View source for Pseudoscience

{{from wikipedia}}
'''Pseudoscience''' consists of statements, [[belief]]s, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the [[scientific method]].<ref name="Cover_Curd_1998"/>{{refn|group=Note|Definition:
* "A pretended or spurious science; a collection of related beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status that scientific truths now have". ''[[Oxford English Dictionary]]'', second edition 1989.
* "Many writers on pseudoscience have emphasized that pseudoscience is non-science posing as science. The foremost modern classic on the subject (Gardner 1957) bears the title ''[[Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science]]''. According to Brian Baigrie (1988, 438), '[w]hat is objectionable about these beliefs is that they masquerade as genuinely scientific ones.' These and many other authors assume that to be pseudoscientific, an activity or a teaching has to satisfy the following two criteria (Hansson 1996): (1) it is not scientific, and (2) its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific."<ref name="SEP section SciPse"/>
* '"claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility"(p. 33). In contrast, science is "a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed and inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation"(p. 17)'<ref>{{harvp|Shermer|1997}}</ref> (this was the [https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c7/c7s5.htm definition adopted by] the [[National Science Foundation]])}} Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or [[falsifiability|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 [[Hypothesis|hypotheses]]; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited. The term ''pseudoscience'' is considered pejorative,<ref name="Freitsch">{{cite journal|last1=Frietsch|first1=Ute|name-list-style=vanc|title=The boundaries of science / pseudoscience|journal=European History Online (EGO)|date=7 April 2015|url=http://ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/crossroads/knowledge-spaces/ute-frietsch-the-boundaries-of-science-pseudoscience|access-date=15 April 2017|url-status=live|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170415202501/http://ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/crossroads/knowledge-spaces/ute-frietsch-the-boundaries-of-science-pseudoscience|archivedate=15 April 2017}}</ref> because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Those described as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.<ref name="SEP section SciPse">{{citation |chapter-url = http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science |chapter = Science and Pseudoscience |at= Section 2: The "science" of pseudoscience |title = Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |year = 2008 |first = Sven Ove |last = Hansson |publisher = Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University | name-list-style = vanc |ref = harv
}}</ref> Being given the label does not refute it, but does suggest either misinformation or dishonesty.

Pseudoscience can be harmful. For example, pseudoscientific anti-vaccine activism and promotion of [[homeopathic]] remedies as alternative disease treatments can result in people forgoing important medical treatment with demonstrable health benefits.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Vyse |first1=Stuart|authorlink=Stuart Vyse |title=What Should Become of a Monument to Pseudoscience? |url=https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/what-should-become-of-a-monument-to-pseudoscience/ |website=Skeptical Inquirer |date=10 July 2019|publisher=Center for Inquiry |accessdate=1 December 2019}}</ref>

==Etymology==
The word ''pseudoscience'' is derived from the Greek root ''pseudo'' meaning false<ref>{{citation |title=The Free Dictionary |chapter=pseudo |publisher=Farlex, Inc. |year=2015 |chapter-url=http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pseudo |ref=harv}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Online Etymology Dictionary | url = https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=pseudo |year=2015 |publisher=Douglas Harper}}</ref> and the English word ''science'', from the Latin word ''scientia'', meaning "knowledge". Although the term has been in use since at least the late 18th century (e.g., in 1796 by [[w:James Pettit Andrews|James Pettit Andrews]] in reference to [[alchemy]]<ref>{{OED|pseudoscience}}</ref><ref>{{harvp|Andrews|Henry|1796|p=87}}</ref>), the concept of pseudoscience as distinct from real or proper science seems to have become more widespread during the mid-19th century. Among the earliest uses of "pseudo-science" was in an 1844 article in the ''Northern Journal of Medicine'', issue 387:
{{quote|text=That opposite kind of innovation which pronounces what has been recognized as a branch of science, to have been a pseudo-science, composed merely of so-called facts, connected together by misapprehensions under the disguise of principles.}}

An earlier use of the term was in 1843 by the French physiologist [[w:François Magendie|François Magendie]], that refers to [[phrenology]] as "''a pseudo-science of the present day''".<ref name="Magendie1843">{{cite book|title=An Elementary Treatise on Human Physiology|vauthors=Magendie F|publisher=Harper|others=John Revere|year=1843|edition=5th|location=New York|page=150|ref=harv}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wgkgeQl9wN8C|title=Extraordinary Beliefs: A Historical Approach to a Psychological Problem|last=Lamont|first=Peter|date=2013|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1107019331|location=|pages=58|quote=When the eminent French physiologist, François Magendie, first coined the term ‘pseudo-science’ in 1843, he was referring to phrenology.}}</ref> During the 20th century, the word was used pejoratively to describe explanations of phenomena which were claimed to be scientific, but which were not in fact supported by reliable experimental evidence.<!-- <ref name=Still/> --> 
::Dismissing the separate issue of intentional fraud—such as the [[Fox sisters]]’ “rappings” in the 1850s (Abbott, 2012)—the pejorative label pseudoscience distinguishes the scientific ‘'''''us'''''’, at one extreme, from the pseudo-scientific ‘'''''them'''''’, at the other, and asserts that ‘'''''our'''''’ beliefs, practices, theories, etc., by contrast with that of ‘'''''the others'''''’, are scientific. There are four criteria:<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(a) the ‘'''''pseudoscientific'''''’ group asserts that its beliefs, practices, theories, etc., are ‘'''''scientific'''''’;<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(b) the ‘'''''pseudoscientific'''''’ group claims that its allegedly established facts are justified true beliefs;<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(c) the ‘'''''pseudoscientific'''''’ group asserts that its ‘'''''established facts'''''’ have been justified by genuine, rigorous, scientific method; and<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(d) this assertion is false or deceptive: “it is not simply that subsequent evidence overturns established conclusions, but rather that '''''the conclusions were never warranted in the first place'''''” (Blum, 1978, p.12 [Yeates' emphasis]; also, see Moll, 1902, pp.44-47).<ref>Yeates (2018), p.42.</ref>

From time to time, however, the usage of the word occurred in a more formal, technical manner in response to a perceived threat to individual and institutional security in a social and cultural setting.<ref name=Still>{{cite journal |journal=J Theory Soc Behav |year=2004 |volume=34 |issue=3 |pages=265–90 |title=The Social Psychology of "Pseudoscience": A Brief History | vauthors = Still A, Dryden W | doi = 10.1111/j.0021-8308.2004.00248.x |ref=harv}}</ref>

==Relationship to science==
Pseudoscience is differentiated from science because – although it claims to be science – pseudoscience does not adhere to accepted scientific standards, such as the scientific method, falsifiability of claims, and [[w:Mertonian norms|Mertonian norms]].

===Scientific method===
{{Main|Scientific method}}
[[File:The_Scientific_Method_(simple).png|thumb|The scientific method is a continuous cycle of hypothesis, prediction, testing and questioning.]]
[[File:PhrenologyPix.jpg|thumb|A typical 19th-century [[phrenology]] chart: During the 1820s, phrenologists claimed the mind was located in areas of the brain, and were attacked for doubting that mind came from the nonmaterial soul. Their idea of reading "bumps" in the skull to predict personality traits was later discredited.<ref name="bowler">{{cite book |vauthors=Bowler J |authorlink=Peter J. Bowler |title=Evolution: The History of an Idea |edition=3rd |publisher=[[University of California Press]] |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-520-23693-6 |ref=harv |page=[https://archive.org/details/evolutionhistory0000bowl_n7y8/page/128 128] |url=https://archive.org/details/evolutionhistory0000bowl_n7y8/page/128 }}</ref> Phrenology was first termed a pseudoscience in 1843 and continues to be considered so.<ref name="Magendie1843"/>]]

A number of basic principles are accepted by scientists as standards for determining whether a body of knowledge, method, or practice is scientific. Experimental results should be [[reproducibility|reproducible]] and [[intersubjective verifiability|verified]] by other researchers.<ref>e.g. {{harvp|Gauch|2003|pp=3–5 ff}}</ref> These principles are intended to ensure experiments can be reproduced measurably given the same conditions, allowing further investigation to determine whether a [[hypothesis]] or [[theory]] related to given [[phenomena]] is [[validity (statistics)|valid]] and reliable. Standards require the scientific method to be applied throughout, and [[bias]] to be controlled for or eliminated through [[Randomized experiment|randomization]], fair sampling procedures, [[double blind|blinding]] of studies, and other methods. All gathered data, including the experimental or environmental conditions, are expected to be documented for scrutiny and made available for [[peer review]], allowing further experiments or studies to be conducted to confirm or falsify results. Statistical quantification of [[statistical significance|significance]], [[confidence interval|confidence]], and [[margin of error|error]]<ref>{{harvp|Gauch|2003|pp=191 ''ff''}}, especially Chapter 6, "Probability", and Chapter 7, "inductive Logic and Statistics"</ref> are also important tools for the scientific method.

===Falsifiability===
{{Main|Falsifiability}}
During the mid-20th century, the philosopher [[Karl Popper]] emphasized the criterion of [[falsifiability]] to distinguish [[science]] from nonscience.<ref name="Popper">{{cite book |last= Popper |first= Karl | name-list-style = vanc |author-link= Karl Popper |date= 1959 |title= The Logic of Scientific Discovery |isbn= 978-0-415-27844-7 |publisher= Routledge |ref= harv|title-link= The Logic of Scientific Discovery }} The German version is currently in print by Mohr Siebeck ({{ISBN|3-16-148410-X}}).</ref> [[proposition|Statements]], [[hypothesis|hypotheses]], or [[theory|theories]] have falsifiability or refutability if there is the inherent possibility that they can be proven [[False (logic)|false]]. That is, if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates them. Popper used astrology and [[psychoanalysis]] as examples of pseudoscience and Einstein's [[theory of relativity]] as an example of science. He subdivided nonscience into philosophical, mathematical, mythological, religious and metaphysical formulations on one hand, and pseudoscientific formulations on the other.<ref>{{harvp|Popper|1963|pp=43–86}}</ref>

Another example which shows the distinct need for a claim to be falsifiable was stated in [[Carl Sagan|Carl Sagan's]] publication ''[[The Demon-Haunted World]]'' when he discusses an invisible dragon that he has in his garage. The point is made that there is no physical test to refute the claim of the presence of this dragon. Whatever test one thinks can be devised, there is a reason why it does not apply to the invisible dragon, so one can never prove that the initial claim is wrong. Sagan concludes; "Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?". He states that "your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true",<ref>{{harvp|Sagan|1994|p=171}}</ref> once again explaining that even if such a claim were true, it would be outside the realm of [[science|scientific inquiry]].

===Mertonian norms===
{{Main|Mertonian norms}}
During 1942, [[Robert K. Merton]] identified a set of five "norms" which he characterized as what makes a real science. If any of the norms were violated, Merton considered the enterprise to be nonscience. These are not broadly accepted by the scientific community. His norms were:
* Originality: The tests and research done must present something new to the scientific community.
* Detachment: The scientists' reasons for practicing this science must be simply for the expansion of their knowledge. The scientists should not have personal reasons to expect certain results.
* Universality: No person should be able to more easily obtain the information of a test than another person. Social class, religion, ethnicity, or any other personal factors should not be factors in someone's ability to receive or perform a type of science.
* Skepticism: Scientific facts must not be based on faith. One should always question every case and argument and constantly check for errors or invalid claims.
* Public accessibility: Any scientific knowledge one obtains should be made available to everyone. The results of any research should be published and shared with the scientific community.<ref name="Paradigms Lost">{{cite book |last=Casti |first=John L. |authorlink=John Casti |name-list-style=vanc |title=Paradigms lost: tackling the unanswered mysteries of modern science |year=1990 |publisher=Avon Books |location=New York |isbn=978-0-380-71165-9 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/paradigmslost00jlca/page/51 51–52] |edition=1st |url=https://archive.org/details/paradigmslost00jlca/page/51 }}</ref>

===Refusal to acknowledge problems===
During 1978, [[Paul Thagard]] proposed that pseudoscience is primarily distinguishable from science when it is less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and its proponents fail to acknowledge or address problems with the theory.<ref name="harvp|Thagard|1978|pp=223 ff">{{harvp|Thagard|1978|pp=223 ff}}</ref> In 1983, [[Mario Bunge]] suggested the categories of "belief fields" and "research fields" to help distinguish between pseudoscience and science, where the former is primarily personal and subjective and the latter involves a certain systematic method.<ref>{{harvp|Bunge|1983a}}</ref> The 2018 book by [[Steven Novella]], et al. ''[[The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (book)|The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe]]'' lists hostility to criticism as one of the major features of pseudoscience.<ref>{{cite book |last=Novella |first=Steven |authorlink=Steven Novella |title=[[The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake]]|year=2018 |publisher=Grand Central Publishing |page=165}}</ref>

===Criticism of the term===
Philosophers of science such as [[Paul Feyerabend]] argued that a distinction between science and nonscience is neither possible nor desirable.<ref>{{cite book |authorlink= Paul Feyerabend|last=Feyerabend|first=Paul|date= 1975 |title= Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge |isbn= 978-0-86091-646-8 |chapter-url= http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerabe.htm |chapter= Table of contents and final chapter |url-status= live |url-access= registration |url= https://archive.org/details/againstmethod0000feye }}</ref>{{refn|group=Note|'A particularly radical reinterpretation of science comes from Paul Feyerabend, "the worst enemy of science"... Like Lakatos, Feyerabend was also a student under Popper. In an interview with Feyerabend in ''Science'', [he says] "Equal weight... should be given to competing avenues of knowledge such as astrology, acupuncture, and witchcraft..."'<ref name="Gauch2003">{{harvp|Gauch|2003|p=88}}</ref>}} Among the issues which can make the distinction difficult is variable rates of evolution among the theories and methods of science in response to new data.{{refn|name=fredb|group=Note|"We can now propose the following principle of demarcation: A theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if: it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and non confirmations."<ref name="harvp|Thagard|1978|pp=227–228">{{harvp|Thagard|1978|pp=227–228}}</ref>}}

[[Larry Laudan]] has suggested pseudoscience has no scientific meaning and is mostly used to describe our emotions: "If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science' and 'unscientific' from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us".<ref name = "Laudan_1996">{{cite book|authorlink=Larry Laudan|last=Laudan|first=Larry|date=1996 |chapter= The demise of the demarcation problem | veditors = Ruse M | title = But Is It Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy |pages= 337–350}}</ref> Likewise, [[Richard McNally]] states, "The term 'pseudoscience' has become little more than an inflammatory buzzword for quickly dismissing one's opponents in media sound-bites" and "When therapeutic entrepreneurs make claims on behalf of their interventions, we should not waste our time trying to determine whether their interventions qualify as pseudoscientific. Rather, we should ask them: How do you know that your intervention works? What is your evidence?"<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors= McNally RJ |url= http://www.srmhp.org/0202/pseudoscience.html |title= Is the pseudoscience concept useful for clinical psychology? |journal= The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice |volume= 2 |issue= 2 |date= 2003 |url-status= live |archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20100430162007/http://www.srmhp.org/0202/pseudoscience.html |archivedate= 30 April 2010 }}</ref>

===Alternative definition===
For philosophers [[Silvio Funtowicz]] and [[Jerome R. Ravetz]] "pseudo-science may be defined as one where the uncertainty of its inputs must be suppressed, lest they render its outputs totally indeterminate". The definition, in the book ''[[Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy]]'' (p.&nbsp;54),<ref name="PNS0">{{cite book | vauthors = Funtowicz S, Ravetz J | year = 1990 | title = Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy | location = Dordrecht | publisher = Kluwer Academic Publishers | title-link = Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy }}</ref> alludes to the loss of craft skills in handling quantitative information, and to the bad practice of achieving precision in prediction (inference) only at the expenses of ignoring uncertainty in the input which was used to formulate the prediction. This use of the term is common among practitioners of [[post-normal science]]. Understood in this way, pseudoscience can be fought using good practices to assesses uncertainty in quantitative information, such as [[NUSAP]] and – in the case of mathematical modelling – [[sensitivity auditing]].

[[File:Venice ast sm.jpg|thumb|The astrological signs of the zodiac]]

==Indicators of possible pseudoscience==
[[File:Rhustox.jpg|thumb|upright|Homeopathic preparation ''Rhus toxicodendron'', derived from [[Toxicodendron radicans|poison ivy]].]]
{{See also|List of topics characterized as pseudoscience}}
A topic, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be termed pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.<ref name="Cover_Curd_1998">{{citation | veditors = Cover JA, Curd M |date= 1998 |title= Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues |pages= 1–82}}</ref>{{Sfn|Bunge|1983b|p=}}

===Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims===
* Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.<ref>e.g. {{harvp|Gauch|2003|pp=211 ff}} (Probability, "Common Blunders").</ref>
* Assertion of a claim with little or no explanatory power.<ref name="Popper, Karl 1963"/>
* Failure to make use of [[operational definition]]s (i.e., publicly accessible definitions of the variables, terms, or objects of interest so that persons other than the definer can measure or test them independently){{refn|group=Note|'Most terms in theoretical physics, for example, do not enjoy at least some distinct connections with observables, but not of the simple sort that would permit operational ''definitions'' in terms of these observables. [..] If a restriction in favor of operational definitions were to be followed, therefore, most of theoretical ''physics'' would have to be dismissed as meaningless pseudoscience!'<ref>{{cite book|first = Paul Montgomery |last = Churchland | name-list-style = vanc |title = Matter and Consciousness: A Contemporary Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind|year = 1999 |publisher = MIT Press |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=_7CBvggqOE4C&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=%22operational+definitions.%22+pseudoscience|page = 90 |ref = harv|isbn = 978-0262530743 }}</ref>}} (See also: [[Reproducibility]]).
* Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of [[Occam's razor|parsimony]], i.e., failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (''see'': [[Occam's razor]]).<ref>{{harvp|Gauch|2003|pp=269 ff}}, "Parsimony and Efficiency"</ref>
* Use of [[obscurantist]] language, and use of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.
* Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess well-articulated limitations under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.<ref name="Hines1988"/>
* Lack of effective [[Scientific control|controls]], such as [[placebo]] and [[double-blind]], in experimental design.
* Lack of understanding of basic and established principles of physics and engineering.<ref>{{cite web |author=Donald E. Simanek |url=http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/scipseud.htm |title=What is science? What is pseudoscience? |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090425202814/http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/scipseud.htm |archive-date=25 April 2009 }}</ref>

===Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation===
* Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment (''see also'': [[Falsifiability]]).<ref name="Popper"/><ref name="Lakatos_1970">{{cite book | vauthors = Lakatos I |date= 1970 |chapter= Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes | veditors = Lakatos I, Musgrave A |title= Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge |pages= 91–195}}</ref>
* Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict.<ref>e.g. {{harvp|Gauch|2003|pp=178 ff}} (Deductive Logic, "Fallacies"), and at 211 ff (Probability, "Common Blunders")</ref> Scientific claims that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best "conjectures", or at worst "pseudoscience" (e.g., ''[[ignoratio elenchi]]'').<ref>''Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' Vol. 3, "Fallacies" 174 ff, esp. section on "Ignoratio elenchi"</ref>
* Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must therefore be true, and vice versa (''see'': [[Argument from ignorance]]).<ref>''Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' Vol 3, "Fallacies" 174 ff esp. 177–178</ref>
* Over-reliance on testimonial, [[anecdotal evidence]], or personal experience: This evidence may be useful for the context of discovery (i.e., hypothesis generation), but should not be used in the context of [[Theory of justification|justification]] (e.g., [[statistical hypothesis testing]]).<ref>{{harvp|Bunge|1983|p=381}}</ref>
* Presentation of data that seems to support claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with those claims.<ref name="harvp|Thagard|1978|pp=227–228"/> This is an example of [[selection bias]], a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect.
* Promulgating to the status of facts excessive or untested claims that have been previously published elsewhere; an accumulation of such uncritical secondary reports, which do not otherwise contribute their own empirical investigation, is called the [[Woozle effect]].<ref name="Gambrill2012">
{{cite book|author=Eileen Gambrill|title=Critical Thinking in Clinical Practice: Improving the Quality of Judgments and Decisions|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NsuHtwciwQwC&pg=PA109|date=1 May 2012|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=978-0-470-90438-1|page=109|edition=3rd}}</ref>
* [[Evidence of absence|Reversed burden of proof]]: science places the burden of proof on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that [[skeptic]]s demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g., an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than on the claimant.<ref name="Lilienfeld">Lilienfeld SO (2004). ''Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology'' Guildford Press  {{ISBN|1-59385-070-0}}</ref>
* Appeals to [[holism]] as opposed to [[reductionism]]: proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the "mantra of holism" to dismiss negative findings.<ref name="Ruscio">{{harvp|Ruscio|2002}}</ref>

===Lack of openness to testing by other experts===
* Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (termed "[[science by press conference]]"):<ref name="Lilienfeld"/><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Gitanjali B | title = Peer review – process, perspectives and the path ahead | journal = Journal of Postgraduate Medicine | volume = 47 | issue = 3 | pages = 210–14 | year = 2001 | pmid = 11832629 | url = http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/PDF/peerReview.pdf | ref = harv | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060623193431/http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/PDF/PeerReview.pdf | url-status = dead | archive-date = 23 June 2006 }}</ref>{{refn|group=Note|For an opposing perspective, e.g. [http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/ss/ss5.html Chapter 5 of Suppression Stories by Brian Martin] (Wollongong: Fund for Intellectual Dissent, 1997), pp. 69–83.}} Some proponents of ideas that contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their ideas to peer review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is biased towards established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forgo the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.<ref name="Ruscio"/>
* Some agencies, institutions, and publications that fund scientific research require authors to [[Data sharing (Science)|share data]] so others can evaluate a paper independently. Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to reproduce the claims contributes to a lack of openness.<ref name="Gauch_2003">{{harvp|Gauch|2003|pp=124 ff}}</ref>
* Appealing to the need for secrecy or proprietary knowledge when an [[independent review]] of data or methodology is requested.<ref name="Gauch_2003"/>
* Substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all viewpoints is not encouraged.<ref>{{harvp|Sagan|1994|p=210}}</ref>

===Absence of progress===
* Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims.<ref name="Lakatos_1970"/><ref name=fredb group=Note/> [[Terence Hines]] has identified astrology as a subject that has changed very little in the past two millennia.<ref name="Hines1988">{{cite book |author-link= Terence Hines |last= Hines |first= Terence |name-list-style= vanc |title= Pseudoscience and the Paranormal: A Critical Examination of the Evidence |publisher= Prometheus Books |location= Buffalo, NY |date= 1988 |isbn= 978-0-87975-419-8 |url= https://archive.org/details/pseudosciencepar00hine }}</ref><ref name="harvp|Thagard|1978|pp=223 ff"/>
* Lack of self-correction: scientific research programmes make mistakes, but they tend to reduce these errors over time.<ref name="Ruscio120">{{harvp|Ruscio|2002|p=120}}</ref> By contrast, ideas may be regarded as pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence. The work ''Scientists Confront Velikovsky'' (1976) Cornell University, also delves into these features in some detail, as does the work of [[Thomas Kuhn]], e.g., ''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'' (1962) which also discusses some of the items on the list of characteristics of pseudoscience.
* Statistical significance of supporting experimental results does not improve over time and are usually close to the cutoff for statistical significance. Normally, experimental techniques improve or the experiments are repeated, and this gives ever stronger evidence. If statistical significance does not improve, this typically shows the experiments have just been repeated until a success occurs due to chance variations.

===Personalization of issues===
* Tight social groups and [[authoritarian personality]], [[suppression of dissent]] and [[groupthink]] can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.<ref name="Devilly_437">{{harvp|Devilly|2005}}</ref>
* Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.{{refn|group=Note|e.g. [http://archivefreedom.org/ archivefreedom.org], which claims that "The list of suppressed scientists even includes Nobel Laureates!"}}
* Attacking the motives, character, morality, or competence of anyone who questions the claims (see [[ad hominem|''Ad hominem'' fallacy]]).<ref name="Devilly_437"/>{{refn|group=Note|e.g. [http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic Argumentum Ad Hominem].}}

===Use of misleading language===
* Creating scientific-sounding terms to persuade nonexperts to believe statements that may be false or meaningless: For example, a long-standing hoax refers to water by the rarely used formal name "[[dihydrogen monoxide hoax|dihydrogen monoxide]]" and describes it as the main constituent in most [[poison]]ous solutions to show how easily the general public can be misled.
* Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways, thereby demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in the discipline.

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=Note|32em}}

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

===Bibliography===
{{refbegin|32em}}
* [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-fox-sisters-and-the-rap-on-spiritualism-99663697/ Abbott, K. (2012, October 30). The Fox Sisters and the Rap on Spiritualism. ''Smithsonian.com.'']
* {{cite book|last1=Andrews|first1=James Pettit|authorlink=James Pettit Andrews|last2=Henry|first2=Robert|name-list-style=vanc|authorlink2=Robert Henry (minister)|year=1796|title=History of Great Britain, from the death of Henry VIII to the accession of James VI of Scotland to the crown of England|volume=II|publisher=T. Cadell and W. Davies|location=London|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QIUUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA87&dq=%22pseudo-science%22#v=onepage|ref=harv}}
* Blum, J.M. (1978). ''Pseudoscience and Mental Ability: The Origins and Fallacies of the IQ Controversy''. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
* {{cite journal|last=Bunge|first=Mario|name-list-style=vanc|authorlink=Mario Bunge|year=1983a|title=Demarcating science from pseudoscience|journal=Fundamenta Scientiae|volume=3|pages=369–88|ref=harv}}
* {{Cite book|last=Bunge|first=Mario|url=https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789027716347|title=Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Volume 6: Epistemology & Methodology II: Understanding the World|date=1983b|publisher=Springer Netherlands|isbn=978-90-277-1634-7|series=Treatise on Basic Philosophy|location=|pages=223–228|ref=harv}}
* {{cite journal|vauthors=Devilly GJ|s2cid=208627667|title=Power therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry|url=|journal=The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry|volume=39|issue=6|pages=437–45|date=June 2005|pmid=15943644|doi=10.1080/j.1440-1614.2005.01601.x|ref=harv}}
* {{cite arXiv|eprint=physics/0608061|title=Is pseudoscience the solution to science literacy?|author1=C.J. Efthimiou|author2=R. Llewellyn|year=2006|ref={{sfnref|Efthimiou|2006}}}}
* {{cite book|last=Gauch|first=Hugh G.|name-list-style=vanc|year=2003|title=Scientific Method in Practice|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0521017084|lccn=2002022271|ref=harv}}
* [https://ia800301.us.archive.org/8/items/bub_gb_pcGt5UpnDa0C/bub_gb_pcGt5UpnDa0C.pdf Moll, A. (1902). ''Christian Science, Medicine, and Occultism.'' London: Rebman, Limited.]
* {{cite book|last=Ruscio|first=John|title=Clear thinking with psychology : separating sense from nonsense|publisher=Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning|location=Belmont, CA|pages=|year=2002|isbn=978-0-534-53659-6|oclc=47013264|ref=harv}}
* {{cite web|url=http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Voices_3e.pdf|year=2008|editor-first=Carrie|editor-last=Sager|name-list-style=vanc|publisher=National Center for Science Education|access-date=21 May 2010|title=Voices for evolution|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book|last=Sagan|first=Carl|name-list-style=vanc|author-link=Carl Sagan|year=1994|title=The demon-haunted world|publisher=Ballantine Books|location=New York|isbn=978-0-345-40946-1|ref=harv|title-link=The Demon-Haunted World}}
* {{cite book|last=Shermer|first=Michael|name-list-style=vanc|authorlink=Michael Shermer|year=1997|title=Why people believe weird things: pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time|url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780965594875|url-access=registration|location=New York|publisher=W. H. Freeman and Company|isbn=978-0-7167-3090-3|ref=harv}}
* {{cite journal|last=Thagard|first=Paul R.|title=Why astrology is a pseudoscience|journal=PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association|volume=1978|issue=1|year=1978|issn=0270-8647|doi=10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1978.1.192639|pages=223–234|ref=harv|via=|url=https://philpapers.org/rec/THAWAI}}
* [http://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/fapi/datastream/unsworks:62996/bin2b21dab5-836e-4118-9120-c1fa25532e00?view=true&xy=01 Yeates, L.B. (2018), "James Braid (II): Mesmerism, Braid’s Crucial Experiment, and Braid’s Discovery of Neuro-Hypnotism", ''Australian Journal of Clinical Hypnotherapy & Hypnosis'', Vol.40, No.1, (Autumn 2018), pp.&nbsp;40–92.]
{{refend}}

== Further reading ==
{{refbegin|32em}}
* Alcock, J. (2001). Science vs. Pseudoscience, Nonscience, and Nonsense. ''The Skeptical Inquirer'', '''25'''(3), 50-54.
* {{cite book | last = Bauer | first = Henry H. | name-list-style = vanc | year = 2000 | title = Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, and Other Heterodoxies | publisher = University of Illinois Press | isbn = 978-0-252-02601-0 | url = https://archive.org/details/scienceorpseudos00henr }}
* {{cite book | last1 = Charpak | first1 = Georges | authorlink = Georges Charpak | last2 = Broch | first2 = Henri | name-list-style = vanc | language = French |translator-first1 = Bart K. |translator-last1 = Holland |year=2004 |title=Debunked: Esp, telekinesis, other pseudoscience |publisher=[[Johns Hopkins University Press]] |isbn=978-0-8018-7867-1 |url=https://archive.org/details/debunked00geor | url-access = registration | quote = Debunked. |postscript=&nbsp;&nbsp;Originally published 2002 by Odile Jacob as ''Devenez sorciers, devenez savants''}}
* {{cite book |last=Cioffi |first=Frank |name-list-style=vanc |title=Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience |year=1998 |publisher=Open Court, division of Carus |location=Chicago and La Salle, Illinois |isbn=978-0-8126-9385-0 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/freudquestionof00ciof/page/314 314] |url=https://archive.org/details/freudquestionof00ciof/page/314 }}
* {{cite journal |author=Derksen AA |s2cid=140478903 |year=1993 |title=The seven sins of pseudo-science |journal=J Gen Phil Sci |volume=24 |pages=17–42 |doi=10.1007/BF00769513}}
* {{cite journal | vauthors = Derksen AA |s2cid=141312494 |year=2001 |title=The seven strategies of the sophisticated pseudo-scientist: a look into Freud's rhetorical toolbox |journal=J Gen Phil Sci |volume=32 |pages=329–50 |doi=10.1023/A:1013100717113 |issue=2}}
* {{cite book | year = 1957 | vauthors = Gardner M | title = Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science | edition = 2nd, revised & expanded | place = Mineola, NY | publisher = [[Dover Publications]] | isbn = 978-0-486-20394-2 | url = https://archive.org/details/fadsfallaciesinn0000gard | url-access = registration | quote = fads and fallacies. }} Originally published 1952 by G.P. Putnam's Sons, under the title ''In the Name of Science''.
* {{cite book |vauthors=Gardner M |year=1990 |title=Science&nbsp;– Good, Bad and Bogus |publisher=Prometheus Books |location= |isbn=978-0-87975-573-7 |url=https://archive.org/details/sciencegoodbadbo00gard }}
** {{cite journal |date=29 October 1981 |author=Little, John |authorlink=John Little (academic) |title=Review and useful overview of Gardner's book |journal=[[New Scientist]] |page=320 |volume=92 |issue=1277 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Gfh9AnIDxS8C&pg=PA320&dq=%22Science+%E2%80%93+Good,+Bad+and+Bogus%22#v=onepage}}
* {{cite book | year = 2000 | vauthors = Gardner M | title = Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience | place = New York | publisher = W.W. Norton & Company | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=z1NdAgAAQBAJ|isbn=978-0-393-32238-5}}
* {{cite journal | last = Hansson | first = Sven Ove | name-list-style = vanc |authorlink=Sven Ove Hansson |year=1996 |title=Defining pseudoscience |journal=Philosophia Naturalis |volume=33 |pages=169–76}}
* {{cite encyclopedia |date=3 September 2008 | vauthors = Hansson SO |title=Science and Pseudo-Science |encyclopedia=[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/| publisher = Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University }}
* Kaufman, Allison B. & Kaufman, James C. (eds.), ''Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science'', The MIT Press, (Cambridge, MA), 2018. {{ISBN|978-0-262-53704-9}}
* {{cite journal |author=Martin M |s2cid=22730647 |year=1994 |title=Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and science education |journal=Science & Education |volume=3 |pages=1573–901 |doi=10.1007/BF00488452 |bibcode=1994Sc&Ed...3..357M |issue=4}}
* {{cite book |title=Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem |last1=Pigliucci |first1=Massimo |authorlink1=Massimo Pigliucci |last2=Boudry |first2=Maarten | name-list-style = vanc |authorlink2=Maarten Boudry |location=Chicago |publisher=University of Chicago Press |year=2013 |isbn=978-0-226-05196-3}}
* {{cite journal |last=Pratkanis |first=Anthony R | name-list-style = vanc |authorlink=Anthony Pratkanis |date=July–August 1995 |title=How to Sell a Pseudoscience |journal=Skeptical Inquirer |volume=19 |issue=4 |pages=19–25 |url=http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/pratkanis.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061211055201/http://www.positiveatheism.org//writ/pratkanis.htm |archive-date=11 December 2006 }}
* {{cite journal |last=Shermer |first=Michael | name-list-style = vanc |authorlink=Michael Shermer |date=September 2011 |title=What Is Pseudoscience?: Distinguishing between science and pseudoscience is problematic |journal=Scientific American |volume=305 |issue=3 |page=92 |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pseudoscience/|doi=10.1038/scientificamerican0911-92 |pmid=21870452 }}
* {{cite book |first1=Michael |last1=Shermer |first2=Steven J. |last2=Gould | name-list-style = vanc |authorlink1=Michael Shermer |authorlink2=Stephen Jay Gould |year=2002 |title=Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time |publisher=Holt Paperbacks |location=New York |isbn=978-0-8050-7089-7}}
* {{cite book |author=Wilson F. |year=2000 |title=The Logic and Methodology of Science and Pseudoscience |publisher=Canadian Scholars Press |isbn=978-1-55130-175-4}}
* {{cite book |year=1994 |author=Wolpert, Lewis |s2cid=44724752 |authorlink=Lewis Wolpert |title=The Unnatural Nature of Science |journal=Lancet |volume=341 |issue=8840 |page=310 |publisher=[[Harvard University Press]] |url=https://books.google.com/?id=67Mr-fhfZmQC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false |isbn=978-0-6749-2981-4|pmid=8093949 |doi=10.1016/0140-6736(93)92665-g }} First published 1992 by Faber & Faber, London.

{{refend}}

== External links ==
{{Wiktionary|pseudoscience}}
{{Library resources box |by=no |onlinebooks=no |others=no |about=yes |label=Pseudoscience}}
{{Commons category}}
*[https://skepdic.com/pseudosc.html Skeptic Dictionary: Pseudoscience]&nbsp;– [[Robert Todd Carroll]], PhD
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20120516144654/https://webspace.utexas.edu/cokerwr/www/index.html/distinguish.htm Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience]&nbsp;– Rory Coker, PhD
*[http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html Pseudoscience. What is it? How can I recognize it?]&nbsp;– Stephen Lower
*[http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/lakatos/scienceAndPseudoscience.htm Science and Pseudoscience]&nbsp;– transcript and broadcast of talk by Imre Lakatos
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20131203055626/https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pscindx.htm Science, Pseudoscience, and Irrationalism]&nbsp;– Steven Dutch
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20190925035702/http://skepdic.com/tiscience.html Skeptic Dictionary: Pseudoscientific topics and discussion]&nbsp;– [[Robert Todd Carroll]]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20190114012917/https://www.csicop.org/si/show/why_is_pseudoscience_dangerous Why Is Pseudoscience Dangerous?]&nbsp;– Edward Kruglyakov
*{{cite web|url=https://nautil.us/issue/55/trust/why-garbage-science-gets-published|title=Why garbage science gets published|year=2017|work=Adam Marcas, Ivan Oransky|publisher=Nautilus}}
*{{YouTube|id=eUB4j0n2UDU|title=Michael Shermer: Baloney Detection Kit}} – 10 questions to challenge false claims and uncover the truth.