Sierra Acai Company
Sierra Acai Company
Open 7 Days a Week
MonaVie Independent Distributor
Distributor Training
Shop Online
Enroll Now
Buy Wholesale and maintain an Active status for 2 months and we will refund your $39 Distributor Fee
Friends
Buy Wholesale and maintain an Active status for 2 months and we will refund your $39 Distributor Fee
14-September-2008 18:02:37 - Pseudoscience A typical 19th century phrenology chart. Phrenologists claimed to predict personality traits from reading bumps in the head. Phrenology was first called a pseudoscience in 1843 and continues to be widely considered pseudoscience. A typical 19th century phrenology chart. Phrenologists claimed to predict personality traits from reading bumps in the head. Phrenology was first called a pseudoscience in 1843 and continues to be widely considered pseudoscience.1 Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method,234 lacks supporting evidence or plausibility,5 or otherwise lacks scientific status.6 The term comes from the Greek root pseudo- false or pretending and science from Latin scientia, meaning knowledge. An early recorded use was in 1843 by French physiologist François Magendie,1 who is considered a pioneer in experimental physiology. As it is taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific or whose proponents state is scientific but nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement, or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method.3 Professor Paul DeHart Hurd7 argued that a large part of gaining scientific literacy is being able to distinguish science from pseudo-science such as astrology, quackery, the occult, and superstition.8 Certain introductory survey classes in science take careful pains to delineate the objections scientists and skeptics have to practices that make direct claims contradicted by the scientific discipline in question.9 Beyond the initial introductory analyses offered in science classes, there is some epistemological disagreement about the extent to which it is possible to distinguish science from pseudoscience in a reliable and objective way.10 The term itself has negative connotations, because it is used to indicate that subjects so labeled are inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science.11 Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating a pseudoscience normally reject this classification. Pseudosciences have been characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development. Contents 1 Background 2 Identifying pseudoscience 2.1 Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims 2.2 Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation 2.3 Lack of openness to testing by other experts 2.4 Lack of progress 2.5 Personalization of issues 2.6 Use of misleading language 3 Demographics 4 Clinical psychology 5 Psychological explanations 6 Some transitions from pseudoscience to science 7 Criticisms of the concept of pseudoscience 7.1 Pseudoscience contrasted with protoscience and other nonscience 7.2 On the utility of labels 8 Further reading 9 References 10 External links Background The standards for determining whether a body of knowledge, methodology, or practice is scientific can vary from field to field. There are, however, a number of basic principles that are widely agreed upon by scientists, such as reproducibility and intersubjective verifiability.12 Such principles aim to ensure that relevant evidence can be reproduced and/or measured given the same conditions, which allows further investigation to determine whether a hypothesis or theory related to given phenomena is both valid and reliable for use by others, including other scientists and researchers. It is expected that the scientific method will be applied throughout, and that bias will be controlled or eliminated, by double-blind studies, or statistically through fair sampling procedures. All gathered data, including experimental/environmental conditions, are expected to be documented for scrutiny and made available for peer review, thereby allowing further experiments or studies to be conducted to confirm or falsify results, as well as to determine other important factors such as statistical significance, confidence intervals, and margins of error.13 In the mid-20th Century Karl Popper suggested the criterion of falsifiability to distinguish science from non-science.14 Statements such as God created the universe may be true or false, but no tests can be devised that could prove them false, so they are not scientific; they lie outside the scope of science. Popper subdivided non-science into philosophical, mathematical, mythological, religious and/or metaphysical formulations on the one hand, and pseudoscientific formulations on the other-though without providing clear criteria for the differences.15 He gave astrology and psychoanalysis as examples of pseudoscience, and Einstein's theory of relativity as an example of science. More recently, Paul Thagard 1978 proposed that pseudoscience is primarily distinguishable from science when it is less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and the failure of proponents to acknowledge or address problems with the theory.16 Mario Bunge has suggested the categories of belief fields and research fields to help distinguish between science and pseudoscience.17 Philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend has argued, from a sociology of knowledge perspective, that a distinction between science and non-science is neither possible nor desirable.1819 Among the issues which can make the distinction difficult are that both the theories and methodologies of science evolve at differing rates in response to new data.20 In addition, the specific standards applicable to one field of science may not be those employed in other fields. Thagard also writes from a sociological perspective and states that elucidation of how science differs from pseudoscience is the philosophical side of an attempt to overcome public neglect of genuine science. Skeptics, most prominently represented by Richard Dawkins, Mario Bunge, Carl Sagan and James Randi, and the Brights movement consider all forms of pseudoscience to be harmful, whether or not they result in immediate harm to their adherents. These critics generally consider that the practice of pseudoscience may occur for a number of reasons, ranging from simple naïveté about the nature of science and the scientific method, to deliberate deception for financial or political gain. At the extreme, issues of personal health and safety may be very directly involved, for example in the case of physical or mental therapy or treatment, or in assessing safety risks. In such instances the potential for direct harm to patients, clients, the general public, or the environment may be an issue in assessing pseudoscience. See also Junk science. The concept of pseudoscience as antagonistic to bona fide science appears to have emerged in the mid-19th century. Among the first recorded uses of the word pseudo-science was in 1844 in the Northern Journal of Medicine, I 387: That opposite kind of innovation which pronounces what has been recognized as a branch of science, to have been a pseudo-science, composed merely of so-called facts, connected together by misapprehensions under the disguise of principles. Identifying pseudoscience A field, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be called pseudoscientific when 1 it is presented as consistent with the accepted norms of scientific research; but 2 it demonstrably fails to meet these norms, most importantly, in misuse of scientific method.21 Subjects may be considered pseudoscientific for various reasons; Karl Popper considered astrology to be pseudoscientific simply because astrologers keep their claims so vague that they could never be refuted, whereas Paul R. Thagard considers astrology pseudoscientific because its practitioners make little effort to develop the theory, show no concern for attempts to critically evaluate the theory in relation to others, and are selective in considering evidence. More generally, Thagard stated that pseudoscience tends to focus on resemblances rather than cause-effect relations. Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it claims to offer insight into the physical world obtained by scientific means. However, when scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research,22 its underlying scientific theories,23 or its methodology.24 For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.25 The most notable disputes concern the effects of evolution on the development of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, and the origin of the universe.26 Systems of belief that derive from divine or inspired knowledge are not considered pseudoscience if they do not claim either to be scientific or to overturn well-established science. Some statements and commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science. Pop science may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction.27 Indeed, pop science is disseminated to, and can also easily emanate from, persons not accountable to scientific methodology and expert peer review. If the claims of a given field can be experimentally tested and methodological standards are upheld, it is not pseudoscience, however odd, astonishing, or counter-intuitive. If claims made are inconsistent with existing experimental results or established theory, but the methodology is sound, caution should be used; science consists of testing hypotheses which may turn out to be false. In such a case, the work may be better described as ideas that are not yet generally accepted. The following have been proposed to be indicators of poor scientific reasoning. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.28 Failure to make use of operational definitions i.e. publicly accessible definitions of the variables, terms, or objects of interest so that persons other than the definer can independently measure or test them.29 See also: Reproducibility Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible see: Occam's Razor30 Use of obscurantist language, and misuse of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science. Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess well-articulated limitations under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.31 Lack of effective controls, such as placebo and double-blind, in experimental design. see Scientific control Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation An assertion should allow the logical possibility that it can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment see also: falsifiability32 Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict33 Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa see: Argument from ignorance34 Over-reliance on testimonial, anecdotal evidence or personal experience. This evidence may be useful for the context of discovery i.e. hypothesis generation but should not be used in the context of justification e.g. Statistical hypothesis testing.35 Pseudoscience often presents data that seems to support its claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with its claims.36 This is an example of selection bias, a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect. Reversed burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic. Pseudoscientific arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.37 Appeals to holism as opposed to reductionism: Proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the mantra of holism to explain negative findings.38 Lack of openness to testing by other experts Evasion of peer review before publicizing results called science by press conference.39 Some proponents of theories that contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their ideas to peer review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is biased towards established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forgo the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.40 Some agencies, institutions, and publications that fund scientific research require authors to share data so that others can evaluate a paper independently. Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to reproduce the claims contributes to a lack of openness.41 Assertion of claims of secrecy or proprietary knowledge in response to requests for review of data or methodology.41 Lack of progress Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims.42 Terence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has changed very little in the past two millennia.43 see also: Scientific progress Lack of self correction: scientific research programmes make mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time.44 By contrast, theories may be accused of being pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence. The work Scientists Confront Velikovsky 1976 Cornell University, also delves into these features in some detail, as does the work of Thomas Kuhn, e.g. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 1962 which also discusses some of the items on the list of characteristics of pseudoscience. Personalization of issues Tight social groups and granfalloons, authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.45 Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.46 Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims see Ad hominem fallacy.45 Use of misleading language Creating scientific-sounding terms in order to add weight to claims and persuade non-experts to believe statements that may be false or meaningless. For example, a long-standing hoax refers to water as dihydrogen monoxide DHMO and describes it as the main constituent in most poisonous solutions to show how easily the general public can be misled. Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways, thereby demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in the discipline. Demographics Globe icon This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject. The National Science Foundation stated that, in the USA, pseudoscientific beliefs became more widespread during the 1990s, peaked near 2001 and have declined slightly since; nevertheless, pseudoscientific beliefs remain common in the USA.47 As a result, according to the NSF report, there is a lack of knowledge of pseudoscientific issues in society and pseudoscientific practices are commonly followed. Bunge 1999 states that A survey on public knowledge of science in the United States showed that in 1988 50% of American adults rejected evolution, and 88% believed astrology is a science'. Commentators on pseudoscience perceive it in many fields; for example, Pseudomathematics is a term used for mathematics-like activity undertaken by either non-mathematicians or mathematicians themselves which does not conform to the rigorous standards usually applied to mathematical theorems. Clinical psychology Neurologists, clinical psychologists and other academics are concerned 48 about the increasing amount of what they consider pseudoscience promoted in psychotherapy and popular psychology, and also about what they see as pseudoscientific therapies such as neuro-linguistic programming, EMDR49, rebirthing, reparenting, and Primal Therapy being adopted by government and professional bodies and by the public.49 They state that scientifically unsupported therapies used by popular or folk psychology might harm vulnerable members of the public, undermine legitimate therapies, and tend to spread misconceptions about the nature of the mind and brain to society at large. Norcross et al.50 have approached the science/pseudoscience issue by conducting a survey of experts that seeks to specify which theory or therapy is considered to be definitely discred, and they outline 14 fields that have been definitely discred. A concept used in some fringe psychotherapies is orgone energy. There is an increasing degree of overlapping and blending of orgone therapy with New Age and other therapies that manipulate the patient's biofields, such as therapeutic touch and Reiki. 'Biofield' is a pseudoscientific term often used synonymously with orgone energy. Klee states that there is even small minority of psychiatrists that promote orgone therapy, though such organizations are frowned upon by the general psychiatric community.51 However, there is also concern that overzealously striking down methods considered to 'lack scientific support' could be ignoring any therapeutic value observed by clinicians and their patients. Moreover, the very nature of psychology is still under fierce debate, and no single central model has yet been accepted by the scientific community, implying that the rejection of any method on solely theoretical grounds could be in error.52 This fact in particular, combined with the subjective nature of the phenomena under study, makes it difficult to immediately and unequivocally discount or validate any given method or its theoretical justifications. Psychological explanations Pseudoscientific thinking has been explained in terms of psychology and social psychology. The human proclivity for seeking confirmation rather than refutation confirmation bias,53 the tendency to hold comforting beliefs, and the tendency to overgeneralize have been proposed as reasons for the common adherence to pseudoscientific thinking. According to Beyerstein 1991 humans are prone to associations based on resemblances only, and often prone to misattribution in cause-effect thinking. Some transitions from pseudoscience to science There are examples of presently accepted scientific theories that were once criticised as being pseudoscientific. The transition is marked by increasing scientific scrutiny and specificity within the field and an increased level of evidence to support the theory. Continental drift theory was once considered pseudoscientific 54, but is now part of mainstream science especially since the paleomagnetic evidence was discovered that supported plate tectonics. Atwood 2004 suggested that Osteopathy has, for the most part, repudiated its pseudoscientific beginnings and joined the world of rational healthcare.55 Criticisms of the concept of pseudoscience Pseudoscience contrasted with protoscience and other nonscience Protoscience is a term sometimes used to describe a hypothesis that has not yet been adequately tested by the scientific method, but which is otherwise consistent with existing science or which, where inconsistent, offers reasonable account of the inconsistency. It may also describe the transition from a body of practical knowledge into a scientific field.56 By contrast, pseudoscience is reserved to describe theories which are either untestable in practice or in principle, or which are maintained even when tests appear to have refuted them. It is disputed notably by Feyeraband, see above whether meaningful boundaries can be drawn between pseudoscience, protoscience, and real science. Especially where there is a significant cultural or historical distance as, for example, modern chemistry reflecting on alchemy, protosciences can be misinterpreted as pseudoscientific. After over a century of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in varied fields, and despite broad agreement on the basics of scientific method,57 the boundaries between science and non-science continue to be debated.21 This problem of demarcation can be problematic in cases where standard scientific ways experiments, logic, etc. of assessing a theory or a hypothesis cannot be applied for some reason.58 On the utility of labels Philosopher of science Larry Laudan has suggested that pseudoscience has no scientific meaning and mostly describes our emotions: If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science' and 'unscientific' from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us.59 Richard McNally, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, states: The term 'pseudoscience' has become little more than an inflammatory buzzword for quickly dismissing one's opponents in media sound-bites and When therapeutic entrepreneurs make claims on behalf of their interventions, we should not waste our time trying to determine whether their interventions qualify as pseudoscientific. Rather, we should ask them: How do you know that your intervention works? What is your evidence?.60 Further reading Bauer Henry H 2000. Science or Pseudoscience. University of Illinois Press. Beyerstein BL 1990. Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age PDF. International Journal of Mental Health 19 3: 27-36. Charpak Georges 2004. Debunked. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0801878675. Derksen AA 1993. The seven sins of pseudo-science. J Gen Phil Sci 24: 17-42. Derksen AA 2001. The seven strategies of the sophisticated pseudo-scientist: a look into Freud's rhetorical toolbox. J Gen Phil Sci 32: 329-350. doi:10.1023/A:1013100717113. Gardner M 1983. Science - Good, Bad and Bogus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gauch Jr Hugh G 2002. Scientific Method in Practice. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521017084. Hansson SO 1996. Defining pseudoscience. Philosophia naturalis 33: 169-176. Joseph J 2002. Twin studies in psychiatry and psychology: science or pseudoscience?. Psychiatric Quarterly 73: 71-82. doi:10.1023/A:1012896802713. Martin M 1994. Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and science education. Science Education 3: 1573-901. doi:10.1007/BF00488452. Ostrander GK, Cheng KC, Wolf JC Wolfe MJ 2004-12-01. Shark Cartilage, Cancer and the Growing Threat of Pseudoscience. Cancer Research 64: 8485-8491. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-2260. Sampson W, Beyerstein BL 1996-09/10. Traditional medicine and pseudoscience in China. Skeptical Inquirer. Sagan Carl 1996. The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle In the Dark. Shermer M 2002. Why People Believe Weird Things - Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time. Wilson F 2000. The Logic and Methodology of Science and Pseudoscience. ISBN 155130175X. Pratkanis, Anthony R. July/August 1995. How to Sell a Pseudoscience. Skeptical Inquirer 19 4: 19-25. Retrieved on 2007-11-24. References ^ a b Magendie, F 1843 An Elementary Treatise on Human Physiology. 5th Ed. Tr. John Revere. New York: Harper, p 150. Magendie refers to phrenology as a pseudo-science of the present day note the hyphen. ^ Pseudoscientific - pretending to be scientific, falsely represented as being scientific, from the Oxford American Dictionary, published by the Oxford English Dictionary. ^ a b For example, Hewitt et al. Conceptual Physical Science Addison Wesley; 3 ion July 18, 2003 ISBN 0-321-05173-4, Bennett et al. The Cosmic Perspective 3e Addison Wesley; 3 ion July 25, 2003 ISBN 0-8053-8738-2 ^ See also, e.g., Gauch HG Jr. Scientific Method in Practice 2003 ^ The National Science Foundation adopts the definition of Shermer, 1997: claims presented so that they appear to be scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility Shermer 1997, p. 33. In contrast, they say, science is a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed and inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation Shermer 1997, p. 17. Shermer M. 1997. Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. cited by National Science Foundation official report 2006. Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding, Science and engineering indicators 2006. ^ A pretended or spurious science; a collection of related beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status that scientific truths now have., from the Oxford English Dictionary Second ion 1989. ^ Memorial Resolution: Paul DeHart Hurd. www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/cubberley/collections/memorial.html retrieved 6 November. 2006 ^ Hurd, P. D. 1998. Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407-416.. Abstract online at www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/32148/ABSTRACT; retrieved 6 November. 2006 ^ For example, a course is offered at the University of Maryland entitled Science Pseudoscience 1 ^ The philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend in particular is associated with the view that attempts to distinguish science from non-science are flawed and pernicious. The idea that science can, and should, be run according to fixed and universal rules, is both unrealistic and pernicious. ... the idea is detrimental to science, for it neglects the complex physical and historical conditions which influence scientific change. It makes our science less adaptable and more dogmatic:2 ^ However, from the them vs. us polarization that its usage engenders, the term may also have a positive function because the derogatory labeling of others often includes an unstated self-definition p.266; and, from this, the application of the term also implies a unity of science, a privileged tree of knowledge or space from which the pseudoscience is excluded, and the user's right to belong is asserted p.286 -- Still A Dryden W 2004 The Social Psychology of Pseudoscience: A Brief History, J Theory Social Behav 34:265-290 doi:10.1111/j.0021-8308.2004.00248.x ^ e.g. Gauch HG Jr. Scientific Method in Practice 2003 3-5 ff ^ Gauch 2003, 191 ff, especially Chapter 6, Probability, and Chapter 7, inductive Logic and Statistics ^ Popper, KR 1959 The Logic of Scientific Discovery. ^ Karl R. Popper: Science: Conjectures and Refutations. Conjectures and Refutations 1963, p. 43-86; ^ Thagard PR 1978 Why astrology is a pseudoscience 1978 In PSA 1978, Volume 1, ed. Asquith PD and Hacking I East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, 1978 223 ff. ^ Bunge M 1983 Demarcating science from pseudoscience Fundamenta Scientiae 3:369-388 ^ Feyerabend P Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge 19753 ^ For a perspective on Feyerabend from within the scientific community, see, e.g., Gauch 2003 at p.4: Such critiques are unfamiliar to most scientists, although some may have heard a few distant shots from the so-called science wars. ^ Thagard PR 1978 Why astrology is a pseudoscience 1978 In PSA 1978, Volume 1, ed. Asquith PD and Hacking I East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, 1978 223 ff. Thagard writes, at 227, 228: We can now propose the following principle of demarcation: A theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if: it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and non confirmations. ^ a b Cover JA, Curd M Eds, 1998 Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, 1-82 ^ Flaws in dating the earth as ancient ^ http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/v17n1_proteins.pdf ^ 'It's not science' ^ Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations. National Center for Science Education. Retrieved on 04-01-2008. ^ Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=id=4298 ^ Popular Science Feature - When Science Fiction is Science Fact ^ e.g. Gauch 2003 op cit at 211 ff Probability, Common Blunders ^ Paul Montgomery Churchland, Matter and Consciousness: A Contemporary Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind 1999 MIT Press. p.90. Most terms in theoretical physics, for example, do not enjoy at least some distinct connections with observables, but not of the simple sort that would permit operational definitions in terms of these observables. .. If a restriction in favor of operational definitions were to be followed, therefore, most of theoretical physics would have to be dismissed as meaningless pseudoscience! ^ Gauch HG Jr. 2003 op cit 269 ff, Parsimony and Efficiency ^ Hines T 1988 Pseudoscience and the Paranormal: A Critical Examination of the Evidence Buffalo NY: Prometheus Books. A Skeptical Inquirer Reader ^ Lakatos I 1970 Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. in Lakatos I, Musgrave A eds Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge pp 91-195; Popper KR 1959 The Logic of Scientific Discovery ^ e.g. Gauch 2003 op cit at 178 ff Deductive Logic, Fallacies, and at 211 ff Probability, Common Blunders. Scientific claims that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best conjectures, or at worst pseudoscience. e.g. 4 Macmilllan Encyclopedia of Philosophy Vol 3, Fallacies 174 ff, esp. section on Ignoratio elenchi ^ Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy Vol 3, Fallacies 174 'ff esp. 177-178 ^ Bunge M 1983 Demarcating science from pseudoscience Fundamenta Scientiae 3:369-388, 381 ^ Thagard 1978op cit at 227, 228 ^ Lilienfeld SO 2004 Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology Guildford Press 2004 ISBN 1-59385-070-0 ^ Ruscio J 2001 Clear thinking with psychology: Separating sense from nonsense, Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth ^ Peer review and the acceptance of new scientific ideas Warning 469 kB PDFPeer review - process, perspectives and the path ahead; Lilienfeld 2004 op cit For an opposing perspective, e.g. Peer Review as Scholarly Conformity ^ Ruscio 2001 op cit. ^ a b Gauch 2003 op cit 124 ff ^ Lakatos I 1970 Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. in Lakatos I, Musgrave A eds. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge 91-195; Thagard 1978 op cit writes: We can now propose the following principle of demarcation: A theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if: it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations. ^ Hines T, Pseudoscience and the Paranormal: A Critical Examination of the Evidence, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1988. ISBN 0-87975-419-2. Thagard 1978 op cit 223 ff ^ Ruscio J 2001 op cit. p120 ^ a b Devilly GJ 2005 Power therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry Austral NZ J Psych 39:437-4459 ^ e.g. archivefreedom.org which claims that The list of suppressed scientists even includes Nobel Laureates! ^ 5 National Science Board. 2006. Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 Two volumes. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation volume 1, NSB-06-01; NSB 06-01A ^ Justman, S. 2005. Fool's Paradise: The Unreal World of Pop Psychology. Ivan R. Dee. 6 ^ a b e.g. Drenth 2003 7; Herbert JD, et al. 2000 Science and pseudoscience in the development of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: implications for clinical psychology. Clin Psychol Rev. 20:945-71 PMID 11098395 ^ Norcross J.C. Garofalo. A. Koocher.G.P. 2006 Discred psychological treatments and tests: a Delphi poll. Professional Psychology. Research and Practice, 37: 515-522. ^ Klee GD 2005 The Resurrection of Wilhelm Reich and Orgone Therapy The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice Vol. 4, No. 1 | available online ^ Gerald C. Davison, PhD, President of the American Psychological Association's Clinical Psychology Division 8;Davidson is reporting to the APA's clinical members on the Presidential Task Force's report on Evidence-Based Practices in Psychology EBPP. ^ Devilly 2005:439 ^ William F. Williams, or 2000 Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy Facts on File p. 58 ISBN 0-8160-3351-X ^ Atwood KC 2004 Naturopathy, pseudoscience, and medicine: myths and fallacies vs truth. Medscape Gen Med6:e53 available online ^ Popper KR op. cit. ^ Gauch HG Jr 2003op cit 3-7. ^ Thomas Kuhn., Science: conjectures and refutations In Philosophy of Science and the Occult, ed by Patrick Grim, op. cit., pp. 126-7 ^ Laudan L 1996 The demise of the demarcation problem in Ruse, Michael, But Is It Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy pp. 337-350. ^ McNally RJ 2003 Is the pseudoscience concept useful for clinical psychology? SRMHP Vol 2 Number 2 Fall/Winter9 External links Checklist for identifying dubious technical processes and products - Rainer Bunge, PhD Debating pseudoscientists - Philip Plait Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience - Rory Coker, PhD Pseudoscience. What is it? How can I recognize it? - Stephen Lower Science and Pseudoscience - transcript and broadcast of talk by Imre Lakatos Science Needs to Combat Pseudoscience - A statement by 32 Russian scientists and philosophers Science, Pseudoscience, and Irrationalism - Steven Dutch The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science - Robert L. Park Skeptic Dictionary - List and discussions of Pseudoscientific topics Why Is Pseudoscience Dangerous? - Edward Kruglyakov v d e Pseudoscience Terminology Cargo cult science · Charlatan · Crank · Fringe science · Junk science · Paranormal · Pathological science · Protoscience · Pseudoskepticism · Quackery · Superseded scientific theories · True-believer syndrome Examples AIDS denialism · Apollo moon landing hoax accusations · Astrology · Bogdanov Affair · Creation science · Cryptozoology · Dianetics · Faith healing · Homeopathy · Intelligent design · List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts · Lunar effect · Parapsychology · Perpetual motion · Scientology · Time Cube · Ufology Resources Committee for Skeptical Inquiry · Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience · The Ragged Edge of Science · The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience · James Randi Educational Foundation Retrieved from http://en..org/wiki/Pseudoscience Categories: Pejoratives | Pseudoscience | Types of scientific fallacyHidden categories: Articles with limited geographic scope | USA-centric Views Article Discussion this page History Personal tools Log in / create account Navigation Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Search Go Search Interaction Community portal Recent changes Contact Donate to Help Toolbox What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Printable version Permanent link Cite this page Languages العربية Bosanski БългарÑ?ки Català Česky Cymraeg Dansk Deutsch Eesti Ελληνικά Español Esperanto Ù?ارسی Føroyskt Français Galego í•œêµì–´ Hrvatski Bahasa Indonesia Interlingua Ã?slenska Italiano עברית Lietuvių Magyar Bahasa Melayu Nederlands 日本語 ‪Norsk bokmÃ¥l‬ Polski Português Română РуÑ?Ñ?кий Simple English СрпÑ?ки / Srpski Suomi Svenska Tiếng Việt Türkçe ä¸æ–‡ This page was last modified on 13 September 2008, at 22:41
39 Reasons to Drink Acai Juice Every Day
What is MonaVie - Watch the 8-minute video
Discovering MonaVie Video
The Power of You Video
Effects of MonaVie Active on Antioxidant Capacity in Humans
Log into your Wholesale MonaVie Account
So many of us do not eat a balanced diet, get enough sleep, have too much stress, or are impacted with toxins and pollutants. Drinking 2 ounces of MonaVie twice a day will help your body detoxify as well as build your immune system. Its the smartest thing you can do for yourself, so start today. Buying MonaVie through our company guarantees you support 7 days a week and, if you would like to share MonaVie with your family and friends we will guide you from start to finish.
1. Click on Enroll Now (30 - 55% off retail price)
2. Pay $39 for your Wholesale ID number.
3. NO minimum order required.
4. MonaVie is delivered to your door in 3 to 5 days.