Qualities of Pseudosciences for Academic Study

[Penanggalen]

I'm looking at ways to compare history and pseudohistory with science and pseudoscience. I've read Shermer's work on the topic of pseudohistory, but I'm looking for a broader list of qualities of a pseudoscience for comparison.

Can anyone point me in the direction of some kind of list that illustrates warning signs or symptoms that separate true science from pseudoscience? I know I've heard it in a skeptical podcast, but I can't think where or what episode.

Thanks,

Justin

 

[blutoski]

I'm looking at ways to compare history and pseudohistory with science and pseudoscience. I've read Shermer's work on the topic of pseudohistory, but I'm looking for a broader list of qualities of a pseudoscience for comparison.

Can anyone point me in the direction of some kind of list that illustrates warning signs or symptoms that separate true science from pseudoscience? I know I've heard it in a skeptical podcast, but I can't think where or what episode.

Thanks,

Justin

Skepdic still has a good definition: [pseudoscience].

 

[athon]

If you can wait until some time next year, I'll have a book out on this very topic.

If not, due to something called the 'demarcation problem' it's a tricky area to define in a snappy list, slogan or even a few paragraphs. Like sport or art, it's one of those things that is obvious from a distance but becomes hard to create boundaries for when you get up close.

For one thing, it helps to treat pseudoscience as a claim-based descriptor, not a field based one. In other words, it's meaningless stating that chiropractics is a pseudoscience. However, the claims on which it is based can be argued to be pseudoscientific. Although a minor, pedantic point, it bears to keep it in mind when discussing the potential merits (or lack of) of a field of study.

There are a lot of definitions out there, but I tend to describe pseudoscience as being any claim that creates false confidence in a belief through language that presents it as scientific in nature. Of course, the question of what 'scientific in nature' means is the real can of worms that requires more than a few lines to discuss.

There are also a number of 'top ten' lists on hints and tips that can suggest a claim could be presenting false confidence in an idea (I have my own that I use in talks). The powerpoint I use can be found here.

I hope it gives you a good starting point.

Athon

 

[Zeuzzz]

This is the definition of Pseudoscience according to a website that are themselves oft accused of being one http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=66b0jzyh

Pseudoscience [Wikipedia]: "Pseudosciences may be characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development."
Pseudoscience is widespread and afflicts all science. The malaise stems from theoretical physics. As science-philosopher Viv Pope said at a 2002 meeting, "The majority of people nowadays neither know nor care what Theoretical Physics is or what it does. In the subject itself, confusion reigns supreme. Many professionals believe that it has gone beyond any prospect of repair with more and more theoretical patching and that nothing less than a whole new philosophical approach - a new paradigm, in effect - is now long overdue."

There is no clear definition of what makes a pseudoscience I would say as many pseudosciences will follow the exact same paths and structure as a normal science, its the axioms, starting assumptions and consistancy with the data that test their veracity.