Sciencey pseudoscience examples needed

[idoubtit]

Hi everyone - I'm eliciting the help from the JREF masters for a project. I would like to do a paper for a grad class on History and Philosophy of science related to how pseudoscience proponents (esp. promoters) have a love-hate relationship with science. I noticed the following:

* Astrologers love to cite how much their "science" is related to astronomy.
* Creationists like to show off some PhDs in their midst.
* Alternative med proponents like to cite NIH studies or "clinical trials" as supporting evidence.
* Cryptozoologists say they are scientific when all ever consider is anecdotal evidence and lab analysis of degraded organic samples.
* Ghost hunters love their "sciencey" gadgets.


Can you think of any more examples I can use? AND, how about some references that relate particularly to this. I have lots of standard skeptical books - anything pinpoint this in particular that you can recall?

Disclosure: this is cross-posted on SGU

[paximperium]

Quantum theory is used to explain any hokum and new age belief in the pantheon of woo.

[athon]

Hi everyone - I'm eliciting the help from the JREF masters for a project. I would like to do a paper for a grad class on History and Philosophy of science related to how pseudoscience proponents (esp. promoters) have a love-hate relationship with science. I noticed the following:

* Astrologers love to cite how much their "science" is related to astronomy.
* Creationists like to show off some PhDs in their midst.
* Alternative med proponents like to cite NIH studies or "clinical trials" as supporting evidence.
* Cryptozoologists say they are scientific when all ever consider is anecdotal evidence and lab analysis of degraded organic samples.
* Ghost hunters love their "sciencey" gadgets.


Can you think of any more examples I can use? AND, how about some references that relate particularly to this. I have lots of standard skeptical books - anything pinpoint this in particular that you can recall?

Disclosure: this is cross-posted on SGU

From a HPS point of view, I'm questioning what you mean precisely by a 'love hate relationship' with science, and how it is correlated with pseudoscience.

First of all, you'd need to define pseudoscience, which is not as easy it first appears. I'd recommend not defining it by the field of study - it can lead to all sorts of problems. Perhaps use Lakatos's 'dishonest science' definition, but even that might not serve what you're after.

A fantastic book to get which might help you hone your theme would be Walter Gratzer's 'The Undergrowth of Science'. It does a great job of describing certain 'revolutionary' ideas that persisted in history in spite of not being supported by the evidence.

Athon

[politas]

Quantum theory is used to explain any hokum and new age belief in the pantheon of woo.

Or, to be more precise, a few tiny parts of quantum theory are misused completely out of context to gloss over the shortcomings of woo philosophy.

[idoubtit]

From a HPS point of view, I'm questioning what you mean precisely by a 'love hate relationship' with science, and how it is correlated with pseudoscience.

First of all, you'd need to define pseudoscience, which is not as easy it first appears. I'd recommend not defining it by the field of study - it can lead to all sorts of problems. Perhaps use Lakatos's 'dishonest science' definition, but even that might not serve what you're after.

A fantastic book to get which might help you hone your theme would be Walter Gratzer's 'The Undergrowth of Science'. It does a great job of describing certain 'revolutionary' ideas that persisted in history in spite of not being supported by the evidence.

Athon

I have that book. It's not really what I mean. From my examples, I mean how certain pseudoscience proponents want so badly to be accepted by the scientific community due to the credibility it delivers. But, because they can never meet the high standards, they never are able to enter that realm and so they may use the sciencey language, and talk the talk but are quick to say scientists are overly skeptical and unfair about considering their "evidence". So, essentially, I'm looking for the examples that fool the average folk but NEVER had status in modern science. They are on the outside always looking in.

[athon]

I have that book. It's not really what I mean. From my examples, I mean how certain pseudoscience proponents want so badly to be accepted by the scientific community due to the credibility it delivers. But, because they can never meet the high standards, they never are able to enter that realm and so they may use the sciencey language, and talk the talk but are quick to say scientists are overly skeptical and unfair about considering their "evidence". So, essentially, I'm looking for the examples that fool the average folk but NEVER had status in modern science. They are on the outside always looking in.

Again, I'd be careful in which case about how you define pseudoscience, if you're using it as a category. On the other hand, if you're only taking select examples of individuals who advocate a field commonly denounced as a pseudoscience, then you might need to make a case arguing that it is a representative sample.

I'm simply not sure, from my own research into HPS, that your premise is sound. As a concept, pseudoscience is a fascinating but extremely complicated field. It's easy to ridicule proponents as wanna-be scientists, or failed scientists who still seek some form of glory. Undoubtedly they exist, however you'd risk oversimplifying the matter if you were to suggest in any way that it might represent a fundamental cause behind why what we label as pseudoscience persists.

Athon

(BTW, two other books you might find interesting would be Gerald Holton's 'Science and Anti-science', which explores more-or-less Ernst Mach's influence on the Viennese circle and its influence on the modern progress of science, and P.J.Rigg's 'Whys and Ways of Science', which I've found invaluable as an introduction to a sound range of modern science philosophies)

[minorwork]

Hi everyone - I'm eliciting the help from the JREF masters for a project. I would like to do a paper for a grad class on History and Philosophy of science related to how pseudoscience proponents (esp. promoters) have a love-hate relationship with science. I noticed the following:

* Astrologers love to cite how much their "science" is related to astronomy.
* Creationists like to show off some PhDs in their midst.
* Alternative med proponents like to cite NIH studies or "clinical trials" as supporting evidence.
* Cryptozoologists say they are scientific when all ever consider is anecdotal evidence and lab analysis of degraded organic samples.
* Ghost hunters love their "sciencey" gadgets.


Can you think of any more examples I can use? AND, how about some references that relate particularly to this. I have lots of standard skeptical books - anything pinpoint this in particular that you can recall?

Disclosure: this is cross-posted on SGU


I've defended the Electric Universe crowd at the local skeptics meetings. You can't pick a position apart unless you can be a worthy advocate for what is being said. Electricians and engineers seem attracted to it.

[Ersby]

Some parapsychologists use meta-analyses and statistics in the same way that five-year-olds run with scissors.

[Professor Yaffle]

I think homeopathy is a great example of this. Look up Lionel Milgrom's quantum entaglement theory of why homeopathy doesn't perform in clinical trials and the whole memory of water nonsense.

http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/homeopathy-and-the-memory-of-water-milgrom-and-the-philosophy-of-science/

http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/the-memory-of-water-replies-and-answers/

http://shpalman.livejournal.com/tag/lionel+milgrom

[Akhenaten]

Does pseudoarchæology count? Here's my pet hate:


Humans couldn't possibly have built the Pyramids of Egypt. (http://www.netscientia.com/egypt.html)

[blutoski]

I think homeopathy is a great example of this. Look up Lionel Milgrom's quantum entaglement theory of why homeopathy doesn't perform in clinical trials and the whole memory of water nonsense.

http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/homeopathy-and-the-memory-of-water-milgrom-and-the-philosophy-of-science/

http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/the-memory-of-water-replies-and-answers/

http://shpalman.livejournal.com/tag/lionel+milgrom

Healthfraud in general. Just put on a white coat and a steth to establish the false impression that the product is just another type of medicine.

[EHocking]

Crop Circle proponents are a veritable bottomles pit of pseudoscientific woodom.

[idoubtit]

Healthfraud in general. Just put on a white coat and a steth to establish the false impression that the product is just another type of medicine.

That's a good point. They love their "clinical trials" but are they ever published? (or even publishable) The common factor seems to be some sort of special pleading - our "science" isn't the same because... (insert unobservable entity or conspiracy here).

[blutoski]

That's a good point. They love their "clinical trials" but are they ever published? (or even publishable) The common factor seems to be some sort of special pleading - our "science" isn't the same because... (insert unobservable entity or conspiracy here).

The lab coat or stuff like uncontrolled or unrandomized clinical trials are pretty good examples of cargo cult science.

On top of that, there's simply misrepresenting the findings of a legitemate study.

There's a healthfraud version of the Gish Gallop, where the claim appears to be supported by overwhelming evidence - just look at all those references and citations.

But a sampling of the citations shows that the papers do not support the claims, and in some cases actually show that the claims are unjustified. It's rarely clear whether the claimant misunderstands the research cited, or knows perfectly well that it's a non sequitur but hopes nobody will call him on it.

[cj.23]

Hi everyone - I'm eliciting the help from the JREF masters for a project. I would like to do a paper for a grad class on History and Philosophy of science related to how pseudoscience proponents (esp. promoters) have a love-hate relationship with science. I noticed the following:

All good stuff. But warning... you are doing an essay on Philosophy of Science yes? You need to be aware that while we all think we know what Science is, and what Pseudoscience is, it is NOT that simple.

Look at

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/

According to almost every academic who has taken this problem on, it is is pretty much impossible to come up with a definition of science that excludes pseudoscience, and vice versa. The above article is not easy going, but if you want to pass read it, or google "the demarcation problem" / "demarcation debate". You will thank me, and will pass the paper. :)

have fun!
cj x

[athon]

All good stuff. But warning... you are doing an essay on Philosophy of Science yes? You need to be aware that while we all think we know what Science is, and what Pseudoscience is, it is NOT that simple.

Look at

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/

According to almost every academic who has taken this problem on, it is is pretty much impossible to come up with a definition of science that excludes pseudoscience, and vice versa. The above article is not easy going, but if you want to pass read it, or google "the demarcation problem" / "demarcation debate". You will thank me, and will pass the paper. :)

have fun!
cj x

Seriously, take this advice. The demarcation problem - if you haven't come across it in HPS already (it would shock me if you hadn't) - is vital knowledge for anybody studying the nature of pseudoscience.

Athon

[Roma]

Here take this guy, he thinks he is a real scientist with paranormal powers. :boggled:

C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Documents\colin ross eye power.mht

C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Documents\Dallas Psychiatrist's Paranormal Abilities to Be Tested by Noted Debunker James Randi - MarketWatch.mht

C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Documents\Colin A_ Ross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.mht

[minorwork]

Do you suppose the Intelligence Definers (Intelligent Design crowd) have got onto the demarcation problem?

I've a BA in philosophy and spent 31 years mining coal and can now pursue my philosophy hobby. The professor at the Teaching Company who gives the 36 half hour lectures on the topic: Philosophy of Science starts with the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from pseudo-science. I'm at lecture 12 and think I just might go to the end to see his conclusions.

Right off the bat, Jeffrey L. Kasser gave me something that my classes that ended in 1974 did not, namely, an adequate answer to the question that every philosopher dreaded. What is philosophy? His definition was told to him by his mentor.
Philosophy is asking questions natural to a child in a manner natural to a lawyer. Sure some might quibble. I always did wonder what Daniel Dennett was talking about when he says that in his classes they do philosophy. Now I've an inkling of what he meant.

idoubtit, the issue is still active in my mind and the issues are not trivial. Given that you can express them well in a paper I think you will do well.

A controversial subject might be "Is the Placebo Effect Pseudoscience?" If I could post a link it would be to #1) Placebo Effect: A Cure in the Mind: Scientific American. Google "scientific american placebo" and it's first, at least when I did it. It is recent. February 2009

There is more including the anti-placebo effect and sham surgeries and such. A lot more study is needed and is being evaluated.

[cj.23]

Hi minorwork,

Be great to hear something one day about your coal mining experiences. The mining community where I live in Britain still exists, but at a fraction of the size it was thirty years ago. Cheaper coal sources made pits unproductive: tragically many if kept open would be profitable again today.

And I really like "Philosophy is asking questions natural to a child in a manner natural to a lawyer." Who wa sthe chaps who said that?

cj x

[Soapy Sam]

You mean charging £1 a minute + VAT?

[quixotecoyote]

Here take this guy, he thinks he is a real scientist with paranormal powers. :boggled:

C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Documents\colin ross eye power.mht

C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Documents\Dallas Psychiatrist's Paranormal Abilities to Be Tested by Noted Debunker James Randi - MarketWatch.mht

C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Documents\Colin A_ Ross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.mht

You're going to have to give us access to your hard drive to look at those.
no, don't actually do that.

[minorwork]

Hi minorwork,

Be great to hear something one day about your coal mining experiences. The mining community where I live in Britain still exists, but at a fraction of the size it was thirty years ago. Cheaper coal sources made pits unproductive: tragically many if kept open would be profitable again today. You mean like the day the general mine manager came into the unit where I was sitting at the picnic table? (I was the repairman which meant that if I was sitting the crew was making coal.) He asked where the boss was. I knew the boss had been irritating the men and I was trying to stay out of it. I told the General Mine Manager (GMM, he was in charge of coordinating all three shifts to work toward a common goal and so had the "big nuts") that he was up at the face. "Let's go find him," he said. Man, I didn't like the sound of that. We walked 2 crosscuts and looking left there was the face boss. Mouth taped over, arms taped up, legs taped up and hanging upside down from a roof bolt, struggling and grunting the whole time. In all fairness, he wasn't a big man. The GMM was furious. "Cut him down!" he ordered me and took off toward the face where the men were cutting coal like they was supposed to be doin'.

Well, when I cut him down he was mad, too. Go figure. The guys got their wrists slapped by the GMM and a month later that boss was replaced.

And I really like "Philosophy is asking questions natural to a child in a manner natural to a lawyer." Who wa sthe chaps who said that?

I'll give the direct quote and not filtered thru my depraved mind, thanks for making me do this by the way. Jeffrey Kasser is the professor of the Teaching Company course: Philosophy of Science. http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=4100
Eight minutes and thirty seconds into the first lecture comes the quote that he got from a teacher of his, David Hills.
Philosophy is the art of asking questions that come naturally to children using methods that come naturally to lawyers. Or you can read it for yourself. I've found this outline. The quote comes from the Outline on page 6, III., C. http://fliiby.com/file/36733/zkg23y6uu3.html

And if you want to listen to a six minute talk by Kasser on the demarcation problem, go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj3pty18tMk

[minorwork]

You're going to have to give us access to your hard drive to look at those.
no, don't actually do that. I googled those and got for the first: http://www.mail-archive.com/tips@acsun.frostburg.edu/msg26364.html

second: http://www.technoccult.com/archives/2008/07/31/dallas-psychiatrists-paranormal-abilities-to-be-tested-by-noted-debunker-james-randi/

third: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_A._Ross

[athon]

Do you suppose the Intelligence Definers (Intelligent Design crowd) have got onto the demarcation problem?

I think that's where they hide. If you can play with the words in the right way, you can certainly create small gaps where you can suggest your work is scientific. Mind you, the gaps only remain open under the support of generous measures of logical fallacies.

A controversial subject might be "Is the Placebo Effect Pseudoscience?" If I could post a link it would be to #1) Placebo Effect: A Cure in the Mind: Scientific American. Google "scientific american placebo" and it's first, at least when I did it. It is recent. February 2009

There is more including the anti-placebo effect and sham surgeries and such. A lot more study is needed and is being evaluated.

I wouldn't go so far to say that the placebo effect itself is pseudoscience. It's an observation rather than a field of practice or a claim. I would, however, say that the placebo effect is consistently misused and misunderstood in fields commonly described as pseudoscientific.

Athon

[minorwork]

I think that's where they hide. If you can play with the words in the right way, you can certainly create small gaps where you can suggest your work is scientific. Mind you, the gaps only remain open under the support of generous measures of logical fallacies. Yes. I think creationists' chasms are harder to jump across than the cracks of the basis of science.

I wouldn't go so far to say that the placebo effect itself is pseudoscience. It's an observation rather than a field of practice or a claim. I would, however, say that the placebo effect is consistently misused and misunderstood in fields commonly described as pseudoscientific.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=placebo-effect-a-cure-in-the-mind

That is what I'm trying to figure out. Is it a placebo if the effect is not dependent on the patient's or the doctor's belief as the Scientific American article concluded? The technique seems to cross a threshold that moves it to an equivalent process as gravity or evolution, where the phenomena is observable and can be used in prediction yet is not explainable as to the mechanism whereby it works.

I really hesitate to call it VooDoo. Placebo does not quite get it either. Maybe flucamization. Hypnosis? This is way more complex than a sugar pill ought to be.

[athon]

That is what I'm trying to figure out. Is it a placebo if the effect is not dependent on the patient's or the doctor's belief as the Scientific American article concluded?

Well, I question whether the effect is dependent on the administrator's belief. I always understood it was purely whether the patient saw merit in the actions of treatment as to whether the treatment provided benefit.

A good place to start is the work of Arthur and Elaine Shapiro. They've done a heap of fantastic research into the history, social impact and implications of the placebo effect.

The technique seems to cross a threshold that moves it to an equivalent process as gravity or evolution, where the phenomena is observable and can be used in prediction yet is not explainable as to the mechanism whereby it works.

There is still plenty of discussion on precisely how placebo effects work, whether it is only a selective bias (those things that placebo effects work well against tend to vary in their intensity naturally, allowing for a heap of interpretive bias), an action of stress reduction (less stress might allow the body to cope with healing over flight-or-fight responses) or a link between pain/distress and the perception of remedy. All three have something going for them.

One thing that many people misunderstand is that placebo effects have a direct influence over conditions that have no major neurological or psychological components, such as trauma injuries or cancer. In other words, a placebo might make you feel better, but there is little evidence that your placebos are a viable way of healing a burn or defeating leukaemia.

I really hesitate to call it VooDoo. Placebo does not quite get it either. Maybe flucamization. Hypnosis? This is way more complex than a sugar pill ought to be.

Placebo effects are free treatments - they require nothing more than the patient's belief in being treated. As such, there is great merit in it...only if it is understood as such. Even discussing how rest and keeping up fluids with a kind, understanding doctor has a placebo effect. It's when lies are introduced and a patient is denied the right to make an informed decision that ethics, IMO, are compromised.

Athon

[idoubtit]

All good stuff. But warning... you are doing an essay on Philosophy of Science yes? You need to be aware that while we all think we know what Science is, and what Pseudoscience is, it is NOT that simple.

Look at

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/

According to almost every academic who has taken this problem on, it is is pretty much impossible to come up with a definition of science that excludes pseudoscience, and vice versa. The above article is not easy going, but if you want to pass read it, or google "the demarcation problem" / "demarcation debate". You will thank me, and will pass the paper. :)

have fun!
cj x

Well, thanks. I think.:sour:

The point of the paper is not to demarcate science from pseudoscience. I plan on stating specific examples of when obvious non-science wants desperately to be accepted by the scientific community but is scorned (for various reasons such as not playing by the established rules). So, they will badmouth and discredit "science" as close-minded. It does play close to the edge of deciding when is science progressive and when is it conservative.

I don't particularly need to know what I have to do to pass. I'd prefer some book references. (I've been to the encyclopedia of philosophy site already for other topics.) The professor previously agreed with my suggestion of the topic and encouraged me to pursue it, which began in a discussion of astrology - as a pseudoscience. I characterized it more as a religion myself.

[idoubtit]

Crop Circle proponents are a veritable bottomles pit of pseudoscientific woodom.

You mean "cerealogists"?:p

How about ufologists, cryptozoologists, gimme some more.... The fact that they enjoy adding -ology to the topic strongly suggests that they want to be part of that community and to be taken seriously.

[athon]

Ok, I'm confused.

You first state;

The point of the paper is not to demarcate science from pseudoscience.

And then you say,

I plan on stating specific examples of when obvious non-science wants desperately to be accepted by the scientific community but is scorned (for various reasons such as not playing by the established rules).

I can sympathise with your position, but if you're studying HPS you need to do a lot better than this.

How do you state what 'obvious non-science' is without demarcating science from pseudoscience? How do you define the boundaries of the scientific community? How do you determine what the established rules are? None of these things are as plain or obvious as you make out; even just dipping your toes into HPS shows just how complex the study is.

I don't particularly need to know what I have to do to pass.

Without knowing the criteria, nobody can tell you. But cj's advice is pretty sound. He and I disagree on a lot, however I can say his knowledge of core science philosophy and science history is well worth paying attention to.

I'd prefer some book references. (I've been to the encyclopedia of philosophy site already for other topics.) The professor previously agreed with my suggestion of the topic and encouraged me to pursue it, which began in a discussion of astrology - as a pseudoscience. I characterized it more as a religion myself.

Nobody's saying pseudoscience isn't a good topic for research. It's my personal field, after all, and I've delivered a number of talks on it here in Australia myself. We are saying it's a tricky field that is often done poor justice as people start with claims such as 'obvious non-science' and refer to 'the scientific community', both of which beg the question in the first place.

Athon

[minorwork]

Well, I question whether the effect is dependent on the administrator's belief. I always understood it was purely whether the patient saw merit in the actions of treatment as to whether the treatment provided benefit. The second page of the article discussed how the placebo was used on rats to attenuate their immune system that worked to a degree instead of cyclosporine A when they'd had a transplanted heart. What kind of a relationship did those administrators have with their patients?

A good place to start is the work of Arthur and Elaine Shapiro. They've done a heap of fantastic research into the history, social impact and implications of the placebo effect. The scam value is great, no doubt.

There is still plenty of discussion on precisely how placebo effects work, whether it is only a selective bias (those things that placebo effects work well against tend to vary in their intensity naturally, allowing for a heap of interpretive bias), an action of stress reduction (less stress might allow the body to cope with healing over flight-or-fight responses) or a link between pain/distress and the perception of remedy. All three have something going for them. Seems to be quite a bit more than discussion according to the article. The work seems to be focused on conditioned placebos. Here:
Immune conditioning with cyclosporine works in humans as well. In 2002 Schedlowski, psychologist Marion U. Goebel of the University of Duisburg-Essen and their colleagues reported giving 18 healthy men a cyclosporine A capsule four times over three days, along with a greenish strawberry milk shake that smelled of lavender. Not surprisingly, their immune systems showed signs of reduced function. Five days later, when the subjects took just a dummy capsule (but no active drug) with the strange drink, the beverage similarly weakened their immune system, though somewhat less than cyclosporine had. In contrast, no such effect was seen in 16 men who received a dummy pill throughout the experiment. “This study demonstrates for the first time in humans in a double-blind, placebo-controlled design that behavioral conditioning is able to mimic the immunological effects of an immunosuppressive drug,” the authors wrote.
One thing that many people misunderstand is that placebo effects have a direct influence over conditions that have no major neurological or psychological components, such as trauma injuries or cancer. In other words, a placebo might make you feel better, but there is little evidence that your placebos are a viable way of healing a burn or defeating leukaemia. How about emulating by conditioning the effect that cyclosporine has on the immune system for transplant patients? I'd like to see the papered write ups of the studies in the article. Looks to me like they are leaning away from expectation as the primary mechanism for the placebo effect and more toward the conditioning effects. Creating the lesions in particular parts of the rat's brains at certain stages of the conditioning gave indications for this. Expectations were a more significant factor when the effects could be felt by the human patients, i.e. pain.

Endogenous opioid release or inhibition seemed to be what the expectations were controlling.

Placebo effects are free treatments - they require nothing more than the patient's belief in being treated. As such, there is great merit in it...only if it is understood as such. Even discussing how rest and keeping up fluids with a kind, understanding doctor has a placebo effect. It's when lies are introduced and a patient is denied the right to make an informed decision that ethics, IMO, are compromised. What if a person was more apt to think that a free treatment was not worth anything and that a high payment indicated efficacy of the procedure and so the expectation mechanism would be engaged due to the high charge? Free=nocebo. Expensive=placebo. Free=ethical. Expensive=scam?

[EHocking]

You mean "cerealogists"?:pI would never stoop to calling them by this moniker.[/quote]
How about ufologists, cryptozoologists, gimme some more.... The fact that they enjoy adding -ology to the topic strongly suggests that they want to be part of that community and to be taken seriously.Thus their inclusion as psuedo"scientists"...