Demarcation between science and pseudoscience: Still a Problem?

[hallmarkOvME]

The word "pseudoscience" gets used frequently on this forum, but not once have I ever seen it qualified either definitionally or in contrast to what science is. It's seems taken for granted that the Problem of Demarcation--distinguishing between science and pseudoscience--is no longer problematic, even though it's more problem than ever.

Demarcation tests like Popper's falsifiability have been heartily challenged by alternatives like the pragmatist Charles Sanders Pierces' fallibilism, Duhem-Quine's holism, Feryerbend's (Popper's student) counterinduction, findings in the history and sociology of science, etc....

Most of us can think of things that used to be labeled pseudoscience or pseudoscientific that are now called either indeterminate scientific, and vice versa.

Calling something pseuodscienctific without acknowledging these issues in a space where open, critical debate is encouraged is either misinformed or disingenuous, and is too often used to inhibit or altogether halt open, critical debate.

Is there an alternative term we can use that simultaneously acknowledges that demarcation is still useful as a heuristic without it interfering with or stifling our scientific discourse here?

 

[Utsikt]

Some characteristics that are often seen in pseudoscience, but do not by themselves always mean something is pseudoscientific:

• Ignoring or never seeking out contradictory data
• Vague and imprecise language
• Lack of boundaries for what the hypothesis applies to
• Asserting something that can’t be tested
• Claiming something is true because it’s said to be true
• Misplacing the burden of proof (e.g. saying it’s up to others to prove a treatment doesn’t work)
• Not engaging with criticism and scrutiny
• Not sharing data
• Attacking people and not the idea

Calling something pseuodscienctific without acknowledging in a space where open, critical debate is encouraged is either misinformed or disingenuous, and is too often used to inhibit or altogether halt open, critical debate.

Without acknowledging what?

If you think someone uses a term incorrectly or uses it to dismiss something without explaining why they object, you can always ask them to clarify.

 

[hallmarkOvME]

Some characteristics that are often seen in pseudoscience, but does not by themselves always mean something is pseudoscientific:

• Ignoring or never seeking out contradictory data
• Vague and imprecise language
• Lack of boundaries for what the hypothesis applies to
• Asserting something that can’t be tested
• Claiming something is true because it’s said to be true
• Misplacing the burde of proof (e.g. saying it’s up to others to prove a treatment doesn’t work)
• Not engaging with criticism and scrutiny
• Not sharing data
• Attacking people and not the idea

Without acknowledging what?

If you think someone uses a term incorrectly or uses it to dismiss something without explaining why they object, you can always ask them to clarify.

"...these issues..."

 

[Trish]

@hallmarkOvME, your second paragraph is meaningless to me as I have not read the work of the people listed.

Can you give us a concise summary of the key points you are making in plain English?

 

[Peter T]

I use the terms science and pseudoscience in the context of Popper’s idea that something that can not disproved is not science.

So the idea that graded activity cures ME/CFS, but if it doesn’t or it makes people worse that means it still works but the patients didn’t do it properly, means under this belief system you can never disprove the hypothesis that GET cures ME/CFS.

My philosophy of science knowledge is fifty years out of date, but I think it is still reasonable to say that if an approach is unfalsifiable then is dangerously near the realm of pseudoscience. Add to this a deliberate exclusion of contradictory evidence and intentional sole reliance on flawed experimental evidence such as subjective outcomes in open labelled trials would make something pseudoscience without requiring and further philosophical justification.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

I don't see any problem here. I am aware of all the philosophers' ramblings but they have nothing much to do with the difference between science and pseudoscience relevant here. Pseudoscience is making claims that appear to be based on the language of science but don't actually make sense or have no justification in evidence or coherence of conception.

There will always be marginal cases but we are not dealing with marginal cases here mostly. Neurolinguistic programming is pseudoscience. The biopsychosocial theory of ME/CFS is pseudoscience. The 'mechanical' theory of ME/CCFS is pseudoscience. The identification of 8 DNA segments by DecodeME is not.

As I have said before, when it comes to clinical pseudoscience here we are mostly dealing with bullshit - claims that have never been substantiated when they could have been yet get sold to patients as facts. Recognising it isn't that hard (at least if you were brought up in Yorkshire).

 

[Yann04]

I personally find science to be often an unhelpful term without distinguishing between the institutions academia etc. Science as in academia and the research industry. And the methods. As in science as a method of inquiry and knowledge building. As people on this forum are all too aware of Science as an institution does not necessarily embody science as a method.

I agree that “pseudoscience” is probably a philosophically imprecise shorthand in the way its often used in the forum.
At the same time. I don’t think the methodological critiques here need philosophy level language ahhah. I think Jonathan’s take is pretty much accurate when it comes to discussing the methodology and stuff. And the actual “practical” use of the term.

Of course perhaps its different when discussing the philosophy.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

I agree that “pseudoscience” is probably a philosophically imprecise shorthand in the way its often used in the forum.

I wouldn't worry about things being philosophically precise. Philosophers pride themselves on being precise but are the most muddled talkers of all. They are constantly using terms out of context. There is even a branch of philosophy of language (pragmatics) championed by Charles Travis and others that points this out. Modern academic philosophy is as venerable as the wizard of Oz.

 

[bobbler]

The word "pseudoscience" gets used frequently on this forum, but not once have I ever seen it qualified either definitionally or in contrast to what science is. It's seems taken for granted that the Problem of Demarcation--distinguishing between science and pseudoscience--is no longer problematic, even though it's more problem than ever.

Demarcation tests like Popper's falsifiability have been heartily challenged by alternatives like the pragmatist Charles Sanders Pierces' fallibilism, Duhem-Quine's holism, Feryerbend's (Popper's student) counterinduction, findings in the history and sociology of science, etc....

Most of us can think of things that used to be labeled pseudoscience or pseudoscientific that are now called either indeterminate scientific, and vice versa.

Calling something pseuodscienctific without acknowledging these issues in a space where open, critical debate is encouraged is either misinformed or disingenuous, and is too often used to inhibit or altogether halt open, critical debate.

Is there an alternative term we can use that simultaneously acknowledges that demarcation is still useful as a heuristic without it interfering with or stifling our scientific discourse here?

I think we use pseudo accurately

I think when you have someone who is trying to look at supposed pragmatic alternatives that still aren’t science but are looking at those lines

Then the difference is they are being honest

Where pseudo is trying to charade to look as if it is and gain from those assuming it to have used scientific principles and not fallacies and rhetoric or biased samples or using a treatment that acts as a filter to reduce out the illest etc (but by forcing them to drop out by making them iller rather than ‘healing anyone’)

I haven’t read the bits you’ve suggested yet to see if they are by those doing propaganda to sell ‘who needs standards anymore’ or are genuine scientific-level discussions

But if it were the latter it would be fair to look at that literature and dissect it but not under the first bit claiming we label pseudoscience or pseudo other things inaccurately as it’s non sequitur

 

[bobbler]

I personally find science to be often an unhelpful term without distinguishing between the institutions academia etc. Science as in academia and the research industry. And the methods. As in science as a method of inquiry and knowledge building. As people on this forum are all too aware of Science as an institution does not necessarily embody science as a method.

I agree that “pseudoscience” is probably a philosophically imprecise shorthand in the way its often used in the forum.
At the same time. I don’t think the methodological critiques here need philosophy level language ahhah. I think Jonathan’s take is pretty much accurate when it comes to discussing the methodology and stuff. And the actual “practical” use of the term.

Of course perhaps its different when discussing the philosophy.

There is parapsychology as the term used by scientific psychology when eg using methodology to analyze things like telepathy.

And pseudoscience includes ideas like homeopathy which are having papers arguing different less robust something’s might prove? I’m confused because it’s offered little up anyway

And lots of people and things ‘ape’ eg looking like they are doing marketing by doing what they think they see ‘above the water’ or assume was involved without reading about targeting or strategy or whatnot.

So I guess the second part of the term relates to what the writer is trying to ‘ape’ or convince the reader it might be, rather than the closest thing it might even be.

And maybe there are terms other than just pseudo where it’s ’lookIng like but not’ like the para and other options too.

But no I certainly don’t use the term just as some cool word to say but a descriptor of whatever I’ve just read is

There are some other more specific aspects of science like honest observation ie aiming for proper measurement snd documentation that isn’t just subjective and the induction-deduction iteration moving towards ruling things out as much as in ie having a null hypothesis so that you document it all, not just what favours etc

And in other things you don’t just write quoting something inaccurately but assertively so that it sounds convincing it’s from x ‘known’ when the evidence points to the opposite or what that citation is suggests something different.

Taking a result in the results section saying no significant effect then inverting that in the abstract (knowing even if article isn’t oaywalled somehow it’s ok because you won’t have your reputation affected when people see you’ve done that) to say the opposite

And a lot of the time we are just pointing out things that aren’t ok anywhere as basic human behaviour in these things or where basic logic has been inverted mid-sentence etc

 

[bobbler]

Some characteristics that are often seen in pseudoscience, but do not by themselves always mean something is pseudoscientific:

• Ignoring or never seeking out contradictory data
• Vague and imprecise language
• Lack of boundaries for what the hypothesis applies to
• Asserting something that can’t be tested
• Claiming something is true because it’s said to be true
• Misplacing the burden of proof (e.g. saying it’s up to others to prove a treatment doesn’t work)
• Not engaging with criticism and scrutiny
• Not sharing data
• Attacking people and not the idea

Without acknowledging what?

If you think someone uses a term incorrectly or uses it to dismiss something without explaining why they object, you can always ask them to clarify.

Indeed

Otherwise it’s banning any word calling a spade a spade so nothing can now be ‘not science’ ?

weird wording too to say dismiss.

I think we’d need to avoid encouraging sea lioning tactics used in order to equivilate such ‘removing of words’ by that common thing of making those with an energy limited condition keep ‘explaining themselves’ to someone who claims to not understand etc when using a term they used perfectly validly - just as some sort of deterrent by intimidating people ‘if you do what’s right you’ll get hassle/thus endless fake work’. Given that’s one of the most commonly used tactics / M.O. (exhaust people by playing the honest kind ones around) by certain personality types

And particularly once they pick up on ill vulnerable people (who are allowed to speak also). Sadly common form of bullying to warn about.

So having its own thread like psychosomatic has its own section where the references can be critiqued and things don’t go round in the same circles allowing people to keep track of whether it’s a sensible question/issue etc but also if there are examples they can be kept together would also help to work out if it’s a real or pseudo issue (excuse the pun) but also mean we can get a list of the type of things/examples that pseudoscience does indeed include.

I’m intrigued to see the argument for eg telepathy or homeopathy science being underestimated but maybe I’ve got the wrong end of the stick

 

[bobbler]

The word "pseudoscience" gets used frequently on this forum, but not once have I ever seen it qualified either definitionally or in contrast to what science is. It's seems taken for granted that the Problem of Demarcation--distinguishing between science and pseudoscience--is no longer problematic, even though it's more problem than ever.

Demarcation tests like Popper's falsifiability have been heartily challenged by alternatives like the pragmatist Charles Sanders Pierces' fallibilism, Duhem-Quine's holism, Feryerbend's (Popper's student) counterinduction, findings in the history and sociology of science, etc....

Most of us can think of things that used to be labeled pseudoscience or pseudoscientific that are now called either indeterminate scientific, and vice versa.

Calling something pseuodscienctific without acknowledging these issues in a space where open, critical debate is encouraged is either misinformed or disingenuous, and is too often used to inhibit or altogether halt open, critical debate.

Is there an alternative term we can use that simultaneously acknowledges that demarcation is still useful as a heuristic without it interfering with or stifling our scientific discourse here?

Which are the things you are thinking of that used to be called pseudoscience but now aren’t ?

It might help if you give me a starter of the type of things you mean so I can get the gist

 

[Kitty]

Calling something pseuodscienctific without acknowledging these issues in a space where open, critical debate is encouraged is either misinformed or disingenuous, and is too often used to inhibit or altogether halt open, critical debate.

Where?

Is there an alternative term we can use that simultaneously acknowledges that demarcation is still useful as a heuristic without it interfering with or stifling our scientific discourse here?

I mostly use codswallop. Old-fashioned, but more polite than horseshit.

Everyone here's free to disagree and they will if they do. I've never known such a bunch of terriers, it's a wonder researchers have any ankles left.

 

[hotblack]

There is a good discussion to be had on the philosophy of science I am sure. I remember my mum studying Popper and co, there’s a copy of What is this thing called science? over on a bookshelf. It’s all very interesting but also probably very academic and often inaccessible unless you have a grounding in the topic.

Beyond that though I’m not sure what the question or aim is here? There seems to be an accusation that the word is stifling debate, I have not seen that. All language is open to interpretation. People have different opinions and they are discussed.

I’d like to better understand what the problem being raised with the term pseudoscience or its usage is and throw the challenge back to @hallmarkOvME of what term could be better used and what advantages would it bring to users and the wider forum?

 

[hallmarkOvME]

@Utsikt @Trish @Peter T @Yann04 @bobbler @Kitty @hotblack

Let's pretend for a moment that my OP was simply:

Do you believe there's a universally agreed upon dedintion or method of telling the difference between science and pseudoscience?

If yes, what is it?

If not, why not?

If you feel you've already answered these--as I've little doubt some of you will say you have--just say, "see my last comment" or something like that.

I'll address whatever comments or questions remain from the responses from before whatever, if anything, this rewind generates--after the pretending runs its own course--starting with why I feel merely labeling something pseudoscience or pseudoscientific in the middle of critical conversations tends to unduly divert or abruptly kill discourse of scientific topics.

 

[Trish]

To me pseudo-anything is giving the outward or superficial appearance of being the real thing in order, deliberately or through ignorance, to deceive. So for example authors or people on social media can choose a pseudonym in order not to reveal their real name for whatever personal reasons.

Pseudoscience is a deliberate appearance of being science while not fulfilling necessary conditions to be scientific.

Motivation of producers and promoters of health related pseudoscience often, from what I have observed, stem from monetary gain, career advancement or personal belief. Some stems from genuine misunderstanding and illogical or irrational reasoning or wishful thinking. Some stems from prejudice, laziness or stupidity.

In terms of forum discussion, I think it's usually pretty clear to many forum members when an article, hypothesis or claim is based on pseudoscience.

Taking a few of examples.

Homeopathy is a made up treatment invented using flawed logic, wishful thinking and weak anecdotes, with no credible clinical trial evidence of efficacy. The homeopaths I have met are kind, sincere people with strongly held beliefs and no understanding of evidence or scientific method. It seems sensible to me for forum members to use the shorthand of dismissing homeopathy as pseudoscience without the need to elaborate. If a clinical trial is published and claims efficacy, some would choose to assume it must be flawed and dismiss it as pseudo science, others may choose to examine it closely to find and discuss the flaws, keeping an open mind on what they may find. One person calling it pseudoscience won't stop others looking more closely if they want to.

A second example is when someone, clinician or patient, favours a particular treatment approach and wants to show it is supported by scientific evidence, in the absence of clinical trial evidence.

Examples of this discussed recently on the forum include the mechanical model that proposes problems with neck bones as causing ME/CFS. (CCI and AAI), based on just 2 cases. We have several threads about it.

Another example is the current British therapists' (BACME) dysregulation model intended to support psychobehavioual treatment including sleep hygiene and pacing up. We have looked carefully at their proposed justification of treatment and found it based on highly selective, weak and unreplicated research, on which they build a series if completely unevidenced deductions, and use them to justify teaching pwME specific untested behavioural strategies. There are so many illogical and unevidenced steps in their hypothesis that I have no hesitation in calling it pseudoscience. It gives the outward appearance of being scientific, but is not. I have not seen anyone calling it pseudoscience leading to discussion halting.

There are loads of other examples, including GOOP, ear seeds, and all the brain training variations, LP, etc. They have in common making money for their promoters, selective misuse of science and heavy reliance on anecdotes, and social media promotion.

@hallmarkOvME, I think if you link to some examples we might see more clearly what you are talking about.

 

[hotblack]

Do you believe there's a universally agreed upon method of telling the difference between science and pseudoscience?

No, because nobody agrees on all usage and interpretation of language. It’s always a rough approximation and then debate happens if people want to.

I would add that IMHO there is a difference between intellectual/academic argument on the philosophy of science and what is useful for most forum users for discussion of the science we see. While it’s a worthwhile and indeed fun intellectual pursuit, I think in itself the background that is needed and some of the inaccessibility of language which can be used itself creates a barrier to that discussion. We already have that in some scientific lamguage and many here try to help people overcome those barriers.

Like @Trish and others have said, most people know what is meant here I think, even if they disagree on precisely what is covered by the term. I’m still confused about what the aim is here. If it’s just a fun discussion, great! But I still don’t see what a different term gives us other than another thing to discuss. I suppose I have used woo as that’s easier to type and remember how to spell than pseudoscience… But I think some saw that as dismissive so…

Beyond that, see my previous comments I look forward to hearing your responses, particularly to the questions I posed.

 

[Trish]

I have read back over this thread and am more bemused at what the problem raised is than ever. I think it would be helpful if the opening post could be clarified, as it makes several statements I either don't understand or see no evidence to confirm. To be specific:

The word "pseudoscience" gets used frequently on this forum, but not once have I ever seen it qualified either definitionally or in contrast to what science is. It's seems taken for granted that the Problem of Demarcation--distinguishing between science and pseudoscience--is no longer problematic, even though it's more problem than ever.

In what way is distinguishing between science and pseudoscience 'more problem than ever'. That statement needs supporting examples.

Demarcation tests like Popper's falsifiability have been heartily challenged by alternatives like the pragmatist Charles Sanders Pierces' fallibilism, Duhem-Quine's holism, Feryerbend's (Popper's student) counterinduction, findings in the history and sociology of science, etc....

A brief explanation in plain English has been asked for.

Most of us can think of things that used to be labeled pseudoscience or pseudoscientific that are now called either indeterminate scientific, and vice versa.

Sorry, no, I can't think of any examples. Please can someone enlighten me.

Calling something pseuodscienctific without acknowledging these issues in a space where open, critical debate is encouraged is either misinformed or disingenuous, and is too often used to inhibit or altogether halt open, critical debate.

Examples please. This forum is not a philosophical debating chamber, nor is it a university seminar. If someone wants to question an assertion of woo or pseudoscience they can do so.

Is there an alternative term we can use that simultaneously acknowledges that demarcation is still useful as a heuristic without it interfering with or stifling our scientific discourse here?

We only need an alternative term if the existing one is causing problems. So far we have not been shown any examples.

 

[Peter T]

Below are summaries produced by Google AI, as I don’t see any need to go to the source material for this context, of the philosophical approaches that you, @hallmarkOvME, seem to think reduces our use of the term ‘pseudoscience’ to absurdity. We are using the term pragmatically as others have repeatedly pointed out, and I do not see how these weaken our use of the term, if anything I would argue they seem to strengthen it. Just as Einstein did not invalidate Newtonian mechanics for every day use, I do not see how these philosophical analyses render our simplistic Popperian interpretation of what constitutes pseudoscience unhelpful. When teaching someone to play snooker there is no need to invoke either the Specific or the General Theory of Relativity.

To misquote Hume, it is possible that completely new evidence would render the mislabelled BPS approach to ME/CFS or BACME’s bizarre theoretical concoction rational science, but on the basis of what they have so far presented that is ‘a most unreasonable fancy’. So I echo others above in asking what are you trying to achieve with this thread.

Charles Sanders Peirce’s fallibilism is the epistemological doctrine that all human knowledge is uncertain, provisional, and subject to revision, as absolute, infallible certainty is unattainable. As a cornerstone of his pragmatism, it emphasizes that while inquiries can improve knowledge, no belief is beyond potential doubt or error.
Key Aspects of Peirce's Fallibilism:

• Rejection of Absolute Certainty: Peirce argued against the idea that any knowledge claim is completely secure or foundational, distinguishing his views from dogmatism.
• Role in Inquiry: Fallibilism is not skepticism; it is the driver of scientific inquiry and self-correction, as recognizing potential error motivates further investigation.
• Continuum of Knowledge: Knowledge exists on a spectrum of uncertainty, where ideas are constantly refined rather than finalized.
• Pragmatic Approach: It is closely linked to his pragmatism, which suggests that the meaning and truth of beliefs are found in their practical consequences, not in indubitable foundations.

Peirce's fallibilism is often summarized as the belief that while we can attain knowledge, we can never be absolutely certain that we are not mistaken

The Duhem-Quine thesis (or confirmation/evidential holism) states that individual scientific hypotheses cannot be tested in isolation, but only as part of a larger group of theories, auxiliary hypotheses, and background assumptions. Therefore, a failed experiment (negative evidence) does not falsify a specific hypothesis, but rather points to an error somewhere in the entire "web of belief".
Key Aspects of Duhem-Quine Holism

• Underdetermination of Theory: Because no single hypothesis is tested alone, evidence often underdetermines which part of a theory is incorrect. A scientist can always rescue a specific hypothesis by blaming or adjusting other parts of the system, such as experimental setup or auxiliary assumptions.
• Pierre Duhem's Contribution: Originally proposed by physicist Pierre Duhem, who argued that, unlike in chemistry, a "crucial experiment" cannot exist in physics to instantly disprove a theory because the entire structure of physics is involved in any given test.
• W.V.O. Quine's Extension: Quine expanded this from physical science to all human knowledge, proposing a "web of belief" where any statement, including logical or mathematical laws, can be revised to accommodate recalcitrant experience.
• Implications: The thesis challenges strict Popperian falsificationism, suggesting that science is more complex than simply rejecting hypotheses that conflict with data.

Example
When Uranus did not follow its predicted path, scientists did not immediately abandon Newtonian mechanics. Instead, they assumed an auxiliary hypothesis was wrong (i.e., that there were no other planets affecting it). This led to the discovery of Neptune rather than the rejection of Newton's laws, demonstrating that the entire system was tested, not just the law of gravitation.

Counterinduction is a central concept in Paul Feyerabend’s "epistemological anarchism,"
arguing that scientific progress is best achieved by developing hypotheses that are inconsistent with established theories and accepted facts. As a former student of Karl Popper, Feyerabend developed this idea to challenge the rigid, rule-based methodologies of rationalism and falsificationism.
Core Components of Counterinduction:

• Definition: It is the process of introducing and elaborating hypotheses that are inconsistent with well-established theories or with "facts" (observations, experimental results).
• Purpose: The aim is to create alternative, often speculative, theories to challenge the dominance of existing, potentially flawed, frameworks.
• "Anything Goes": Counterinduction is the primary method behind Feyerabend's famous slogan "anything goes," suggesting that no single method should constrain scientific creativity.
• "Against Method": Feyerabend argued that facts are often constituted by older ideologies, and breaking with them is necessary for progress.

Contextual Examples and Arguments:

• Galileo’s Telescope: Feyerabend used Galileo’s defense of the Copernican system as a key example. Galileo had to rely on counterinduction, as the existing "facts" (using his senses and early telescope) contradicted his hypothesis that the Earth rotated.
• Against Falsificationism: While Popper argued that scientists should try to falsify theories, Feyerabend countered that many great theories (like quantum mechanics or Copernicus) were accepted despite being in conflict with known facts.
• Replacing "Natural Interpretations": Counterinduction allows for the examination of "natural interpretations"—unconscious assumptions built into our language and observations—by comparing them with new, conflicting ideas.

Contrast with Popper:
While Popper believed in a rational, progressive method of falsification, Feyerabend argued that such restrictions ultimately hinder scientific progress. Feyerabend believed that the only principle that does not inhibit progress is "anything goes".

For me the biggest problem with Popper’s approach is how to accommodate Darwin’s Theory of Evolution’, when formulated as ‘survival of the fittest’, but that has no relevance here.

[Edited to correct typos]

 

[Theresa]

I don't think calling something pseudoscience on this forum hinders discussion because people usually give the reasons it is considered pseudoscience - either no empirical evidence or a theoretical explanation that is not accepted by most scientists.