In 1981, I wrote scribbled up a list of questions to help distinguish science from pseudoscience. The list took on a life of its own and has popped up in the oddest of places. I once found it was part of a Dentistry curriculum. An independently derived and shorter list by Robert Part became part of US jurisprudence.
The differences between science and pseudoscience has been explored by many great minds, including an thorough article written in 1995 by my friend Barry Beyerstein. I encourage any and all to use the list as appropriate, with proper citation. Below is a list of questions you should ask yourself when investigating a new "scientific" topic. These questions will help you to separate the good science from the sham.
Pasted from <http://faculty.msmc.edu/markel/mst_101/class%20files/pseudoscience%20characteristics.htm> Questions to help distinguish a pseudoscience from a protoscience (a new science trying to establish its legitimacy) adapted from Lee Moller's "BCS Debates a Qi Gong Master," Rational Enquirer, Vol 6, No. 4, Apr 94 (published by the British Columbia Skeptics Society) 1. Has the subject shown progress? 2. Does the discipline use technical words such as "vibration" or "energy" without clearly defining what they mean? 3. Would accepting the tenets of a claim require you to abandon any well established physical laws? 4. Are popular articles on the subject lacking in references? 5. Is the only evidence offered anecdotal in nature? 6. Does the proponent of the subject claim that "air-tight" experiments have been performed that prove the truth of the subject matter, and that cheating would have been impossible? 7. Are the results of the aforementioned experiments successfully repeated by other researchers? 8. Does the proponent of the subject claim to be overly or unfairly criticized? 9. Is the subject taught only in non-credit institutions? 10. Are the best texts on the subject decades old? 11. Does the proponent of the claim use what one writer has called "factuals" - statements that are a largely or wholly true but unrelated to the claim? 12. When criticized, do the defenders of the claim attack the critic rather than the criticism? 13. Does the proponent make appeals to history (i.e. it has been around a long time, so it must be true)? 14. Does the subject display the "shyness effect" (sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't)? 15. Does the proponent use the appeal to ignorance argument ("there are more things under heaven … than are dreamed of in your philosophy …")? 16. Does the proponent use alleged expertise in other areas to lend weight to the claim? https://hep.physics.utoronto.ca/~orr/wwwroot/JPH441/Pseudoscience.pdf This link is me, but that is all I can say. I think this is Korean? 疑似科学と未科学を識別するのに参考となる16の質問 by Lee ... transact.seesaa.net › article Aug 7, 2006 - ... おそらく主宰であるLee MollerがニューズレターRational Enquirerに書いた「Pseudoscience or Protoscience (疑似科学か未科学か)」という .. Pasted from <https://www.google.com/search?q=lee+moller+protosceince+pseudoscience&rlz=1C1GGRV_enCA849CA849&sxsrf=ALeKk02iIasjee1Ghd2idrXS2t6LtgaPtA:1598550039984&ei=F_BHX5nPO5XI-gTt8qv4Bw&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjZtqf69rvrAhUVpJ4KHW35Cn8Q8NMDegQICxBC&biw=1517&bih=694> This is the text of the original article I wrote in 1981. Most people rightly ignore the preamble and only pay attention to the list. Pseudoscience or Protoscience? by Lee Moller As a skeptic, one can find something to argue about with almost anyone -- even other skeptics. After having participated in more than one such good-natured debate, some patterns of criticism of skepticism emerge. One of the most common criticisms is the question "How can one tell the difference between a pseudoscience and protoscience?" By protoscience, I mean any claim which, as the result of the unguessable verdict of history, will ultimately be viewed as a legitimate field of study. A common example of such a protoscience is continental drift. It was initially rejected or scoffed at by many scientists, but now continental drift and plate tectonics are well established facts. Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to this question. Philosophers still debate the issue of "where do you draw the line?" I suspect that there is no way of distinguishing between science and pseudoscience (this is one reason why the skeptic must always be prepared to change his or her mind in the light of new evidence), but there are certain characteristics that most quackeries seem to share. This article will suggest some questions one could ask (not in any particular order) that might help to distinguish between the reasonable and the absurd. 1. Has the subject shown progress? Many pseudosciences have been around for centuries and have progressed little, if at all. Graphology (handwriting analysis) is a good example. There have been several theories of graphology over the last century, and they all work equally poorly. Astrology is a second example. Astrologers hardly even blinked when Uranus, Neptune and Pluto were discovered -- although the "theory" of astrology was supposedly complete before this happened. 2. Does the discipline use technical words as 'vibration,' 'frequency,' and 'energy' or phrases such as 'different dimension,' or 'plane of existence' without defining what they mean? For example, many fringe medicines claim to "balance your body's vital energies." Without appropriate definitions, this statement is meaningless. The most common definition of "energy" is "the capacity to do work." What does it mean to "balance the body's vital capacities to do work?" 3. Would accepting the tenets of a claim require you to abandon any well-established physical laws? For example, if one were to accept astrology, one would be forced to reconsider such well-established physical laws as causality or the limiting speed of light. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence should be extremely compelling if it is going to convince you to abandon your confidence in modern physics -- a science that clearly has some handle on the truth. Witness the modern-day miracles of laser surgery, superconductivity and the silicon chip, to name a few. 4. Are popular articles on the subject lacking in references? How many times have you heard phrases like "a recent study showed conclusively that..." but you can never find our which study or who performed it. On the rare occasions when explicit references are supplied, the references are hopelessly out of date or the data on the study often prove to be unavailable. No legitimate scientist will ever refuse to allow experimental data to be examined. 5. Is the only evidence offered anecdotal in nature? Anecdotal evidence (e.g. "A friend of my mother had a dream about her daughter being in a accident...") for paranormal claims is ubiquitous and, in general, worthless. As Arthur C. Clarke once said, "If you've never seen a UFO, you're not very observant, and if you have seen as many as I have, you wouldn't believe in them either." 6. Does the proponent of the subject claim that airtight experiments were performed, and that cheating was impossible? Many experiments on psi powers (such as those done of Uri Geller) that were supposedly fraud-proof were laughably transparent to magicians. Even in the presence of a qualified magician, cheating in experiments to test psi powers is never impossible. This leads to the next point. 7. Are the results of the experiments successfully repeated by other researchers? It is amazing how, with boring regularity, the psychic powers of mediums or "gifted people" seem to evaporate whenever a video-camera or a magician is present in the room. (Psi researchers call this the "shyness effect;" I call it darn convenient.) Repeatability is a cornerstone of science. Without it, science is reduced to rumor and hearsay. Points 6,7,8 and 9 are, of course, tightly inter-related. 8. Does the proponent of the subject claim that he is overly criticized, or the victim of a conspiracy to suppress his ideas? Conspiracies are not impossible, but it is inconsistent to suggest that, for example, the medical community is suppressing a cancer cure when doctors everywhere die of cancer with the same regularity as the man on the street. 9. Is the discipline taught in night-school non-credit courses only? Check out local continuing education courses in your municipality. You will probably find courses on channeling, astrology, aura reading and many similar topics. 10. Are the best texts on the subject decades old and available from any store? Pseudoscientific "experts" stubbornly continue to refer to out-of-date texts, and ignore the more recent literature that might take a little more time and effort to find. 11.Does the proponent of the claim use what one writer called 'factuals?' A factual is a statement that contains just enough science to make it sound plausible. A common factual is to invoke the Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics to explain psychic powers, but to ignore those parts of quantum mechanics which disallow such an application. 12.When criticized, do the defenders of a claim attack the critic, rather than the criticisms? Such ad hominem attacks are an excellent way of distracting the public from the real issues. There are other characteristics that often crop up, but those mentioned above are some of the most common. This is not to say that just because a certain subject displays one or two of these characteristics, that it is necessarily quackery. But most pseudosciences, at least in my experience, will display most if not all of these qualities simultaneously. In these cases, the verdict of history is almost certain. However, you never know... One day someone might actually see a sasquatch, and perhaps provide concrete evidence of the same, but to date, the number of hucksters and frauds that have been caught cheating provide ample reason to remain skeptical. People can say anything -- and many do. (Reprinted with permission of the British Columbia Skeptics. Lee Moller is the editor of the Rational Inquirer, the newsletter of the BC Skeptics.) Pasted from <http://www.ntskeptics.org/1989/1989mayjune/mayjune1989.htm#pseudoscience> This is a nice summary of the list in a Math, Science and Technology course. http://faculty.msmc.edu/markel/mst_101/class%20files/pseudoscience%20characteristics.htm This link gives me pause, but still… http://coldfusioncommunity.net/w/index.php/Pseudoscience I get a reference in this psychology book. http://coldfusioncommunity.net/w/index.php/Pseudoscience The Bangladesh Institute of Sociology: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/w/index.php/Pseudoscience I was also cited in in psychology book: The Psychology of Science and the Origins of the Scientific Mind by Gregory Feist.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorLee Moller is a life-long skeptic and atheist and the author of The God Con. Archives
August 2024
Categories
All
|