science

pseudoscience

comment

The primary goal of science is to achieve a more complete and more unified understanding of the physical world.

Pseudosciences are more likely to be driven by ideological, cultural, or commercial goals.

Some examples: astrology (from ancient Babylonian culture,) UFO-ology (popular culture and mistrust of government), Creation Science (attempt to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible), "structure-altered" waters (commercial quackery.)

Most scientific fields are the subjects of intense research which result in the continual expansion of knowledge in the discipline.

The field has evolved very little since it was first established. The small amount of research and experimentation that is carried out is generally done more to justify the belief than to extend it.

The search for new knowledge is the driving force behind the evolution of any scientific field. Nearly every new finding raises new questions that beg exploration. There is little evidence of this in the pseudosciences.

Workers in the field commonly seek out counterexamples or findings that appear to be inconsistent with accepted theories.

In the pseudosciences, a challenge to accepted dogma is often considered a hostile act if not heresy, and leads to bitter disputes or even schisms.

Sciences advance by accommodating themselves to change as new information is obtained.

In science, the person who shows that a generally accepted belief is wrong or incomplete is more likely to be considered a hero than a heretic.

Observations or data that are not consistent with current scientific understanding, once shown to be credible, generate intense interest among scientists and stimulate additional studies.

Observations or data that are not consistent with established beliefs tend to be ignored or actively suppressed.

Have you noticed how self-styled psychics always seem eager to announce their predictions for the new year, but never like to talk about how many of last years' predictions were correct?

Science is a process in which each principle must be tested in the crucible of experience and remains subject to being questioned or rejected at any time.

The major tenets and principles of the field are often not falsifiable, and are unlikely ever to be altered or shown to be wrong.

Enthusiasts incorrectly take the logical impossibility of disproving a pseudoscientific priniciple as evidence of its validity.

Scientific ideas and concepts must stand or fall on their own merits, based on existing knowledge and on evidence.

Pseudoscientific concepts tend to be shaped by individual egos and personalities, almost always by individuals who are not in contact with mainstream science. They often invoke authority (a famous name, for example) for support.

Have you ever noticed how proponents of pseudoscientific ideas are more likely to list all of the degrees they have?

Scientific explanations must be stated in clear, unambigous terms.

Pseudoscientific explanations tend to be vague and ambiguous, often invoking scientific terms in dubious contexts.

Phrases such as "energy vibrations" or "subtle energy fields" may sound impressive, but they are essentially meaningless.