How to Spot Pseudoscience
There are some misconceptions about what pseudoscience is. Before getting into its red flags, I will clarify what it is (and what it is not).
Pseudoscience Definition
Pseudoscience is a system of explanations, methods, and assumptions that may look scientific, but does not follow the scientific method. Another term for pseudoscience is false science.
Pseudoscience is not the same as bad science.
Bad science is a faulty version of good science. It follows the scientific method, but it makes mistakes. For example, in bad science, there may be methodological errors in the experiment or bias in the study design or interpretation of results.
(Study replication is very important for identifying these types of mistakes.) Since bad science is a flawed version of good science, it is not completely off-track. With some improvements, such as better experimental design, bad science has the potential to become good science.
Pseudoscience, on the other hand, can never become good science because it is not science at all. Science requires testable hypotheses, rigorous experimentation, and conclusions that can change in the face of new data. Pseudoscience does not share these characteristics.
Pseudoscience Examples
Some ideas “supported” by pseudoscience are:
- Homeopathy
- Flat earth
- Phrenology
- Astrology
- Animal magnetism
Pseudoscience Red Flags
Here is a non-comprehensive list of some pseudoscience red flags to look out for. These are signs that you should approach that idea or practice with skeptical caution.
| Red Flag | Explanation | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Making unfalsifiable claims | These are claims that can’t be proven wrong. | There are undetectable spirits among us that cause sickness. |
| Reversing the burden of proof | You commit this fallacy when you assume that your claim is true just because it hasn’t been proven wrong. | No one has shown that aliens didn’t visit ancient Egypt, so they did. |
| Explaining away negative findings | When the claims can be and are disproven, excuses are made. “Special pleading” is a logical fallacy in which you make up an exception when your claim is shown to be false. | My psychic reading didn’t work this time because you didn’t believe it would. |
| Failing to use Occam’s razor | Occam’s razor is the principle that requires the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is usually correct | Lunar eclipses are caused by an invisible shadow object that can only be detected when it casts shadows on the moon. |
| Putting too much weight on anecdotal evidence | Personal experiences are useful when making decisions that affect you personally (like which foods make you feel unwell), but that doesn’t mean others will be affected in the same way. Repeated anecdotes are useful for generating testable hypotheses, but they are not proof of anything. | My friend felt better after energy healing, so it must work! |
| Cherry picking data | This is when you focus on data that confirms the claims while ignoring or minimizing data that refutes it. | A study showed water memory is real! (A controversial study published in Nature in the 80s did report these results. It has never been successfully replicated under controlled conditions.) |
| Using science jargon | Obscure, scientific-sounding terminology can be used in a meaningless way to confuse people who do not have a science background into thinking something legitimate is being said. | Current treatment revert to biochemistry instead of relying on innate neurological defenses. |
| Speaking with too much certainty | Science is open to self-correction, so scientists rarely speak in certain terms. | Our health powder has been proven to boost brain function. |
| Being unchanging | If an idea doesn’t change for a long time, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong. But if an idea doesn’t change to reflect new data, that is a major red flag. | Despite being contradicted by physics and chemistry, homeopathy has been using the same strategy for centuries. |
See more at Critikid
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Howdy
| #
“Science requires testable hypotheses, rigorous experimentation, and conclusions that can change in the face of new data”
Nonsense, conclusions are not science. If those conclusions can change in the face of new data, then the original data claimed as science was either incorrect, or a lie, anything else is fantasy. Under such rules, truth can never be known, which is exactly what I’ve been saying since I came to PSI.
The Pseudoscience Red Flags list is equally applicable to current science. There is no shortage of fantasy in the current science world, and one would be wise to know about the truth of the subjects claimed to be Pseudoscience before condemning them.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
I agree with Howdy’s view.
The article describes a way to make people scientists without knowledge and expertise in science. Nowadays, some journalists and doctors consider this so-called Scientific Method approach to criticize actual and genuine science (physics, chemistry and/or mathematics).
One more thing: from the list of “Pseudoscience Examples,” medical/health science is missing. It is important to note that medical/health science is promoted and managed by doctors, mainly with an M.D. degree. However, an M.D. degree is a typical non-science undergraduate degree. Use caution when following such “science.”
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed and Howdy,,
I have been comparing the words: Hypothesis and Prediction. If I ask, are the two words interchangeable? When the topic is SCIENCE; what would either of your answers be?
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
No, they are not interchangeable Jerry.
A hypothesis is a guess, or estimation, while prediction is knowing much more, though scientists commonly try to predict the future of something when the outcome is unknowable, thus they guess.
Prediction requires faith, even while not understanding the process in action, unless prior factual knowledge of what the outcome will be is available – which is then no longer a prediction, it’s a known fact.
I can hypothesize the actual fusing current of a single strand of 0.2mm wire, but the value is uncertain, and may even vary from strand to strand, yet I can predict with absolute certainty that if I ask any sample of that wire to carry 50 amps, it will fail immediately, because I allready know it will do so, as a fact.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Hi Jerry:
One forecasts/predicts tomorrow’s weather, not hypotheses. Does it answer your query?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
Yes! Your short and simple illustration makes everything clear for me and hopefully other PSI Readers. The forecast is based on a model the forecaster choose to use. This model is a hypothesis. But they make a prediction and they have to wait to see if the prediction was right or wrong. In the case of weather predictions are always have multiple factors to predict.
Their prediction isn’t as simple and clear as the case that the earth standstills or it rotates about about its axis as it revolves about the sun. Or, that the speed at a falling body is proportional to its mass or not proportional to its mass.
However, when I point to the observed fact that birds must incubate their eggs to reproduce themselves; can you explain why no one seems to agree that this proves Darwin’s theory that the evolution of life took billions of years is absolutely wrong?
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
“The forecast is based on a model the forecaster choose to use. This model is a hypothesis. But they make a prediction and they have to wait to see if the prediction was right or wrong.”
Your thinking is in conflict Jerry. To wait and see if a prediction materializes is pure hope. A prediction is meant to have at least some truth behind it or it is no better than a guess, otherwise known as hypothesis.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
I have proved to myself time after time: “The most obvious is the most difficult to see>”. Do you believe that Darwin never saw that birds had to incubate their eggs to reproduce? Did you read The forecast is based on a model the forecaster choose to use. Do you not know some people based their model upon previous observations and reasoning about the physical observation which were the basis of the final model the cmmc;iided. The forecasters have experience with the various models which now exist and know there might be a ,model which predicts different weather than another..
E = m c^2 was no guess but it certainly was a prediction which had to wait for a nuclear fission bomb to be designed and tested. And I read that Albert Einstein stated”. “No amount of experiment can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify your comment.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Darwin and Einstein again?
How have you clarified nothing Jerry.
A forecast is simply a claim. Models are irrelevant, and the claim you stated they are not all in correlation agrees with that irrelevancy. Picking the one that seems closest is ridiculous.
“E = m c^2 was no guess but it certainly was a prediction which had to wait for a nuclear fission bomb to be designed and tested.”
I think you will find that making claims without evidence is not scientific. That it took years to ‘prove’ makes it a happenstance. Indeed it is called “special THEORY of relativity”. It is not a prediction, but a claim that is currently challenged, and also whether Einstein created it.
I can claim many things, and it may come to pass that at least one of those claims is substantiated. I predicted nothing, but chance, or luck was in my favour, nothing more.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Howdy,
You need to learn the futility of trying to teach Jerry anything. He always reverts back to favorite sayings, even when they’ve been shown to be false.
A fission bomb has nothing to do with E=mc^2, it is a result of a chain reaction from the decay of U235. U235 emits 3 neutrons when it decays so in highly enriched uranium more than 1 neutron will strike the nucleus of another U235 atom causing it to decay. This causes an increase in the reaction.
Thorium decay produces 2 neutrons so even when purified it will not explode.
The fuel of a nuclear power plant consists of mostly U238 with little U235 so the neutrons emitted can never cause it to. explode, only melt down.
A definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. So much for correcting Jerry.
Herb
Reply
Howdy
| #
I realise the outward futility, Herb, but I try anyway. I don’t see it as insanity, and people do sometimes have revelations, or epiphanies that give them a new outlook.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
Herb wrote “A fission bomb has nothing to do with E=mc^2”. Do you agree with Herb’s statement?
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
It is not a prediction, but a claim that is currently challenged, and also whether Einstein created it.
Herb Rose
| #
A hydrogen atom has a nucleus of one proton and needs no energy to stabilize it. A helium nucleus contains 2 protons and needs X energy to stabilize it due to the repelling force between the protons. A lithium nucleus has three protons so it requires 3X energy to overcome the repelling force of the 3 protons.
If you were to split the lithium atom into a helium and hydrogen atom you would only need X energy to stabilize the nuclei releasing 2X energy. This is a fission bomb. Since E=mc^2 is wrong, a so called hydrogen fusion bomb does not exist and the greater energy released by these bombs is due to the splitting nuclei into smaller elements releasing more energy. If lithium were to split into 3 hydrogen atoms it would release 3X energy.
Crackpot
| #
Here’s the only red flag you need:
“If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Richard Feynman
Reply
Theophrastus
| #
Occam’s Razor is not “the principle that requires the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is usually correct.”
This is the bog-standard misinterpretation, and quite popular, but it is not correct.
Instead, Occam’s Razor is a principle for investigation: it says that, when forming hypotheses, or selecting which hypothesis to test by experiment, one should begin with the simplest hypothesis —that is, the one which most simply explains the observed phenomena— and test it. If it does not pass the test, then one proceeds to examine a more complicated one; otherwise, the hypothesis is accepted, at least initially, and one proceeds to use it with caution, until many further experiments are done.
It is not true that the simplest hypothesis is usually correct; it may be this way, but it also might not. One should simply examine the possibilities, starting with the simplest. That’s it.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Pseudoscience is beliefs that don’t conform to reality.
Today it is better known as physics. To get a Phd in physics one must spend years training themselves to believe in nonsense. The whole effort of today’s physics is to create imaginary particles and theories that will make reality conform to their beliefs.
It all began when the mass and energy resulting from radioactive decay did not match the prediction by the infallible guru Einstein’s E=mc^2. Rather than abandon their religion they invented the neutrino to make the results match the reality. They have continued to expand their fantasy as new discoveries have been made to avoid admitting how stupid they were to accept the nonsense of light being both a particle and a wave (depending on what was needed) and that the speed of light could ever be constant (energy decreases with distance).
A Phd in physics is proof of idiocy.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI readers, Herb, and Howdy.,
I draw attention here to Paul Homewood’s article today, which is titled “The Not-So’-Record Breaking “Superstorm” beryl” I do so because others and I advise readers to consider the SOURSE. Paul is a retired accountant and accountants deal with numbers. Therefore, he is very qualified and experienced to write the article that you all can read and BELIEVE.
I call attention to Paul’s article here to ask Howdy and Herb what experience do either of you have to make the comments that you both make here at PSI?
However, a problem with Paul”s article is I doubt if he reads the PSI comments made here. Therefore, for PSI Readers I will go to his article and ask questions about what I see in his figures.
Have a good day.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Because somebody has a job description does not make them believable Jerry. Same as somebody being a mechanic does not imply they have the required knowledge to repair a vehicle safely.
Were I interested in said accountant, I could research him, but why would I bother?
What experience I have depends on the subject.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy
You wrote: “What experience I have depends on the subject.” What is your experience in PHYSICAL SCIENCE?
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
Something you don’t understand, electronic based, vehicles, stuff like that.
Don’t start on the ‘real scientist’ bull either, it isn’t becoming.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Ponder this Jerry:
https://www.southfloridaastrologer.com/masculine–feminine-signs-are-you-more-masculine-or-feminine.html
Reply
Geraint
| #
You missed out Radiation Greenhouse Effect, on your list of pseudoscience’s. Everyone knows RGHE is a lie, even climate alarmists admit this and pretend to use the false example of radiation being the cause of warming greenhouses to “explain climate crisis” when they are doing no such thing, they are just lying.
Reply