I know, I have posted several times on this topic. As the subject is of such fundamental relevance to so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), I want to try yet again and explain the key characteristics that distinguish science from pseudoscience.
The two often seem to use similar language and they often investe similar subjects. It can therefore be easy to confuse them; in fact, this is exactly what psedoscientists want to achieve. But, there are important differences:
Science
Science is the systematic, rational approach to understand the world. It has 6 crucial characteristics:
- Falsifiability: Scientists formulate hypotheses that they subsequently try to prove wrong. A reasonable hypothesis makes specific, testable predictions that can be put to the test. If the predictions cannot be confirmed, the hypothesis is considered false and must therefore be revised or discarded.
- Empirical evidence: Science relies on measurable evidence, and all claims must be supported by evidence collected through rigorous tests.
- Peer review: Science is published in peer-reviewed journals so that other experts can scrutinize its methods, data, and conclusions.
- Science must be reported such that its findings can be reproduced by a third party. If they are not replicated, something is amiss and the reason must be identified.
- Self-Correction: Science accepts the inevitability of errors and must identify and correct mistakes. As soon as more compelling evidence emerges, scientists revise their position or consensus.
- Skepticism: Scientists are skeptical and require a high standard of evidence before accepting a new claim. They are skeptical about their own hypotheses, rather than just seeking confirmation.
Pseudoscience
Pseudoscience is the practice of mimicing science without adpoting the rules, rigor and commitment to evidence of science. It also has 6 main characteristics:
- Unfalsifiability: Pseudoscientific claims are vague or so flexible that they cannot be proven wrong. Pseudoscientists dismis contradictory evidence with invalid excuses, or they modify their claims or move the goal-post to accomodate the contradictory evidence.
- Confirmation bias: Pseudoscientists thrive to confirm their own pre-existing beliefs, look for evidence that supports them and ignore evidence that contradicts them.
- Rarety of peer review: Pseudoscientific work is rarely submitted to proper peer-review by independent experts. Instead, it is disseminated through channels that do not insist on scrutiny.
- Dogmatism: Pseudoscientific beliefs do not change change or evolve in response to new and compelling evidence. They remains fixed, regardless of any contradictions brought about by hard evidence.
- Dependence on anecdotes: Pseudoscience tends to rely on personal stories, experience or testimonials which is then elevated to the status of “evidence”.
- Argument from ignorance: Pseudoscientists argue that science cannot explain everything. Therefore they claim that their notions do not require explanations or proof either.
In essence, pseudoscience is an abuse of science. Here are three sentences from the conclusion of my memoir that might serve as an ending of this post:
When science is abused, hijacked or distorted in order to serve political or ideological belief systems, ethical standards will inevitably slip. The resulting pseudoscience is a deceit perpetrated on the weak and the vulnerable. We owe it to ourselves, and to those who come after us, to stand up for the truth, no matter how much trouble this might bring.
4 Responses to Science versus pseudoscience
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Another succinct and practical article, thank you, Edzard.
My interest has shifted somewhat, during the last few years, from what is it inquiry to why is this inquiry. The following was particularly insightful for its time, I think:
“Inspect every piece of pseudoscience and you will find a security blanket, a thumb to suck, a skirt to hold. What does the scientist have to offer in exchange? Uncertainty! Insecurity!”
— Isaac Asimov. Asimov’s Guide to Science. 1972:p15.
I am in total sympathy with your returning to this topic, because it is, as you say, of fundamental relevance. I deal similarly, repeatedly so, with questions: “What is art?”; “What is science?” etc.
I have something which I wish to ask you, Professor, but I shall address this to you in a separate email.
With best wishes.
please do!
Edzard Ernst, it seems that publishing a few articles with some philosophers of science went to his head, although rumor has it that he has been corrected for confusing hypothesis with theory.
1. Homeopathy is falsifiable. Even your colleague Angelo Fasce admits in an article that it is possible to falsify it. The rejection of contradictory evidence is not an attribute exclusive to “pseudoscientists”; we see it here in your blog and in every ‘skeptical’ forum of “skeptics” who reject evidence, but a rejection not by rational means but by mere insults or fallacies. Furthermore, the nonsense that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is an example of moving the goalposts.
2. Another attribute not exclusive to “pseudoscientists.” Numerous works by “skeptics,” including yours, tend to engage in cherry picking. In your case, your books are self-quotations to the extreme, while you quote a group of authors sympathetic to the “skeptical” movement.
3. Again, another vague and non-exclusive attribute. There are popular science magazines and dissemination magazines that do not have peer review, both for claims by proponents of complementary medicine and for “skeptics.” Interestingly, if we filter by peer review, proponents of some of these therapies (herbal medicine, acupuncture, osteopathy, homeopathy, and yoga) tend to publish more in peer-reviewed journals than “skeptics.” Furthermore, if we compare these works with those published by “skeptics,” we find that the latter tend to publish more in non-peer-reviewed journals.
4. Dogmatism is not an exclusive attribute either. Pseudo-skepticism is an example of dogmatism. In your case, you do not evolve with the new claims and discoveries of homeopathy.
5. This is a contradictory point. As you well know, homeopathy has controlled clinical trials, so it is false to say that it is limited to mere anecdotes.
6. This attribute is also not exclusive to “pseudoscientists,” and in fact it is correct that science cannot explain everything (for now). But this is not the same as “no explanations are required.” You can ask for explanations but also affirm that science does not explain everything.
Five out of six attributes are fulfilled by pseudoskeptical groups. The last one can be found in philosophers of science and even physicists who have no connection with complementary or alternative medicine.