Thread: Science vs Pseudoscience

This is the issue that lies at the center of the Philosophy of Science, and it is also of keen interest to anyone who seeks to be recognized as a "reputable scientist" and should be considered by the general public as they seek to become informed members of society.

I thought I'd open up a thread where members can share and discuss what they believe are the differences between science and pseudoscience. Bear in mind that this is a difficult question, and there is, as far as I am aware, no fully satisfactory way to answer the question.

I'd ask that we try to stay away from definitions which use the word "science" or any form of it; to say "science is done through a scientific process" does not really say anything.

I'd also like to avoid debates that delve into any particular subject and lose the spirit of the thread. For example, philosophers will often choose a given science and pseudoscience and attempt to draw a line between the two in order to define what is science and what is not. Astrology is often a choice pseudoscience because it can appear to be quite scientific but is not considered to be a science. But let's not go about referencing who says what about astrology being science vs pseudoscience unless we are going to discuss, specifically, what is or is not scientific about it and why these factors are or are not scientific. (I chose astrology because it is a classic example and I do not think it's selection will be debated, but I am fully prepared to discuss why I believe astrology is not a science, should any member ask me to). I realize that that may not be clear, so I will attempt to keep an eye on the thread as (if?) it develops to try to maintain the discussion that I'm interested in seeing. As I recall, doing so is part of my duty when I choose to open a discussion in the Conversation section.

Science: a systematic refining of humanity's understanding of the physical workings of the universe that builds on the peer-reviewed work of others. Claims made are falsifiable and tests that support them are repeatable.

Pseudoscience: anything that tries to appear scientific but isn't. Claims are often either unfalsifiable or not subject to peer review. May include attempts to discredit actual science/scientists.

Well, I think you've shot your foot saying we can't talk about scientific method. The contemporary view of science has the method as one of the over archind concepts.

Science in the broader sense, is a systematic knowledge base that can make predictions based on a set of criteria.

Pseudoscience is not science. There is no comparison. It's something presented using science as a front in order to validate that idea or product. Typically using microscopic samples of people or taking figures out of context, lying etc etc

Originally Posted by gregs656

Well, I think you've shot your foot saying we can't talk about scientific method. The contemporary view of science has the method as one of the over archind concepts.

Science in the broader sense, is a systematic knowledge base that can make predictions based on a set of criteria.

Pseudoscience is not science. There is no comparison. It's something presented using science as a front in order to validate that idea or product. Typically using microscopic samples of people or taking figures out of context, lying etc etc

I didn't say you can't talk about the scientific method. But if you want to say science is something that follows the scientific method, you should explain what about the scientific method makes it "scientific," which begs the question of what is science?

You say Pseudoscience is not science. That is true by definition. The question is, how do you draw the line? What is the difference? The difference you present, as I am reading it, is something to do with sample size and "good" statistics.

Originally Posted by northpaw

Science: a systematic refining of humanity's understanding of the physical workings of the universe that builds on the peer-reviewed work of others. Claims made are falsifiable and tests that support them are repeatable.

Pseudoscience: anything that tries to appear scientific but isn't. Claims are often either unfalsifiable or not subject to peer review. May include attempts to discredit actual science/scientists.

I like your statements about falsifiability, but tell me more. What does the falsifiability of claims have to do with science or pseudoscience? And what counts as "systematic"? What do you mean when you say "systematic"? - Those are two different questions.

Your definition of pseudoscience, though, seems... not fully developed. You are correct, but your statement is circular. I also would ask that we move away from statements about discrediting or who is trying to discredit who. We are not talking about actual people or who is credible, but, rather, what is science, what is pseudoscience, and what is the difference.

Think hard, fellow forum members! That is my challenge. (<- What a statement to wrap up my 3000th post!)

That is part of the reason, sure. have you heard the phrase 'extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence. Pseudoscience will claim big and provide little evidence.

Science has to be empirically testable and falsifiable, consistent, useful, based upon controlled and repeatable experiments (repeatable is very important), progressive and it can't be dogmatic.

A pseudoscience may have a few of those characteristics, but not all.

Pseudoscience is a sales technique.

In my humble opinion, psychology is not a science and it is a great modern tragedy that is is viewed as such.

edit: I did give two definitions of what science is, by the broader one, just about any skill or technique is science - makes sense to me!

Originally Posted by gregs656

That is part of the reason, sure. have you heard the phrase 'extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence. Pseudoscience will claim big and provide little evidence.

Science has to be empirically testable and falsifiable, consistent, useful, based upon controlled and repeatable experiments (repeatable is very important), progressive and it can't be dogmatic.

A pseudoscience may have a few of those characteristics, but not all.

Pseudoscience is a sales technique.

In my humble opinion, psychology is not a science and it is a great modern tragedy that is is viewed as such.

edit: I did give two definitions of what science is, by the broader one, just about any skill or technique is science - makes sense to me!

Don't some psychologists have skill and employ technique?

So the requirement for evidence is there, but what is good evidence. Is a person born under a certain sign and possessing of the qualities associated with that sign good evidence? What about a million people?

I'm curious about your inclusion of the word "useful" in your definition of science. Can you explain why you've put that in there? Also, what do you mean by dogmatic? I think that is a word that is often thrown around without a clear definition. Einstein was pretty dogmatic when he said that God does not play with dice - but there are arguments that he did not approach quantum mechanics scientifically. Then again, some say that quantum mechanics itself is not scientific. Both sides have their reasons... I'm sure.

Pseudoscience is a sales technique - so it is the way in which people push their claims, not the actual claims, that is pseudoscience?

I'm not challenging what you are saying, just trying to draw out and understand as much of your view as possible.

I'd also like to say that psychology is an interesting field in this discussion, because some say that a true science which is not yet fully developed or advanced may appear as a pseudoscience, and some say that psychology is still in it's early stages. One could say, depending on one's definition of science and pseudoscience, that psychology is currently a pseudoscience but could develop into science.

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

I like your statements about falsifiability, but tell me more. What does the falsifiability of claims have to do with science or pseudoscience? And what counts as "systematic"? What do you mean when you say "systematic"? - Those are two different questions.

Your definition of pseudoscience, though, seems... not fully developed. You are correct, but your statement is circular. I also would ask that we move away from statements about discrediting or who is trying to discredit who. We are not talking about actual people or who is credible, but, rather, what is science, what is pseudoscience, and what is the difference.

Think hard, fellow forum members! That is my challenge. (<- What a statement to wrap up my 3000th post!)

Congrats on the 3k!

I said systematic because I was trying to keep the definition short, and I didn't want to get into describing the scientific method. (I mean, we could just link to a description of that, right?)

To me, the pursuit of science seems systematic because the process typically follows certain steps: research, thinking, hypotheses, testing, more thinking, etc. Additionally, papers are published in somewhat standard formats, they are subject to somewhat standard processes of review, etc. These aspects may not always be exactly the same, but they're generally very similar, from what I understand.

Regarding falsifiability, if a claim can't possibly be proven wrong, then there's nothing anyone can do to determine whether or not it's accurate. Put a different way, if a claim doesn't lead to predictions that either turn out to be correct or not, then it isn't useful.

If science is defined thoroughly, then I'm comfortable simply calling pseudoscience anything that is "non-science trying to pass itself off as science" (pseudo = false or counterfeit). It might seem circular in some regards, but the construction of the word itself necessarily invokes the definition of science, so...?

There is no difference, sorry but to many things that have been considered "Hard" science have been dis-proved with more study, and the opposite also of too many things that have been considered stuff of legend and lore have been proved....

I think Science is an ongoing search that really never can end....

Sure they do, but it's impossible to get data in psychology that is not flawed on so many levels it's laughable. You will never have a big enough sample, and it will never be varied enough. It's depressing studing psychology as a science.

Astrology is not just about your personality traits. Astrology flies in the face of much of physics (for example). Astrology is a theory not based on evidence, that means it cannot be emprically tested and you cannot test if the claims are linked to reality.

Science needs to be useful science needs to help us describe and explain phenomena. Almost every definition of science infers it needs to be useful.

By dogmatic, I mean that science should be able to accept that it might have got it wrong, rather that asserting correctness.

not at all, I was just putting it out there that pseudoscience is often used in an attempt to validate some claim or another, and generally that is 'selling' the theory to either make it seem more palatable to a wider audience, or to sell a product. I think 'real' science is (generally) not used to sell products in the same way, if it actually works, there's no reason to tell you how many people found out it works out of the 15 tested, if you see what I mean?

Psychology will never develop into a true science. Not this form of psychology any way.