Science and Rationalism versus Pseudoscience and Quackery

by Rasmus Jansson, March 1997
Last revised: January 16, 1998


Why This Page?

We also know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling.
- Henri Poincare (1854-1912) Irrationalism, pseudoscience, and quackery have become extremely popular in recent years. Unsupported and illogical claims are heard and seen everywhere in tabloid magazines, on television, etc. Ancient philosophies and "sciences" are experiencing a renaissance, often advocating ideas that, I think, do not belong to a modern, civilized world. Followers of the so-called New Age movement (and others) seem to have an infinite ability to contrive new, fantastic ideas. Or adopt really old ones, for that matter. The older and more esoteric the methods or philosophies are, the more appealing they seem to be, and if they are from a far-away place, it only makes things better.

Belief on a personal level is often most respectable. The danger arises when devoted individuals, consciously or inadvertently, influence gullible people's minds and entice them into religious sects, futile spending on quack treatments, prognostications, etc. A lot of money is at stake, especially when people in powerful positions get crazy ideas. For example, Ronald Reagan frequently consulted a Californian astrologer about national matters, the Pentagon spent $6 million on testing whether burning a picture of a Russian missile would actually destroy it, the McDonnell Foundation donated $500,000 to Washington University, St. Louis, to finance studies of spoon-bending children, the Millennium Foundation invested $1 million in a "psychically found" oil resource (it was dry!), the CIA spent some $20 million on a psychic espionage project lasting for more than ten years, etc. Unfortunately, there are far too many scary examples to be listed on this page.

The Internet provides an astounding amount of (dis)information about these matters, some of which I have collected and linked to below. The purpose of this page is to provoke thought on this subject, either you are a devout "believer", a hard-headed skeptic, or somewhere in between.



Being Open-Minded

Keeping an open mind is virtue - but not so open that your brains fall out.
- Space Engineer James Oberg Open-mindedness is always important; how else would we learn? But there are limits, as Oberg cynically points out. Open-mindedness is not by necessity the same thing as belief. ("How can you claim to be open-minded when you are so skeptical and don't believe in anything?") To me, being open-minded doesn't mean accepting fantastic claims at face value. By doing that one risks to oversee alternative explanations. The honest seeker of truth considers all plausible explanations (s)he can think of or that are provided, and then makes a reasonable judgement if possible. The seeker of excitement and fascination tends to care less about the truth; the "gut feeling" is what counts. (Note that this doesn't hinder the seeker of truth to become fascinated.) The comforting feeling of possessing arcane knowledge often overpowers rational thought and perspicacity, which results in close-mindedness, not open-mindedness (as people often think). Reasonable objections and doubts are met with suspicion and disconfirming evidence is something the believers' "open minds" cannot easily cope with. Where is their open-mindedness?



Judging the Credibility of Extraordinary Claims

We have seen pictures [of Mars] where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe.
Former Vice-President of the US, Dan Quayle The following principles and questions are helpful when judging the credibility of extraordinary claims, or when thinking objectively about one's own arguments and conclusions:
  • Actual existence of a phenomenon: Is it possible to scientifically prove or make probable that the purported phenomenon actually exists? Remember: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


  • Testability: Is the claim testable at all? If not, the claim is probably mere speculation or fantasy. (An exception to this could be, say, a UFO encounter. The lack of testability does not necessarily imply that the claim is unfounded.) Furthermore, if the claim is testable, is it actually tested? And if it is tested, which methods were used? Are the results reproducible in a way that makes them statistically significant? Is there a complete (i.e. trustworthy) documentation available to the public?


  • The burden of proof lies upon the claimant, whereas the doubter has no obligation to disprove anything. Not only should the claimant attempt to prove his or her hypothesis. Supposing (s)he wants to achieve just respectablility, (s)he also has the obligation to try to disprove the hypothesis. This is one of the scientist's primary tasks; to try to falsify his or her hypotheses. How else would (s)he rightly rule out alternative explanations?


  • Occams razor: of two logical explanations, the one based on the least number of unfounded presumptions is to prefer - until, perhaps, further evidence changes the premises. Occam's razor doesn't posit that the simplest explanation is to prefer, which is a misunderstanding sometimes used by naive creationists to say that genesis is superior to evolution due to the former's simplicity alone. Note also that an explanation, however logical, can be totally worthless if the premises are false or unfounded.


  • B happened after A, hence A caused B. This kind of reasoning is called post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning. An illustrative example is the following arguments: "I ate sushi yesterday and today I'm sick!", or "Before this party seized the nation's political power, there was no poverty and the economy prospered!". I have omitted the conclusions, since they are often understated in such claims. The obvious conclusions are, however, logically false. Conclusions such as if A implies B and B is true, then A is true, is a common variety of the above. Implication is not equivalent to equivalence. If this medicine helps me, then I will get healed. I am healed. Thus it was the medicine that helped! (Not to speak about explanations of miracles...) The following paragraph describes a similar misunderstanding of causality.


  • Causation and correlation are not equivalent! There may be a nearly perfect correlation between human natality and the arrival of storks in the spring, but, of course, that doesn't make storks the actual cause of increases in birth rates! However obvious this may seem, the difference between causation and correlation is often neglected. For example, Trancendental Meditation advocates argue that their activities reduce crime rates in whole cities by telepathically inducing positive vibrations/energies in the rest of the population. Supposing there actually is a significant correlation supporting their claims, other causes may still be responsible for the effects. Could it even be that the TM:ers themselves were the ones who caused high crime rates, before they became preoccupied with meditation and levitation? Probably not, but the question should make obvious that a good correlation alone means very little, especially when it comes to extraordinary claims. (In the TM case, the alledged positive correlations themselves have lacked support by official statistics, but that's another matter!) In instances of highly questionable nature, the best a good correlation can accomplish is to awaken interest and goad further investigation.


  • "I believe in X because it is not disproved!" Really? Then you should believe in Santa Claus, too. And dragons, and ghosts, and time-travelling machines... They're not disproved either.



Why Care?

Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?
- Ronald Reagan, campaign speech, 1980

The message I want to convey is that irrational and pseudoscientific movements are not merely silly curiosities that deserve no attention. Indifference, and hence tacit acceptance, may be harmful. The actual danger, whether it be physical, mental, economical, or none at all, varies depending on each individual situation and is thus difficult to estimate objectively in a general sense. I therefore invite you to browse on your own among my favorite and absolutely non-favorite sites (below) containing information (and disinformation) relevant to the subject. You get to decide which sites contain mumbo jumbo and which do not.

If you succeed to prove the existence of a so-called "supernatural" phenomenon, you will revolutionize all of science, gain enormous fame, and be awarded the Nobel Prize! Indeed, you will accomplish what most scientists only dream about. Considering the number of charlatans who operate today and the simplicity of most of their claims, it's very strange that none of them has thought of this. Actually, it's even more remarkable that scientists, who devote their entire lives to exploring the innermost secrets of nature, show little or no interest in investigating preternatural claims. They are the ones who ought to be most eager to do so. May it be that they're just plain bored of all the gibberish? (Remember that many of the claims are older than science itself and there has been plenty of time for evaluation.) So if the close-minded "white coats" are too ignorant to bother, why don't you take the chance? Think about it, and if you are going to invest money in it, think twice. Good luck!



Personal Thoughts on Specific Subjects

I plan to write a few articles containing my own reflections on certain branches of pseudoscience and quackery. Homeopathy and dowsing are the only articles as of now, but there is more to come. Perhaps astrology is next!?



Links

Many of the questionable sciences, philosophies, and plain superstitions linked to below are difficult to categorize, and I'm aware that my attempts have not been successful all the time. For links to better organized sites, look for those which are capitalized.

Skepticism
Religion and Quasi-Religion
Eastern Mysticism
New and Old Age
Little Green Men
Questionable Medicine
Questionable Psychology, Astrology and Personality Tests


Grateful thanks to Mikael Nilsson for contributing valuable comments on this page.

You are visitor number 

RXML parse error: This tag doesn't handle content.
 | <accessed cheat="400">