Science and Pseudoscience - A Primer

This thread is a brief summary of what I believe are the primary differences between Science and Pseudoscience. I hope that this will help people draw the line for themselves when they are confronted with new ideas on this forum and elsewhere.

First, a couple of brief definitions, courtesy of Michael Shermer:

Science: A set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena … aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation.
Psuedoscience: Claims presented in such a way that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.

Already, these definitions suggest some things to look for in evaluating claims. Scientific claims should be testable and open to rejection by contrary evidence. Pseudoscientific claims are made to appear scientific, often for ulterior motives such as monetary gain, political or ideological purposes, or to gain personal fame for their proponent(s).

Here are some things to ask when you come across a new idea:

1. Is it testable?

If an idea is claimed to be scientific, there should be a way to test the idea, either by making certain observations and gathering evidence or by performing certain experiments or other tests. Ideas which are not testable may actually be correct, but they are not scientific, because science aims to build a testable body of knowledge.

2. Is it repeatable/reliable?

If a scientific fact is true, it should remain true regardless of who tests it and when they test it. In contrast, pseudoscientific ideas are often unreliable. Psychic powers seldom work in the presence of skeptics, and they are never producible on demand. Moreover, only some people can use these powers, apparently. In contrast, given appropriate methods and equipment, anybody can verify the speed of light.

3. Is it supported by evidence?

All science is supported by evidence. In contrast, we are usually asked to accept pseudoscience on the basis of somebody's authority. Thus, psuedoscientists will often tell you how long they have spent working on their pet theory. They will tell you that many prominent people reject relativity, so it must be false. They will tell you that so many people have seen UFOs that they must exist, but when you ask them to show you convincing evidence of a UFO they cannot do so.

4. Who has the onus of proof?

In science, the onus of proof regarding a claim is on the claimant. If I say that relativity is wrong, it is up to me to support my arguments. If I claim to have invented a water-driven engine, it is up to me to demonstrate a working model. In contrast, pseudoscientists always say "Prove me wrong." They claim the moon is made of green cheese and expect somebody else to prove it isn't so. Science expects them to produce a sample of moon cheese or other evidence which supports their claim.

5. Is it well delineated?

Most advances in science have implications in a rather narrow field, though there are a few exceptions. In contrast, almost invariably, pseudoscientific theories will claim to revolutionise at least one major field of study, such as cosmology or evolution. Psuedoscientists always attack the most established and high-profile physical theories - relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution. They never attempt to revise one small area, such as providing a new measurement of the half-life of plutonium.

6. Is it open to change?

Scientific ideas are always open to change when new evidence comes along. For example, the big bang theory was shown to have a number of problems as a result of observations by astronomers. The theory was changed to include an inflationary period, and the modified theory solves many of the problems. No scientific theory claims to be the last word on something. Since science is tied to evidence, new evidence always has the potential to change the science.

In contrast, pseudoscientists tend to hold onto their ideas, even after they have been convincingly rebutted by argument or evidence. They also tend to be selective as to what evidence they consider valid; they select what supports their theories and ignore what is inconvenient.

7. Is it, at least in principle, falsifiable?

All good scientific theories are, in principle, falsifiable. When a scientific idea is proposed, the person putting it forward will usually suggest tests and/or observations which could show whether the idea is wrong or right.

Pseudoscientific ideas, on the other hand, are often deliberately constructed so as to be untestable and therefore unfalsifiable.

8. Is it realistic?

Scientists are (usually) prepared to accept what the world throws at them, even if it means throwing out cherished ideas in the face of new evidence. Psuedoscience tends to be full of wishful thinking. Whilst it would be great if we all had psychic powers, scientists won't believe in them without good evidence - but pseudoscientists will.
------

If, after asking these questions, an idea still seems plausible, then chances are that it is scientific. That doesn't mean it is right, of course - that depends on the evidence.

 

Re: ?

MacM:

<i>1 - Why aren't String, TOE, M & P Brane then considered pseudo-science. They are not testable. At least not yet?</i>

Good question. Let's look at my list...

1. Is it testable?

It is my understanding that certain aspects of string theory are testable. String theory also seems to be consistent with existing results. However, there are several different types of string theory, and as yet there is no good way to test which one (if any) is correct. String theorists are, however, working very hard to come up with practical tests for the theory. In the meantime, string theory is speculative and not really a part of accepted science. It sits at the border.

2. Is it repeatable/reliable?

String theory predicts the same results every time you do an experiment, so it is fine on this point.

3. Is it supported by evidence?

This is covered above. Essentially, string theory, where it can be tested, seems to be consistent with what we already know, but we don't know whether it is correct where it goes beyond what we know - yet.

4. Who has the onus of proof?

Definitely, the onus of proof is on the proponents of string theory to prove that it is viable.

5. Is it well delineated?

The things which string theory seeks to explain are very clearly expressed, and the theory also includes limits on what it can explain, how accurate it will be, and so on. Moreover, it is a mathematically precise theory - a desirable trait for all physical theories.

6. Is it open to change?

String theory has gone through many changes since it was first put forward. M-theory is the latest incarnation.

7. Is it, at least in principle, falsifiable?

Yes - or at least it will be as soon as accessible tests are proposed.

8. Is it realistic?

It's really too early to tell.

------
In summary, string theory is a <b>tentative</b> theory at the moment. Nobody is asserting that it must be correct. Scientists are simply exploring the implications and looking for ways of testing it. Their aim is to build a testable body of knowledge open to refutation, so string theory, under the definition given at the top of this thread, is certainly science. We don't yet know if it is also <b>correct</b> science.

<i>2 - We have only been doing the gravity testing since the first week of December and we still have one more series of tests to complete. Once done, I do intend to post the results.</i>

I assume you are talking about your UniKEF theory. Good. I look forward to seeing the results and testing protocols.

<i>But what of the many other aspects of the theory which have not been tested but in consideraton of the many predictions that have been found to exist, seem to be reasonable in light of the gravity findings.

Do they become tenable on this forum or are they pseudo-science. How can a theory be partly science and partly pseudo-science?</i>

It's not the case that something which is untested is not science. Only things which are untest<b>able</b> are not science. If you can suggest appropriate tests, then even if those tests haven't been performed you're still adding to the plausibility of your theory.

<i>Many portions depend upon other aspects of the concept to have any meaning what-so-ever.</i>

There's nothing wrong with that. If I have a theory that matter is made up of little elf-like beings, it doesn't actually matter if we can never see the elves. What matters is that the postulates of the theory ultimately lead to things we <b>can</b> test. If my elf theory passes all tests, then it is scientific.

 

MacM:

<i>Why no development status for other theories. It is either science or pseudo-science?</i>

Theories in development can still be science. In fact, you could say that most scientific theories are in devlopment, at least in the sense that new data could always come along and force them to change (or be proved incorrect).

<i>Why if (and it has) String Theory has been through so many variations would your rules not have placed it into pseudo-science upon the first failure?</i>

String theory hasn't actually failed any tests so far. It seems to fit with other physical theories, and it's predictions (so far as they have been tested) appear to be supported.

 

MacM:

<i>1 - What tests has [string theory] passed other than mathematical extrapolations?</i>

String theory isn't really my area of expertise, so I can't really answer your question. I'm not up to date with the latest results.

<i>2 - UniKEF hasn't been tested so it hasn't failed any tests...</i>

Fair enough. What testable predictions does it make which differentiate it from other theories?

<i>3 - UniKEF gravity tests will be bonifide science and testable by others to verify or refute. Does UniKEF then become science?</i>

Absolutely. Of course the tests will determine whether it is good science or bad science.

<i>4 - UniKEF finds that it does require infinite energy to accelerate a mass to v = c, but only if there is energy transfer via relavistic velocity. In that light the mathematical extrapolation that v = c is no longer a limit.</i>

I don't understand.

<i>5 - LR has no v = c limit. So UniKEF fits accepted science.</i>

What's LR?

<i>I do not claim for a second that UniKEF compares with these other theories. I am just trying to show that your rules are not uniform in their application. In comparison at a most basic level, it has (soon to be released) testing support, it fits other existing theories currently in science, etc.</i>

Fair enough. If you can show that these things are true then I'm quite happy to keep UniKEF on this forum.

<i>I am trying to determine the demarcation lines for science vs pseudo-science and what I see is a moving target.</i>

It is only a moving target in that each idea must be judged on its merits (or lack thereof). The principles are consistent.

<i>Some theories are OK even if not tested or completely tested.</i>

Yes. The important thing is that they are test<i>able</i>, not that they are test<i>ed</i>.

<i>They are still "On the Fence" even after numerous revisions because of prior short comings but on this forum it seems one strike and you are out.</i>

Not true.

 

MacM:

This thread is probably not the most appropriate place to discuss the details of your UniKEF theory, so I won't respond in detail to your comments on it here. If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to start a separate thread on it.

 

MacM:

If the Alternative theories section of Physicsforums seems like the place for you, go there by all means.