contact@onbelief.orgPseudoscience
What is pseudoscience
Pseudoscience is an activity or body of belief (theory) that some claim to be contemporary science but which can be demonstrated to have serious and fundamental errors. It can be distinguished from other categories of nonsense belief by the fact that it involves systematic observation. Pseudosciences fail rigorous tests of verification and falsification and are therefore characterised by a lack of self-correction, modification and improvement.
The predictive capacity resulting from the observations and explanatory beliefs fails to have the statistical power of prediction that could be claimed by its practitioners if it had a more sound basis. Where mechanistic explanations are proposed they lack a logical connection to the underlying observations and also run contrary to other testable logical beliefs to which they are related. In Bayesian terms there is at minimum a miscalculation of the posterior probability (refer to the Certainty and Uncertainty
The disciplined reporting of underlying data and methods of analysis together with a balanced discussion of how the study at hand fits within the context of existing literature is a hallmark of good science. The reason for this approach is that the scientist views the logical and evidence-based integration of new and existing knowledge as philosophically valuable. The STEGRA statement on good practice in the reporting of genetic associations with disease is an example of the extremely high cultural standards which scientists strive for in the communication of ideas. Even when such standards are adhered to the 'ideal' scientist will want to examine the literature for evidence of a more collective error known as publication bias. The pseudo-scientist has by contrast every reason to avoid and evade the same level of self-scrutiny.
Examples of Pseudosciences
The pseudosciences, including those found in 'alternative' medicine, are regrettably abundant and in some cases still influential.
1) Homeopathy: Chemistry and modern pharmacology tells us that homeopathic medicine can have no more than the placebo effect. This practice completely denies the principle of dose-response, one of the cornerstones of modern pharmacology. In this sense it runs contrary to a logical testable proposition as defined above. By also denying the parametric value of the Avogadro constant homeopathy is also in effect denying the atomic theory of matter. ALL of modern science depends on the atomic theory of matter. Why should homeopathy be exempt? The answer of course is that homeopathy, like religion, has a historical rather than a scientific basis. Those who developed the idea had no conception of modern chemistry because at that time chemistry as we know it today did not exist.
To understand why homeopathy in the U.K. is nothing more than a well intentioned scam at the tax payers expense read The end of homeopathy?
2) Freudian psychoanalysis can now be seen to have made almost no contribution to modern psychiatry although it has had strong cultural effects. The methods of data collection were highly dubious, statistical analysis was absent and the predictive capacity untested.
For more online information hear: Freud in a BBC Audio clip from 1938; Freud - Psychoanalysis a short video; There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads (part 1 of 6) a short journalistic video; Happiness Machines (part 1 of 6) more social commentary
3) Phrenology was the absurd victorian obsession with head bumps, which tried to relate external features of the head shape to personality. In effect the 'believers' in this activity were attributing thinking capacity to the skull or more fundamentally bone. It was never anything more than an irrational belief system.
See an explanatory satirical video: Quackery Gallery - "Phrenology and the Psycograph"
4) Graphology is the ridiculous claim that personality can be understood through physical measurements of handwriting. As Shermer says, graphology has all of the trappings of science in the sense that measurements are taken. It even has mechanistic explanations. That still does not make it science. Graphology seeks to take one aspect of individual behaviour, handwriting, and make highly general inferences from it. This claim puts it at odds with the multi-factorial analysis of personality practiced in psychology. Graphology can be regarded as as an erroneous subset of Behaviourist theories of personality.
For three amusing anecdotal thought-provoking videos at U-Tube see: Michael Shermer Explores Graphology, Part 1, Michael Shermer Explores Graphology, Part 2, James Randi and a Graphologist
5) Polygraph Testing. The misuse of scientific methodology and the non-application of statistical analysis practiced in polygraph-based lie detection' is perhaps the most alarming of these examples because of its legal status in some jurisdictions. Polygraph testing makes use of physiological measurements such as electrical conductivity of the skin and therefore appears scientific. Polygraph testing might even have some predictive value in the way that short-term weather forecasting has. The correlation between measured responses and lying cannot exist on 100% of occasions if individuals can take conscious measures to change the responses that are being measured. There is also a logical problem if we presuppose that thinking has a definite manifestation in the skin. As the skin is not the organ of thought there can only be a Bayesian posterior probability of less than certainty. This is a matter of philosophical logic. The question then arises as to the validity of the strength of belief. The misuse in some legal jurisdictions can be described as statistical or probabilistic. In other words sometimes the examiners will be wrong in their assessments. The question then becomes what error is the court is prepared to accept. As Stephen E. Fienberg points out the error rate in practice is shockingly bad. ( see the reference below)
For further online reading go to: The Polygraph and Lie Detection (2003) by the Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences and Education ( BCSSE ) Committee on National Statistics ( CNSTAT ), of National Research Council of the National Academies (U.S.A.) and read Stephen E. Fienberg's statement at the Hearing Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. See also the polygraph article at wikipedia, a series of selected quotations. Two enjoyable anecdotal thought-provoking videos, are available on U-tube: Michael Shermer Tests the Polygraph and Lie Detection Part 1 and Michael Shermer tests the Polygraph and Lie Detection Part 2, also 'An overview of lie detector testing'.
Quackery
In addition to there will always be shysters who will peddle any junk in the name of science and dress up garbage with 'science nonsense-speak' in which the vocabulary of science is used in a completely meaningless way. Try for example reading about the 'Quantum Xeroid Consciousness Interface Device'. If you have a medical reason to avoid laughing at the moment then perhaps avoid it. For further laughter on the device click here. The inventors CV is also available.
For a wider introduction to the world of quackery see: www.quackwatch.org
For an interesting video that advertises Ben Goldacre's book 'Bad Science' see its Amazon web page.
Let's have A Positive Attitude to Scientific Methods
On the Nature of Belief
www.onbelief.org
Scotland, 12th October 2007 and thereafter
Copyright 2007 onwards
