Editing Pseudoscience (section)

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

===Scientific method===
{{Main|Scientific method}}
[[File:The Scientific Method (simple).png|thumb|The scientific method is a continuous cycle of observation, questioning, hypothesis, experimentation, analysis and conclusion.]]

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.{{sfnp|Gauch|2003|pp=3–5 ff}} 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 [[non-science]].<ref name="Popper">{{cite book|last=Popper|first=Karl|author-link=Karl Popper|year=1959|title=The Logic of Scientific Discovery|isbn=978-0-415-27844-7|publisher=Routledge|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 that negates them. Popper used [[astrology]] and [[psychoanalysis]] as examples of pseudoscience and Einstein's [[theory of relativity]] as an example of science. He subdivided non-science into philosophical, mathematical, mythological, religious and metaphysical formulations on one hand, and pseudoscientific formulations on the other.{{sfnp|Popper|1963|pp=43–86}}

Another example which shows the distinct need for a claim to be falsifiable was stated in [[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",{{sfnp|Sagan|1994|p=171}} 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 characterize real science. If any of the norms were violated, Merton considered the enterprise to be non-science. 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.|author-link=John Casti|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===
In 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.{{sfnp|Thagard|1978|pp=223 ff}} 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.{{sfnp|Bunge|1983a}} The 2018 book about [[scientific skepticism]] 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|author-link=Steven Novella|title=[[The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (book)|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===
[[Larry Laudan]] has suggested pseudoscience has no scientific meaning and is mostly used to describe human 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>{{cite book|author-link=Larry Laudan|last=Laudan|first=Larry|year=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 |title=Is the pseudoscience concept useful for clinical psychology?|journal=The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice|volume=2|issue=2|year=2003 |url=http://www.srmhp.org/0202/pseudoscience.html|url-status=live|archive-date=30 April 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100430162007/http://www.srmhp.org/0202/pseudoscience.html}}</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]]'',<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|page=54}}</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 assess uncertainty in quantitative information, such as [[NUSAP]] and&nbsp;– in the case of mathematical modelling&nbsp;– [[sensitivity auditing]].