[WikiEN-l] Pseudoscience category - GSPOV

Tue Jun 28 19:51:21 UTC 2005

On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 01:50:15AM +1000, David Gerard wrote:
> There is such a thing as pseudoscience and things that are deserve the
> label. It belongs under 'science' because it claims the clothes of science
> but isn't, hence the 'pseudo' - religion doesn't do that (except of course
> when it does). The objectors are basically stating "I don't like it being
> applied to my favourite thing so it must be a violation of NPOV." I see no
> reason to indulge this.

Some folks seem to treat the labels "pseudoscience" and "quackery" as if
they always implied deliberate deceit on the part of the practitioners
-- that is, by labeling homeopathy (for instance) as pseudoscientific,
we would be alleging that homeopaths are each guilty of fraud.

I don't think that's necessarily going on, though.

It seems to me that "pseudoscience" really has to do with inquiry and
skepticism -- or rather, a lack of them:  that is, with credulity; with
readiness to believe, and to insist that others should believe -- in the
absence of sufficient evidence ... and eventually, despite the evidence.

If fraud is malicious deception, then pseudoscience is -- perhaps; I
know I'm going out on a limb here -- negligent deception:  telling
people something wrong *not* because you're setting out to mislead them
for your personal benefit, but because you don't want to check very
carefully.

Something interesting about followers of pseudoscience is that they tend
to jump on any single study which suggests confirmation of their belief.
Any experiment which looks favorable for _one_ element of the claimed
belief-system is taken as confirmation of the _whole_ belief-system.
(Kind of like the Duhem-Quine thesis run in reverse.)

Experiment is used to reassure the believer, rather than to elucidate or
explore the mechanisms or reasons behind the claimed phenomena:

	"This study said that sick people who are prayed over, heal
	faster.  This proves that Jesus Christ -- as conceived of in my
	own sect -- exists, loves us, and answers prayers!"

Another line commonly associated with this kind of argument is, "Why do
you care _how_ it works?  If it works, that's good enough!"  This is,
for instance, presented against claims that a remedy's apparent
effectiveness is due to the placebo effect, or due to some physical
cause rather than a supposed occult cause.  Again there is the lack of
inquiry -- an apparent desirable result is taken at face value; those
who seek to answer the "how" and "why" questions are dismissed as
nitpickers or as looking for an excuse not to believe.

(There's a standard response here, "But scientists don't know how
aspirin works either, and nobody thinks that's pseudoscience."  Perhaps
that was once the case, but it was demonstrated in 1971 that aspirin
works by neutralizing an enzyme that participates in the production of
chemicals that signal pain.  Science bothers to ask the "how" and "why"
questions, and eventually answers them -- it doesn't say "it works;
that's good enough.")

Another curious aspect of the behavior of followers of pseudoscience is
the one-sided nature of their rivalry with the relevant science.  They
often see themselves as engaged in a dialogue or debate with scientists,
whereas scientists do not usually see themselves as engaged in a debate
with pseudoscience.

Creationism probably furnishes the best examples here -- I've often read
creationist responses to discoveries in genetics or paleontology, along
the following lines:

	"Look, it's those atheistical scientists trying to prove
	evolution again.  Aren't they hopeless?  Why do they fight so
	hard against God?"

Geneticists and paleontologists do not see themselves as engaged in
"proving evolution" or "fighting against God".  Creationists seem to
believe that that they and evolutionary scientists must be parallel or
similar in their behavior -- that since creationists spend so much time
and energy "disproving evolution" and "fighting against Satanic atheism"
that their opponents *must*, logically, spend equal time and energy
"proving evolution" and "fighting against God".

(Likewise, it sure seems that Scientologists spend a lot more effort
hatin' on psychiatry than psychiatrists spend hatin' on Scientology --
but it's Scientology doctrine that psychiatrists are "Suppressive
People" engaged in a conspiracy to suppress Scientology.)

-- 
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>