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.)