General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)What pseudoscience is and is not. [View all]
Since we seem to have confusion on what pseudoscience (woo) actually means.
Pseudoscience is any explanation for natural phenomenon that appears to be scientific on its face, but doesn't actually follow any valid scientific method.
So what is the scientific method? It's a process which seeks to explain observed natural phenomena. Observations about the natural world are made, then hypotheses are formed based on the information acquired about the phenomenon. The hypotheses are used to not only explain already-occurred phenomena, but to explain how they may occur in the future.
Once hypotheses are formed, they are subjected to the observer's peers. Independent replication of the original studies are performed, and at the same time, those peers attempt to find any scenario or condition where a hypothesis may not be sufficient to explain the phenomenon--this is called falsifiability, or, in computer science parlance, bug-testing.
Pseudoscience doesn't follow the above method, through one or several deviations. It makes claims about the natural world that cannot be tested through natural means, it seeks confirmation rather than falsification, or it cannot be replicated independently by the proponent's peers.
With that in mind, here's what pseudoscience is and is not.
Pseudoscience is:
-An explanation for an event that cannot be tested within the bounds of the natural world. Qi, supernatural deities, and "humors" are prime examples. Their definitions put them outside the realm of methodological naturalism, which makes them untestable by a scientific method which uses such constraints.
-A hypothesis or explanation that either cannot or, in some cases, is not wiling to be subjected to independent study. Paranormal events fit this. If Person A claims they saw a ghost in their house during a full moon at midnight, then Persons B through Z should be reliably able to see a ghost in Person A's house during a full moon at midnight as well, or Person A should be able to replicate their encounter when prodded.
-A system which depends on confirmation rather than falsification to advance its ideas. This is almost universal, but it applies very well to alternative medicines. Proponents show only the cases where a patient benefited from treatment, while ignoring those who didn't.
Pseudoscience is not:
-A general epithet. Pseudoscience has a definition; it's not just to be used as a negatively-charged word to label an idea one doesn't like as bogus. Pharmaceuticals are not woo and testable effects of acupuncture are not woo.
-Conversely, it's also not a term that can be used to describe once-unsupported or persecuted ideas (notably before the Age of Enlightenment) in an attempt to make currently-"persecuted" or unsupported ideas seem more legitimate than they actually may be. Galileo's heliocentrism was never, ever "woo", and labeling it as such doesn't make qi real. Same with plate tectonics pre-seismology.
-Legitimate science. If it claims conspiracy against its ideas by a relevant boogeyman, uses terms like "scientifically-proven" (no such thing), or puts anecdotes or testimonials at the forefront, it's more than likely bogus.
People who push pseudoscience prey specifically on the scientifically-illiterate and those who hold a completely justified and rational distrust of Big Pharma. But Big Pharma's abuses and faults are a matter of greed and economics, cutting corners to put insufficiently-tested drugs on the market for the sake of profit. They are not the fault of evidence-based medicine. Toyota may have an unintended acceleration problem, but that's no reason to go visit your local magic carpet salesman.
