what is pseudoscience

7/30/2019 What is Pseudoscience

1/11

Apseudoscience is a belief or process which masquerades as

science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not

otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms; it is often known asfringe- or alternative science. The most important of its defects is

usually the lack of the carefully controlled and thoughtfullyinterpreted experiments which provide the foundation of the natural

sciences and which contribute to their advancement.

Of course, the pursuit of scientific knowledge usually involveselements of intuition and guesswork; experiments do not always test

a theory adequately, and experimental results can be incorrectly

interpreted or even wrong. In legitimate science, however, these

problems tend to be self-correcting, if not by the original researchersthemselves, then through the critical scrutiny of the greater

scientific community. Critical thinking is an essential element ofscience.

Some other kinds of defective science

There have been several well-documented instances in which the

correction process referred to above was delayed until after the

initial incorrect interpretation became widely publicized, resulting in

what has been calledpathological science. The best known ofthese incidents are the "discoveries" of N-rays, of polywater, and of

cold fusion. All of these could have been averted if the researchers

had not been so enthused with their results that they publicized

them before they had received proper review by others. Human

nature being what it is, there is always some danger of thishappening; to discourage it, most of the prestigious scientific

journals will refuse to accept reports of noteworthy work that has

already been made public.

Another term,junk science, is often used to describe scientifictheories or data which, while perhaps legitimate in themselves, are

believed to be mistakenly used to support an opposing position.

There is usually an element of political or ideological bias in the used

of the term. Thus the arguments in favor of limiting the use of fossilfuels in order to reduce global warming are often characterized as

junk science by those who do not wish to see such restrictions

imposed, and who claim that other factors may well be the cause of

global warming. A wide variety ofcommercial advertising

(ranging from hype to outright fraud) would also fall into this


2/11

category; at its most egregious it might better be described as

deceptive science.

"9944100% Pure: It Floats"

This description ofIvory Soap is a classic example of junk science from the 19th century.Not only is the term "pure" meaningless when applied to an undefined mixture such as handsoap, but the implication that its ability to float is evidence of this purity is deceptive. The low

density is achieved by beating air bubbles into it, actually reducing the "purity" of the productand in a sense cheating the consumer.

Finally, there is just plain bad science, which would

logically encompass all of the evils being discussed here,

but is commonly used to describe well-intentioned but

incorrect, obsolete, incomplete, or over-simplifiedexpositions of scientific ideas. An example would be the

statement that electrons revolve in orbits around the atomic

nucleus, a picture that was discredited in the 1920's, but is so much

more vivid and easily grasped than the one that supplanted it that itshows no sign of dying out.

"It's only a theory"

In ordinary conversation, the word "theory" connotes an opinion, aconjecture, or a supposition. But in science, the term has a much

more limited meaning. A scientific theory is an attempt to explain

some aspect of the natural world in terms of empirical evidence and

observation. It commonly draws upon established principles andknowledge with the aim of extending them in a logical and

consistent way that enables one to make useful predictions. All

scientific theories are tentative and subject to being tested and

modified. As theories become more mature, they grow into more

organized bodies of knowledge that enable us to understand andpredict a wider range of phenomena. Examples of such theories are

quantum theory, Einstein's theories of relativity, and evolution.

Scientific theories fall into two categories:

1. Theories that have been shown to be incorrect, usually because theyare not consistent with new observations;

2. All other theories

In other words


3/11

Theories cannot be proven to be correct; there is always the possibility

that further observations will disprove the theory.

A theory that cannot be refuted or falsified is not a scientific theory.

For example, the theories that underlie astrology (the doctrine thatthe positions of the stars can influence one's life) are not falsifiable

because they, and the predictions that follow from them, are so

vaguely stated that the failure of these predictions can always be

"explained away" by assuming that various other influences werenot taken into account. It is similarly impossible to falsify so-called

"creation science" or "intelligent design" because one can simply

evoke the "then a miracle occurs" (as in the famous Sidney Harris

cartoon) at any desired stage.

How can you recognize pseudoscience?

How to rate a work of pseudoscience

is a 30-point checklist directed mainly at archaeology, but much of it seems applicable to other fields as well.

A similar set of questions can be found on this Baloney Detection page

There is no single test that unambiguously distinguishes between

science and pseudoscience, but as the two diverge more and more

from one another, certain differences become apparent, and these

tend to be remarkably consistent across all fields of interest.

In examining the following table, it might be helpful to considerexamples of astronomy vs. astrology, or of chemistry vs. alchemy,

which at one time were single fields that gradually diverged into

sciences and pseudosciences.

science pseudoscience comment

The primary goal of science

is to achieve a morecomplete and more unifiedunderstanding of the

physical world.

Pseudosciences are more likely tobe driven by ideological, cultural,or commercial goals.

Some examples: astrology

(from ancient Babylonianculture,) UFO-ology (popular

culture and mistrust ofgovernment), Creation Science(attempt to justify a literal

interpretation of the Bible),"structure-altered" waters

(commercial quackery.)

Most scientific fields are thesubjects of intense research

which result in the continualexpansion of knowledge in

the discipline.

The field has evolved very little

since it was first established. Thesmall amount of research and

experimentation that is carried outis generally done more to justify

the belief than to extend it.

The search for new knowledgeis the driving force behind the

evolution of any scientific field.Nearly every new finding raises

new questions that begexploration. There is little

evidence of this in thepseudosciences.

Workers in the field In the pseudosciences, a challenge Sciences advance by
http://star.psy.ohio-state.edu/coglab/Miracle.htmlhttp://star.psy.ohio-state.edu/coglab/Miracle.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20061223191100/http:/kjmatthews.users.btopenworld.com/cult_archaeology/rating_pseudoscience.htmlhttp://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/baloney.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20030623085849/http:/www.astrology-and-science.com/iwk-abstract.htmhttp://php.indiana.edu/~lrobins/ufopage.htmhttp://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.htmlhttp://www.chem1.com/CQ/clusqk.htmlhttp://star.psy.ohio-state.edu/coglab/Miracle.htmlhttp://star.psy.ohio-state.edu/coglab/Miracle.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20061223191100/http:/kjmatthews.users.btopenworld.com/cult_archaeology/rating_pseudoscience.htmlhttp://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/baloney.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20030623085849/http:/www.astrology-and-science.com/iwk-abstract.htmhttp://php.indiana.edu/~lrobins/ufopage.htmhttp://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.htmlhttp://www.chem1.com/CQ/clusqk.html


4/11

commonly seek outcounterexamples or findings

that appear to be

inconsistent with acceptedtheories.

to accepted dogma is often

considered a hostile act if notheresy, and leads to bitter

disputes or even schisms.

accommodating themselves tochange as new information is

obtained.

In science, the person who

shows that a generally

accepted belief is wrong orincomplete is more likely to beconsidered a hero than a

heretic.

Observations or data thatare not consistent with

current scientificunderstanding, once shown

to be credible, generateintense interest among

scientists and stimulateadditional studies.

Observations or data that are notconsistent with established beliefs

tend to be ignored or activelysuppressed.

Have you noticed how self-

styled psychics always seemeager to announce their

predictions for the new year,but never like to talk about

how many of last years'predictions were correct?

Science is a process inwhich each principle mustbe tested in the crucible of

experience and remainssubject to being questioned

or rejected at any time.

The major tenets and principles ofthe field are often not falsifiable,

and are unlikely ever to be alteredor shown to be wrong.

Enthusiasts incorrectly take thelogical impossibility of

disproving a pseudoscientificpriniciple as evidence of its

validity.

Scientific ideas and concepts

must stand or fall on theirown merits, based on

existing knowledge and onevidence.

Pseudoscientific concepts tend to

be shaped by individual egos and

personalities, almost always byindividuals who are not in contact

with mainstream science. Theyoften invoke authority (a famous

name, for example) for support.

Have you ever noticed howproponents of pseudoscientific

ideas are more likely to list allof the degrees they have?

Scientific explanations must

be stated in clear,unambigous terms.

Pseudoscientific explanations tend

to be vague and ambiguous, ofteninvoking scientific terms in

dubious contexts.

Phrases such as "energyvibrations" or "subtle energy

fields" may sound impressive,but they are essentially

meaningless.

link
http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/evolution_debate.htmhttp://www.sullivan-county.com/z/evolution_debate.htm


5/11

Why is it important to recognize pseudoscience?

Many scientists' ordinary response to pseudoscientific claims is

simply to laugh at them. But mythology has always been an

important part of human culture, often by giving people the illusion

of having some direct control over their lives. This can lead to theirbecoming advocates for various kinds of health quackery, to

commercial scams, and to cult-like organizations such as

scientology. Worst of all, they can pressure political and educational

circles to adopt their ideologies.

A good summary of some of the consequences can be found in Prof.

Steven Dutch's article When the Cranks Rule.

Does the "establishment" actively suppress new andunconventional ideas?

Anyone who has been around for long enough has encountered

statements like these:

An inventor's design for a device that utilizes water as a fuel has been

bought up and suppressed by the oil companies.

"Alternative health" techniques (homeopathy, chiropractic, chelation

therapy you name it!) are actively suppressed by the medicalprofession or the pharmaceutical industry in a desperate attempt to

serve their selfish interests.

Reports of unidentified flying objects (UFO's) are suppressed by the

U.S. Government in an attempt to prevent panic and/or to maintaincontrol over citizens.

Editors of scientific journals and the reviewers they call on to assess

the worth of submitted papers reject out-of-hand anything that comes

from persons who are not members of the scientific "establishment" orwhich report results not consistent with presently-accepted science.

Claims of these kinds are frequently made and widely believed,

especially by those who are inclined to see conspiracies aroundevery corner. There is little if any evidence for any of these claims.

The real reason that new devices or new theories get thrown aside is

that the arguments or evidence adduced to support them is

inadequate or not credible. The individuals who believe themselvesto be unfairly thwarted by the scientific community are very often so

isolated from it that they are unable to appreciate its norms ofclarity, rigor, and consistency with existing science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackeryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientologyhttp://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/CRNKRULE.HTMhttp://www.water4gas.com/2books.htm#introhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackeryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientologyhttp://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/CRNKRULE.HTMhttp://www.water4gas.com/2books.htm#intro


6/11

... but they laughed at Galileo, at Thompson, and at Wegner.

Well, with Galileo, they didn't exactly laugh; it was more a case of

challenge to religious doctrine that forced him to recant his assertionthat the Sun, and not the Earth, is at the center of the solar system.

There have been innumerable cases in which the world was simply

not ready to accept a new idea. This was especially common before

the scientific method had been developed, and before thetechnology needed to apply it had become available.

When J.J. Thomson discovered evidence that the atom is not the ultimatefundamental particle and could be broken up into smaller units, evenThompson himself was reluctant to accept it, and he became alaughingstock for several years until more definitive evidence becameavailable.

Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift was bitterly attacked when itwas first published in 1915, and it did not become generally accepted untilabout 50 years later. Others had made similar proposals based on the waythe continents of Africa and South America could be fitted together, butWegener was the first to make a careful study of fossil and geologicalsimilarities between the two continents. Nevertheless, the idea thatcontinents could float around was too hard to accept at a time whennothing was known about the interior structure of the Earth, and theevidence he presented was rejected as inadequate.

But even in more recent times, the world of science has been reluctant toaccept some important challenges made by its own members; see thisNational Center for Science Education page that profiles the difficultiesfaced by scientists such as Barbara McClintock (genetic recombination),Lyn Margulis (endosymbiosis and evolution), and Barry Marshall (bacterialorigin of ulcers).

On the other hand, the even-more-revolutionary concepts of special-

and general relativity, and of quantum theory (which developed in

several stages), achieved rapid acceptance when they were firstpresented, as did Louis Pasteur's germ theory of disease. In all of

these cases the new theories provided credible explanations for what

was previously unexplainable, and the tools for confirming them

existed at the time, or in the case of general relativity, would soonbecome available.

Some interesting places to look
http://www.newton.org.uk/http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20030705173401/http:/www.dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/AtomicStructure/Disc-of-Electron-Intro.htmlhttp://www.hartrao.ac.za/geodesy/tectonics.htmlhttp://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/challenginghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_McClintockhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshallhttp://top-biography.com/9029-Louis%20Pasteur/http://www.newton.org.uk/http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20030705173401/http:/www.dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/AtomicStructure/Disc-of-Electron-Intro.htmlhttp://www.hartrao.ac.za/geodesy/tectonics.htmlhttp://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/challenginghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_McClintockhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshallhttp://top-biography.com/9029-Louis%20Pasteur/


7/11

"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic

asylum filled with babbling loonies." Mike Royko

This quote from the late columnist was found at Donald Simanek's site-- a wonderful collection of links that contains many references to sciencefraud, pseudoscience, fringe medicine, perpetual motion, and generallyweird ideas.

Some useful tools

What is truth? Not a simple question to answer, but this excellent page at theInternet Encyclopedia of Philosophywill help show you the way.

Critical Thinking A compilation of Web-based resources on the subject.

Pseudoscience and Quackery SWICKI search

androstenedione anorexia nervosabuache Catherine Diodati cults ear candling Eric Headfairtaxassociation friendsoffreedom herbs junk scince Patrick Flanagan pig pills inc pseudoscience psychicsurgeon quackwatch.org Valerie Saxion vitamins yahoo groups zenoGrab this swickifrom eurekster.com

Bad Science

"What the Bleep Do We Know?" - a

review of this popular and highly

misleading 2004 film.

Bad-science examples in the various

disciplines (Alistair Fraser)

How to deal with bad- and questionable

science is the topic of this anonymousessay.

Ten myths of science: Reexaminingwhat we think we know.

Junk Science

Doubt is Their Product: HowIndustry's Assult on Science Threatens

Your Health - this 2008 book by DavidMichaels provides a glimpse of tactics

used by industry to manipulate scienceand influence public policy. Just as the

tobacco industry did in the 1950's, the

idea is to cast doubt on scientificstudies that threaten their products.More details in this New Scientist

craniometer
http://slate.msn.com/id/23389/http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/testing.htmhttp://www.utm.edu/research/iep/t/truth.htmhttp://www.austhink.org/critical/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/androstenedione/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/anorexia+nervosa/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/buache/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/buache/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/Catherine+Diodati/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/Catherine+Diodati/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/cults/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/cults/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/ear+candling/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/ear+candling/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/Eric+Head/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/Eric+Head/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/fairtaxassociation/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/fairtaxassociation/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/friendsoffreedom/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/friendsoffreedom/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/herbs/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/herbs/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/junk+scince/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/Patrick+Flanagan/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/Patrick+Flanagan/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/pig+pills+inc/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/pseudoscience/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/psychic+surgeon/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/psychic+surgeon/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/quackwatch.org/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/quackwatch.org/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/Valerie+Saxion/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/Valerie+Saxion/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/vitamins/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/vitamins/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/yahoo+groups/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/zeno/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/zeno/http://www.eurekster.com/swickibuilder/share.aspx?swicki=pseudoscience-and-quackeryhttp://www.eurekster.com/swickibuilder/share.aspx?swicki=pseudoscience-and-quackeryhttp://www.eurekster.com/http://www.answers.com/topic/what-the-bleep-do-we-knowhttp://www.answers.com/topic/what-the-bleep-do-we-knowhttp://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/BadScience.htmlhttp://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/BadScience.htmlhttp://www.catchpenny.org/patho.htmlhttp://www.catchpenny.org/patho.htmlhttp://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/TenMyths.htmlhttp://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/TenMyths.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826605.900-review-idoubt-is-their-producti-by-david-michaels-and-ibending-sciencei-by-thomas-o-mcgarity-and-wendy-e-wagner.htmlhttp://slate.msn.com/id/23389/http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/testing.htmhttp://www.utm.edu/research/iep/t/truth.htmhttp://www.austhink.org/critical/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/androstenedione/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/anorexia+nervosa/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/buache/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/Catherine+Diodati/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/cults/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/ear+candling/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/Eric+Head/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/fairtaxassociation/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/friendsoffreedom/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/herbs/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/junk+scince/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/Patrick+Flanagan/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/pig+pills+inc/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/pseudoscience/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/psychic+surgeon/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/psychic+surgeon/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/quackwatch.org/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/Valerie+Saxion/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/vitamins/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/yahoo+groups/http://pseudoscience-and-quackery-swicki.eurekster.com/zeno/http://www.eurekster.com/swickibuilder/share.aspx?swicki=pseudoscience-and-quackeryhttp://www.eurekster.com/http://www.answers.com/topic/what-the-bleep-do-we-knowhttp://www.answers.com/topic/what-the-bleep-do-we-knowhttp://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/BadScience.htmlhttp://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/BadScience.htmlhttp://www.catchpenny.org/patho.htmlhttp://www.catchpenny.org/patho.htmlhttp://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/TenMyths.htmlhttp://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/TenMyths.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826605.900-review-idoubt-is-their-producti-by-david-michaels-and-ibending-sciencei-by-thomas-o-mcgarity-and-wendy-e-wagner.html


8/11

review.

JunkScience.com: "All the junkthat's fit to debunk"- and you willfind it in abundance here

unfortunately, compounded by what

many would consider a bias notatypical of the author's affiliation with

the Cato Institute and FoxNews. Thissite can nevertheless serve as a source

of student exercises on the fine art ofcritical thinking.

Junk science in the courtroom - acompendium of horrendous examples

AquaScams - my site on commercial

water-treatment pseudoscience(magnetic water treatments, etc.)

Common errors in the use ofstatistics can transform science intojunk science. According to the 1998

Washington Times articlePseudoscience going up in smoke, this

is what happened to create the publicscare about so-called "second-hand

smoke."

Medical pseudoscience,fringe medicine

QuackWatch - a good source for solidinformation on medical flim-flam such

as amalgam dental filling removal, etc.

Canadian Quackery Watch - manygood articles on alternative health

scams

HealthWatcher - a well organized

anti-health-scam site maintained by aCanadian doctor

Homeopathy - This Wikipedia articlepresents a good overview and thorough

history with many references; theHomeoWatch site is more critical.

Water Cluster Quackery- my page on

bogus "structure-altered waters" for

the alternative health market.

Of course, even Pasteur is not immuneto Web-based rants such as this onewhich attempts to refute the Germ

racial pseudoscience
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826605.900-review-idoubt-is-their-producti-by-david-michaels-and-ibending-sciencei-by-thomas-o-mcgarity-and-wendy-e-wagner.htmlhttp://www.junkscience.com/http://www.junkscience.com/http://www.junkscience.com/http://www.cato.org/http://www.foxnews.com/http://www.truthinjustice.org/junk.htmhttp://www.chem1.com/CQ/http://web.archive.org/web/20021106151032/http:/www.sepp.org/reality/pseudosci.htmlhttp://www.quackwatch.com/index.htmlhttp://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/http://www.healthwatcher.net/http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/h/ho/homeopathy.htmlhttp://www.homeowatch.org/http://www.chem1.com/CQ/clusqk.htmlhttp://www.chem1.com/CQ/clusqk.htmlhttp://www.unhinderedliving.com/germtheory.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826605.900-review-idoubt-is-their-producti-by-david-michaels-and-ibending-sciencei-by-thomas-o-mcgarity-and-wendy-e-wagner.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826605.900-review-idoubt-is-their-producti-by-david-michaels-and-ibending-sciencei-by-thomas-o-mcgarity-and-wendy-e-wagner.htmlhttp://www.junkscience.com/http://www.junkscience.com/http://www.cato.org/http://www.foxnews.com/http://www.truthinjustice.org/junk.htmhttp://www.chem1.com/CQ/http://web.archive.org/web/20021106151032/http:/www.sepp.org/reality/pseudosci.htmlhttp://www.quackwatch.com/index.htmlhttp://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/http://www.healthwatcher.net/http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/h/ho/homeopathy.htmlhttp://www.homeowatch.org/http://www.chem1.com/CQ/clusqk.htmlhttp://www.unhinderedliving.com/germtheory.html


9/11

Theory of disease!

Pathological science

Nicholas Turro's page has a finediscussion of this topic with manyreferences.

Pseudoscience

is an exceptionally well-

organized set of links to "cranks, crackpots,kooks and loons on the Net", arranged into

more than 100 categories; you can be happilylost in here for a long time!

This pseudoscience page by EdwardLipson offers a well-organized wealth oflinks on many areas of pseudoscience.

Putting Pseudoscience to work. SeeUsing bad science to teach good

chemistryby Michael Epstein,

J.Chem.Ed. 1998: 75(11) 1399-1404.

Fringe Archaeology - Keith Matthews'Cult Archaeology site covers everythingfrom von Dniken to lost continents

The Scientific Exploration ofAstrology contains links to variety ofcritical articles on astrology, its history,psychology, and tests of its validity.

Jim Loy's Peudoscience Page -nicely organized by topic and sub-topic.

Science Hoaxes - A Guardian articleon the Piltdown Man fraud and otherhoaxes

Pseudoscience books

Henry Bauer's book Science or

Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing,Psychic Phenomena, and Other

Heterodoxies is described (and can bepurchased) at this U. Illinois Press site.

This review ofVoodoo Science: TheRoad from Foolishness to Fraud by

Robert L. Park (Oxford U. P., New York,2000) from Physics Today.

Illustration by Ted Chesky [link]

Quilt art by Barbara Olson:Atlantis: an

ancient message [link]
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.4/turro.htmlhttp://www.crank.net/http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/PSEUDO/pseudo.htmlhttp://www.ramtops.co.uk/http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/hpage.htmhttp://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/hpage.htmhttp://www.jimloy.com/pseudo/pseudo.htmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/nov/13/research.highereducation2http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/47nra5ge9780252072161.htmlhttp://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/47nra5ge9780252072161.htmlhttp://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/47nra5ge9780252072161.htmlhttp://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/47nra5ge9780252072161.htmlhttp://www.aip.org/pt/vol-53/iss-10/p78.htmlhttp://www.design-hub.com/portfolio/illustration/003.htmhttp://www.quiltart.com/gallery/olson.htmlhttp://www.crank.net/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.4/turro.htmlhttp://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/PSEUDO/pseudo.htmlhttp://www.ramtops.co.uk/http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/hpage.htmhttp://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/hpage.htmhttp://www.jimloy.com/pseudo/pseudo.htmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/nov/13/research.highereducation2http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/47nra5ge9780252072161.htmlhttp://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/47nra5ge9780252072161.htmlhttp://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/47nra5ge9780252072161.htmlhttp://www.aip.org/pt/vol-53/iss-10/p78.htmlhttp://www.design-hub.com/portfolio/illustration/003.htmhttp://www.quiltart.com/gallery/olson.html


10/11

Skepticism and debunking

The Skeptic's Dictionary: A CriticalSurvey of Questionable Therapies,

Eccentric Beliefs, AmusingDeceptions and DangerousDelusions. This excellent site by aprofessor of philosophy at SacramentoCity College contains hundreds of

skeptical definitions and essays on

occult, paranormal, supernatural andpseudoscientific ideas and practices

with references to the best skeptical

literature. Translations into severalother languages are available.

Skeptical information links - a well-

organized collection of links by JimLippard.

Dowsing for dollars: some thoughtson B.S. detection

Dr. Stephen Barrett on what makespeople vulnerable to quackery

Magazines

The following two magazines are of

general interest and fun to read; one orboth should be on the subscription list

of any school library. Both sites provide

searchable links to past articles.

Skeptic- published by the Skeptics'Society

Skeptical Inquirer "The magazine forscience and reason", published by

CSICOP.

Weird

The Anders Mad Scientist page isnot easy to classify, but the many linktitles seem to cover just about every

form of pseudoscientific weirdness.

"Put a pair of earphones around your mixedgallon of clustered distilled water and play the

CD .. delivering the healing frequencies back

to the solution." [link]

Pseudoscience in the news
http://skepdic.com/http://www.discord.org/skeptical/http://skepdic.com/essays/dowsingfordollars.htmlhttp://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quackvul.htmlhttp://www.skeptic.com/http://www.skeptic.com/http://www.csicop.org/si/http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/mad.htmlhttp://www.chem1.com/CQ/clusqk.html#SOUNDhttp://skepdic.com/http://www.discord.org/skeptical/http://skepdic.com/essays/dowsingfordollars.htmlhttp://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quackvul.htmlhttp://www.skeptic.com/http://www.csicop.org/si/http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/mad.htmlhttp://www.chem1.com/CQ/clusqk.html#SOUND


11/11

Note: access to stories that have appeared in the New York Times

and other newspapers may require registration. Don't worry; it's

mostly free and well worth it, and won't attract spam.

Far Out, Man. But Is It Quantum Physics? (Dennis Overbye, NYT 14 Mar 2006) -

thoughts on What the Bleep, Down the Rabbit Hole

Evolution debate spawns a saucy monster The theory that a "Flying Spaghetti

Monster" created the world is demanding equal time along with Intelligent Designin Kansas biology classrooms.

New study says homeopathic medicines don't work (Jeremy Lovell, Reuters) Theinvestigators conclude that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are compatible

with placebo effects.

Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution (Cornelia Dean, Laurie

Goodstein, NY Times 9 July 2005) An influential cardinal in the Roman CatholicChurch, which has long been regarded as an ally of the theory of evolution, is

now suggesting that belief in evolution as accepted by science today may beincompatible with Catholic faith

Evolution Takes a Back Seat in U.S. Classes (Cornelia Dean, New York Times 1Feb. 2005). In districts around the country, even when evolution is in the

curriculum it may not be in the classroom. Teaching guides and textbooks maymeet the approval of biologists, but superintendents or principals discourage

teachers from discussing it. Or teachers themselves avoid the topic, fearingprotests from fundamentalists in their communities.

Odds Are Stacked When Science Tries to Debate Pseudoscience (Lawrence Kraus,New York Times 30 April 2002) Opponents of the scientific method try very hard

to appear in debates with scientists. Merely being on the same stage representsa victory.

Believe it or not (Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times 15 August 2003) - Theincreasing willingnness of Americans to put faith ahead of science represents a

growing divide from the rest of the world.

The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science (San Francisco Chronicle) The

National Aeronautics and Space Administration is investing close to a milliondollars in an obscure Russian scientist's antigravity machine, although it has

failed every test and would violate the most fundamental laws of nature. ThePatent and Trademark Office recently issued Patent 6,362,718 for a physically

impossible motionless electromagnetic generator, which is supposed to snatchfree energy from a vacuum. And major power companies have sunk tens ofmillions of dollars into a scheme to produce energy by putting hydrogen atomsinto a state below their ground state
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/science/14essa.html/partner/rssnythttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_Monsterhttp://today.reuters.co.uk/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-08-25T230604Z_01_ROB583138_RTRUKOC_0_UK-HOMEOPATHY.xmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/science/09cardinal.html/partner/rssnythttp://nytimes.com/2005/02/01/science/01evo.html/partner/rssnythttp://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/30/science/30ESSA.html?tntemail1http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/15/opinion/15KRIS.html/partner/rssnythttp://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/science/14essa.html/partner/rssnythttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_Monsterhttp://today.reuters.co.uk/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-08-25T230604Z_01_ROB583138_RTRUKOC_0_UK-HOMEOPATHY.xmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/science/09cardinal.html/partner/rssnythttp://nytimes.com/2005/02/01/science/01evo.html/partner/rssnythttp://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/30/science/30ESSA.html?tntemail1http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/15/opinion/15KRIS.html/partner/rssnythttp://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm

what is pseudoscience

Documents