But it’s important to distinguish between science and pseudoscience, and to be aware of how pseudoscience can be used to exploit people.
In the late 1700s, a German doctor named Samuel Hahnemann began publishing articles about a new treatment approach he called homeopathy. Hahnemann’s theory had two central hypotheses: first, that the treatment for an ailment should be a dose of something that might cause that ailment, and second, that diluted medicines are more powerful than concentrated ones. Over the following 300 years, numerous physicians and patients turned to homeopathy, and entire hospitals were built to focus on homeopathic treatments. However, many studies have shown that homeopathy has no therapeutic effect, and homeopathic treatments often perform no better than placebos.
So why do so many practitioners and institutions still support this practice? The answer is that homeopathy is a pseudoscience - a collection of theories, methods, and assumptions that appear scientific, but aren’t. In the worst cases, pseudoscience practitioners encourage this confusion to exploit people. But even when they’re well-intentioned, pseudoscience still prevents people from getting the help they need.
So how are you supposed to tell what’s science and what’s pseudoscience? This question is known as the demarcation problem, and there’s no easy answer. Part of the issue is that defining science is surprisingly tricky. There’s a common idea that all science should, in some form or another, be related to testing against empirical evidence. But some scientific activities are primarily theoretical, and different disciplines approach empiricism with varying goals, methodologies, and standards.
20th century philosopher Karl Popper tried to solve the demarcation problem with a simple rule. He argued that in order for a theory to be scientific it must be falsifiable, or able to be proven wrong. This requires a theory to make specific predictions - for example, if you’re theorizing that the Earth revolves around the Sun, you should be able to predict the path of other celestial bodies in the night sky. This could then be disproven based on whether or not your prediction corresponds to your observations.
Popper’s falsification criterion is a great way to identify pseudoscientific fields like astrology, which makes overly broad predictions that adapt to any observation. However, falsification alone doesn’t completely solve the demarcation issue. Many things we now consider science were once untestable due to a lack of knowledge or technology.
Fortunately, there are other factors we can use to identify pseudoscience, including how a field responds to criticism. Scientists should always be open to the possibility that new observations could change what they previously thought, and thoroughly disproven theories should be rejected in favor of new explanations. Conversely, pseudoscientific theories are often continually modified to explain away any contradictory results. This kind of behavior shows a resistance to what philosopher Helen Longino calls transformative criticism. Pseudoscientific fields don’t seek to address their internal biases or meaningfully engage in transparent peer review.
Another key marker of science is overall consistency. Science relies on a network of shared information that ongoing research develops across disciplines. But pseudoscience often ignores or denies this shared pool of data. For example, creationists claim that animals didn’t evolve from a common ancestor, and that Earth is less than 20,000 years old. But these claims contradict huge amounts of evidence across multiple scientific disciplines, including geology, paleontology, and biology.
While the scientific method is our most reliable tool to analyze empirical evidence from the world around us, it certainly doesn’t reveal everything about the human condition. Faith-based beliefs can play an important role in our lives and cultural traditions. But it’s important to distinguish between science and pseudoscience, and to be aware of how pseudoscience can be used to exploit people. It’s critical to draw a line between science and belief systems as people may be trying to manipulate others or discredit genuine scientific discoveries. Even when it may not seem dangerous, legitimizing pseudoscience can slow down actual scientific progress. In today’s world, it’s hard to distinguish between fact and fiction, so it’s essential to use your critical thinking skills. Whenever you hear an extraordinary claim, ask yourself: can we test this? Are the people behind this theory using new evidence? Does this align with our scientific understanding of the world? Remember, looking scientific and actually being scientific are two very different things.