudoscientists are often not in touch with main-stream science and are often driven by the egos of the "scientists". Furthermore, famous names and testimonials are often used for support rather than scientific evidence.
Findings must be stated in unambiguous, clear language.	Pseudoscience often uses very vague, yet seemingly technical terms.

Phrenology

Phrenology, also known as craniology, was a "science" popular during the early 1800s that was centered around the idea that the brain was an organ of the mind. During this time, most people believed that the brain was divided into distinct sections that all controlled different parts of a person's personality or intelligence. The basis of phrenology revolves around the concept that the brain mirrors a muscle and those parts of the brain which are "exercised" the most, will be proportionally larger than those parts of the brain that aren't often used. Thus, the scientists pictured the brain as a bumpy surface, with the make-up of the surface differing for every person depending on their personality and intelligence. By the mid 19th century, automated phrenology machines existed, which were basically a set of spring loaded probes that were placed on the head to measure the topography of one's skull. The machine then gave an automated reading about a person's characteristics based on this.

Let's consider some of the key characteristics of pseudoscience from our chart, and see how they apply to phrenology.

• Pseudoscientists are often not in touch with mainstream science: Scientific research since the 1800s has shown how though the brain is indeed divided into sections, each section does not determine a characteristic or personality trait, but instead controls a specific function such as memory or motor skills. Likewise, it has been concluded that the brain conforms to the shape of the skull, rather than the skull conforming to the shape of the brain (meaning the bumps of a persons skull have nothing to do with the shape of the brain). Back in the 1800s, little knowledge existed about the realities of brain structure and function, so the concept was not as reflexive of pseudoscience as it is today. However, some people still believe in the basic tenets of phrenology. Phrenology today exists as a classic form of pseudoscience as it goes against the common understanding about how the brain functions.
• Often driven by social, political or commercial goals: Indeed, the main goal of phrenology was a political and social one: to prove the dominance of the white race over other races. "Scientists" measured the brains of both races and concluded that the brains of white people were larger than that of people of African descent. Therefore, they concluded, they were smarter and superior. It was later revealed that the scientists were biased while conducting the experiment and that they were previously aware of what race each brain belonged to. The experiment was repeated and this time the scientists were not aware of the race and they concluded that the brains were of equal size. The second experiment better conforms to the scientific method, as in this case the scientists objectively measured the brains, while in the first case the bias of the scientists led to their conclusions. Thus, this situation demonstrates a two-fold level of defective science because not only was the idea of measuring the brains to determine personality and intelligence not correct altogether, but the methods in which the scientists were doing this was also flawed. Phrenology was also commercially driven, since phrenology parlors where very widespread and many devices were on the market to be used to measure.
• Pseudo-Scientists are often driven by the egos of the "scientists": In the book Phrenology and the origins of Victorian Scientific Naturalism by John Van Whye, Van Whye quotes about the main discoverer of Phrenology Franz Joseph Gall, that " the peculiar incentive behind Gall's fascination with explaining individuals' differences may have lain in his hubris" (Van Whye 18). Of the 12 children in his family, Gall was the sharpest and brightest and naturally interested in distinguishing factors between children. Even as a young school boy, Gall noticed that the other children who were just as good at memorization as he was all had protruding eyes, which lead him to the idea of the basis of phrenology, that the characteristics of one's head indicates their intelligence.
• Beliefs of the field can not usually be tested empirically so will likely not ever be proven wrong: At the time that phrenology was popular, we did not have the ability to analyze what happens inside of people's brains, as we do now. Brain scans can now tell us which portions of the brain become more active related to certain thoughts or activities. We also now know through DNA testing that there is no biological basis for racial differences in health outcomes, the disparities we see between racial groups must come from something else: systemic racism.

The Vaccine-Autism Fraud

You may have heard that certain vaccines put the health of young children at risk. This persistent idea is not supported by scientific evidence or accepted by the vast majority of experts in the field. It stems largely from an elaborate medical research fraud that was reported in a 1998 article published in the respected British medical journal, The Lancet. The main author of the article was a British physician named Andrew Wakefield. In the article, Wakefield and his colleagues described case histories of 12 children, most of whom were reported to have developed autism soon after the administration of the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.

Several subsequent peer-reviewed studies failed to show any association between the MMR vaccine and autism. It also later emerged that Wakefield had received research funding from a group of people who were suing vaccine manufacturers. In 2004, ten of Wakefield’s 12 coauthors formally retracted the conclusions in their paper. In 2010, editors of The Lancet retracted the entire paper. That same year, Wakefield was charged with deliberate falsification of research and barred from practicing medicine in the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, by then the damage had already been done. Parents afraid that their children would develop autism had refrained from having them vaccinated. British MMR vaccination rates fell from nearly 100 percent to 80 percent in the years following the study. The consensus of medical experts today is that Wakefield’s fraud put hundreds of thousands of children at risk because of the lower vaccination rates and also diverted research efforts and funding away from finding the true cause of autism.

Because sufficient numbers of children were not being vaccinated, it was possible to collect a large amount of data on links to vaccinations and autism. (This sort of study would be unethical if a scientist were to put these children into a test group and control group in order to determine any effects from the vaccines. But it was the parents of the children, not the researchers, who put these children in danger by refusing to have them vaccinated.) Data from over a half million children were analyzed, and there was no link found between vaccination and autism, nor in the timing of an autism diagnosis. Follow up studies with increasingly larger sample sizes in the decades following this have continued to show the same result. Unfortunately, the pseudoscientific concern about the link between vaccinations and autism had become prevalent and has likely caused many deaths over the past few decades.

When Popular Beliefs Become Pseudoscience

Not all forms of pseudoscience come from supposed scientists, or science adjacent people (as we discussed with phrenology and the vaccine-autism fraud), although these are often the most dangerous forms of pseudoscience. Their adjacency to scientific practice can give them an air of legitimacy amongst those not trained in understanding scientific practice. Some forms of pseudoscience are ancient ideas that still have practitioners even after science has determined that the basis for these ideas are not consistent with the laws of nature. Some of these were addressed earlier in this text, and include things such as astrology, intelligent design, and the belief that the world is flat. Unlike phrenology or vaccine aversion it might be possible to include these beliefs into a religious worldview that doesn't harm anyone. But it is important that they not be labeled as science, and as such should not be discussed as valid scientific ideas within a science classroom. (In the public education system it is important that we don't discuss religious beliefs inappropriately, due to the power dynamic with our students.)

An example of such a belief is astrology. Astrology is the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial objects as a means for divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events. Many ancient cultures attached importance to astronomical events, and some developed elaborate systems for predicting terrestrial events from celestial observations. Throughout most of its history in the West, astrology was considered a scholarly tradition and was common in academic circles. With the advent of modern Western science, astrology was called into question. It was challenged on both theoretical and experimental grounds, and it was eventually shown to have no scientific validity or explanatory power.

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Zodiac signs.

Today, astrology is considered a pseudoscience, yet it continues to have many devotees. Most people know their astrological sign, and many people are familiar with the personality traits supposedly associated with their sign. Astrological readings and horoscopes are readily available online and in print media, and a lot of people read them, even if only occasionally. About a third of all adult Americans actually believe that astrology is scientific. Studies suggest that the persistent popularity of pseudosciences such as astrology reflects a high level of scientific illiteracy. It seems that many Americans do not have an accurate understanding of scientific principles and methodology. They are not convinced by scientific arguments against their beliefs.

Section Summary

• In contrast to science, pseudoscience aims to prove a goal, starts with a conclusion, and ignores results that are inconsistent with its beliefs.
• Pseudoscience is often driven by social, political, or commercial goals which can be dangerous to members of society.
• Some forms of pseudoscience are based on understandings of the world held by many people before scientific research showed they are not valid.

Contributors, Attributions, and References

1. This page was curated and edited by Jamie MacArthur (Madera Community College) using resources created by the following authors:
2. Stephen Lower (Simon Fraser University) whose page addressing pseudoscience can be found here.
3. Tara Jo Holmberg (Northwestern Connecticut Community College) whose page addressing pseudoscience can be found here.