Editing Pseudoscience (section)

{{Short description|Unscientific claims wrongly presented as scientific}}
{{cs1 config|name-list-style=vanc}}
{{Distinguish|Non-science}}
{{Pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2021}}
[[File:Phrenological organs, 1887 Wellcome L0001965.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35|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|author-link=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|page=[https://archive.org/details/evolutionhistory0000bowl_n7y8/page/128 128]|url=https://archive.org/details/evolutionhistory0000bowl_n7y8/page/128}}</ref><ref name="dtg6e">Parker Jones, O., Alfaro-Almagro, F., & Jbabdi, S. (2018). ''An empirical, 21st century evaluation of phrenology''. Cortex. Volume 106. pp. 26–35. doi: {{doi|10.1016/j.cortex.2018.04.011}}</ref> Phrenology was first termed a pseudoscience in 1843 and continues to be considered so.<ref name="Magendie1843"/>]]
{{Science|expanded=Society}}
{{Paranormal|related}}
'''Pseudoscience''' consists of statements, [[belief]]s, or practices that claim to be both [[Science|scientific]] and factual but are incompatible with the [[scientific method]].{{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)'{{sfnp|Shermer|1997}} (this was the [https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c7/c7s5.htm definition adopted by] the [[National Science Foundation]])
Terms regarded as having largely the same meaning but perhaps less disparaging connotations include ''parascience,'' ''cryptoscience,'' and ''anomalistics.''<ref>{{cite book|first=Michael P. |last=Gordin |title=The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe |page=11 |year=2012 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-30443-4}}</ref>}} 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 [[Peer review|evaluation by other experts]]; absence of systematic practices when developing [[Hypothesis|hypotheses]]; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.<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|first=Sven Ove|year=2008|last=Hansson|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|access-date=8 April 2009|archive-date=6 September 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080906011752/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/|url-status=live|issn=1095-5054}}</ref> It is not the same as [[junk science]].<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Kaufman |first1=Allison B. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZLT4DwAAQBAJ |title=Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science |last2=Kaufman |first2=James C. |date=2019-03-12 |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=978-0-262-53704-9 |pages=471 |language=en |quote=Pseudoscience is different from junk science...}}</ref>

The [[demarcation problem|demarcation between science and pseudoscience]] has [[scientific]], [[philosophical]], and [[political]] implications.<ref name="Imre-Lakatos"/> Philosophers debate the nature of science and the general criteria for drawing the line between [[scientific theory|scientific theories]] and pseudoscientific beliefs, but there is widespread agreement "that [[creationism]], [[astrology]], [[homeopathy]], [[Kirlian photography]], [[dowsing]], [[ufology]], [[Ancient astronauts|ancient astronaut theory]], [[Holocaust denial]]ism, [[Immanuel Velikovsky|Velikovskian catastrophism]], and [[climate change denial]]ism are pseudosciences."<ref name="Stanford-Demarcations"/> There are implications for [[health care]], the use of [[Expert witness|expert testimony]], and weighing [[Environmental policy|environmental policies]].<ref name="Stanford-Demarcations">{{cite encyclopedia|last=Hansson|first=Sven Ove|title=Science and Pseudo-Science, Section 1: The purpose of demarcations|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/#PurDem|encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|publisher=Stanford University|access-date=16 April 2011|date=3 September 2008|quote=From a practical point of view, the distinction is important for decision guidance in both private and public life. Since science is our most reliable source of knowledge in a wide variety of areas, we need to distinguish scientific knowledge from its look-alikes. Due to the high status of science in present-day society, attempts to exaggerate the scientific status of various claims, teachings, and products are common enough to make the demarcation issue pressing in many areas.|archive-date=5 September 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905091332/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/#PurDem|url-status=live}}</ref> Recent empirical research has shown that individuals who indulge in pseudoscientific beliefs generally show lower evidential criteria, meaning they often require significantly less evidence before coming to conclusions. This can be coined as a 'jump-to-conclusions' bias that can increase the spread of pseudoscientific beliefs.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Rodríguez-Ferreiro |first1=Javier |last2=Barberia |first2=Itxaso |date=2021-12-21 |title=Believers in pseudoscience present lower evidential criteria |journal=Scientific Reports |language=en |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=24352 |doi=10.1038/s41598-021-03816-5 |issn=2045-2322 |pmc=8692588 |pmid=34934119|bibcode=2021NatSR..1124352R }}</ref> Addressing pseudoscience is part of [[science education]] and developing scientific literacy.<ref name="Hurd"/><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Gropp|first=Robert E.|date=1 August 2003|title=Evolution Activists Organize to Combat Pseudoscience in Public Schools|journal=BioScience|volume=53|issue=8|page=700|doi=10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0700:EAOTCP]2.0.CO;2|s2cid=84435133 |issn=0006-3568|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Pseudoscience can have dangerous effects. For example, pseudoscientific [[anti-vaccine activism]] and promotion of homeopathic remedies as alternative disease treatments can result in people forgoing important medical treatments with demonstrable health benefits, leading to ill-health and deaths.<ref name="FKGbU">{{cite web|last1=Vyse|first1=Stuart|author-link=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|access-date=1 December 2019|archive-date=9 December 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191209061824/https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/what-should-become-of-a-monument-to-pseudoscience/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="bxgBg">{{cite web|title=How anti-vax pseudoscience seeps into public discourse|url=https://www.salon.com/2019/01/13/how-anti-vax-pseudoscience-seeps-into-public-discourse/|website=Salon|date=13 January 2019|access-date=16 December 2020|archive-date=15 December 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201215171126/https://www.salon.com/2019/01/13/how-anti-vax-pseudoscience-seeps-into-public-discourse/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="mav9B">{{cite web|title=Anti-vaccination websites use 'science' and stories to support claims, study finds|url=https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151103134800.htm|website=Johns Hopkins|publisher=Science Daily|access-date=16 December 2020|archive-date=16 July 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210716200305/https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151103134800.htm|url-status=live}}</ref> Furthermore, people who refuse legitimate medical treatments for contagious diseases may put others at risk. Pseudoscientific theories about [[Scientific racism|racial]] and ethnic classifications have led to [[racism]] and [[genocide]].

The term ''pseudoscience'' is often considered [[pejorative]], particularly by its purveyors, because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Therefore, practitioners and advocates of pseudoscience frequently dispute the characterization.<ref name="SEP section SciPse"/><ref name="Freitsch">{{cite journal|last1=Frietsch|first1=Ute|title=The boundaries of science/ pseudoscience|journal=European History Online |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|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170415202501/http://ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/crossroads/knowledge-spaces/ute-frietsch-the-boundaries-of-science-pseudoscience|archive-date=15 April 2017}}</ref>