The Generations of Noah, also called the Table of Nations or Origines Gentium, is a genealogy of the sons of Noah, according to the Hebrew Bible (Genesis10:9), and their dispersion into many lands after the Flood, focusing on the major known societies. The term 'nations' to describe the descendants is a standard English translation of the Hebrew word "goyim", following the c. 400 CE Latin Vulgate's "nationes", and does not have the same political connotations that the word entails today.
According to the biblical scholar Joseph Blenkinsopp,
the 70 names in the list express symbolically the unity of humanity,
corresponding to the 70 descendants of Israel who go down into Egypt
with Jacob at Genesis 46:27 and the 70 elders of Israel who visit God with Moses at the covenant ceremony in Exodus24:1–9.
Table of Nations
On the family pedigrees contained in the biblical pericope of Noah, Saadia Gaon (882‒942) wrote:
The Scriptures have traced the patronymic lineage of the
seventy nations to the three sons of Noah, as also the lineage of
Abraham and Ishmael, and of Jacob and Esau. The blessed Creator knew
that men would find solace at knowing these family pedigrees, since our
soul demands of us to know them, so that [all of] mankind will be held
in fondness by us, as a tree that has been planted by God in the earth,
whose branches have spread out and dispersed eastward and westward,
northward and southward, in the habitable part of the earth. It also has
the dual function of allowing us to see the multitude as a single
individual, and the single individual as a multitude. Along with this,
man ought to contemplate also on the names of the countries and of the
cities [wherein they settled]."
Maimonides,
echoing the same sentiments, wrote that the genealogy of the nations
contained in the Law has the unique function of establishing a principle
of faith, how that, although from Adam to Moses there was no more than a
span of two-thousand five hundred years, and the human race was already
spread over all parts of the earth in different families and with
different languages, they were still people having a common ancestor and
place of beginning.
Other Bible commentators observe that the Table of Nations is
unique compared to other genealogies since it depicts a "broad network
of cousins", with a "shallow chain of brotherly relationships".
Meanwhile, the other genealogies focus on "narrow chains of father-son
relationships".
Book of Genesis
Noah dividing the world between his sons. Anonymous painter; Russian Empire, 18th century
Chapters 1–11 of the Book of Genesis are structured around five toledot
statements ("these are the generations of..."), of which the
"generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth" is the fourth.
Events before the Genesis flood narrative, the central toledot, correspond to those after: the post-Flood world is a new creation corresponding to the Genesis creation narrative,
and Noah had three sons who populated the world. The correspondences
extend forward as well: there are 70 names in the Table, corresponding
to the 70 Israelites who go down into Egypt at the end of Genesis and to
the 70 elders of Israel who go up the mountain at Sinai to meet with
God in Exodus. The symbolic force of these numbers is underscored by the
way the names are frequently arranged in groups of seven, suggesting
that the Table is a symbolic means of implying universal moral
obligation.
The number 70 also parallels Canaanite mythology, where 70 represents
the number of gods in the divine clan who are each assigned a subject
people, and where the supreme god El and his consort, Asherah,
has the title "Mother/Father of 70 gods", which, due to the coming of
monotheism, had to be changed, but its symbolism lived on in the new
religion.
The overall structure of the Table is:
1. Introductory formula, v.1
2. Japheth, vv.2–5
3. Ham, vv.6–20
4. Shem, vv.21–31
5. Concluding formula, v.32.
The overall principle governing the assignment of various peoples
within the Table is difficult to discern: it purports to describe all
humankind, but in reality restricts itself to the Egyptian lands of the south, the Mesopotamian lands, and Anatolia/Asia Minor and the Ionian Greeks, and in addition, the "sons of Noah" are not organized by geography, language family or ethnic groups within these regions.
The Table contains several difficulties: for example, the names Sheba
and Havilah are listed twice, first as descendants of Cush the son of
Ham (verse 7), and then as sons of Joktan, the great-grandsons of Shem,
and while the Cushites are North African in verses 6–7 they are
unrelated Mesopotamians in verses 10–14.
The date of composition of Genesis 1–11 cannot be fixed with any
precision, although it seems likely that an early brief nucleus was
later expanded with extra data. Portions of the Table itself 'may' derive from the 10th century BCE, while others reflect the 7th century BCE and priestly revisions in the 5th century BCE. Its combination of world review, myth and genealogy corresponds to the work of the Greek historian Hecataeus of Miletus, active c. 520 BCE.
Book of Chronicles
I
Chronicles 1 includes a version of the Table of Nations from Genesis,
but edited to make clearer that the intention is to establish the
background for Israel. This is done by condensing various branches to
focus on the story of Abraham and his offspring. Most notably, it omits
Genesis 10:9–14, in which Nimrod, a son of Cush, is linked to various
cities in Mesopotamia, thus removing from Cush any Mesopotamian
connection. In addition, Nimrod does not appear in any of the numerous
Mesopotamian King Lists.
Book of Jubilees
Ionian world map
The Table of Nations is expanded upon in detail in chapters 8–9 of the Book of Jubilees, sometimes known as the "Lesser Genesis," a work from the early Second Temple period. Jubilees is considered pseudepigraphical by most Christian and Jewish denominations but thought to have been held in regard by many of the Church Fathers.
Its division of the descendants throughout the world are thought to
have been heavily influenced by the "Ionian world map" described in the Histories of Herodotus, and the anomalous treatment of Canaan and Madai are thought to have been "propaganda for the territorial expansion of the Hasmonean state".
Septuagint version
The Hebrew bible was translated into Greek in Alexandria at the request of Ptolemy II, who reigned over Egypt 285–246 BCE. Its version of the Table of Nations is substantially the same as that in the Hebrew text, but with the following differences:
It lists Elisa as an extra son of Japheth, giving him eight
instead of seven, while continuing to list him also as a son of Javan,
as in the Masoretic text.
Whereas the Hebrew text lists Shelah as the son of Arpachshad in the line of Shem, the Septuagint has a Cainan
as the son of Arpachshad and father of Shelah – the Book of Jubilees
gives considerable scope to this figure. Cainan appears again at the end
of the list of the sons of Shem.
Obal, Joktan's eighth son in the Masoretic text, does not appear.
1 Peter
In the First Epistle of Peter,
3:20, the author says that eight righteous persons were saved from the
Great Flood, referring to the four named males, and their wives aboard Noah's Ark not enumerated elsewhere in the Bible.
Sons of Noah: Shem, Ham and Japheth
1823 map by Robert Wilkinson (see also 1797 version here). Prior to the mid-19th century, Shem was associated with all of Asia, Ham with all of Africa and Japheth with all of Europe.
The Genesis flood narrative
tells how Noah and his three sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, together with
their wives, were saved from the Deluge to repopulate the Earth.
Shem's
descendants: Genesis chapter 10 verses 21–30 gives one list of
descendants of Shem. In chapter 11 verses 10–26 a second list of
descendants of Shem names Abraham and thus the Arabs and Israelites. In the view of some 17th-century European scholars (e.g., John Webb), the Native American peoples of North and South America, eastern Persia and "the Indias" descended from Shem, possibly through his descendant Joktan. Some modern creationists identify Shem as the progenitor of Y-chromosomal haplogroupIJ, and hence haplogroups I (common in northern Europe) and J (common in the Middle East).
Ham's descendants: The forefather of Cush, Egypt, and Put, and of Canaan, whose lands include portions of Africa. The Aboriginal Australians and indigenous people of New Guinea have also been tied to Ham.
The etymology of his name is uncertain; some scholars have linked it to
terms connected with divinity, but a divine or semi-divine status for
Ham is unlikely.
Japheth's descendants: His name is associated with the mythological Greek Titan Iapetus, and his sons include Javan, the Greek-speaking cities of Ionia. In Genesis 9:27 it forms a pun with the Hebrew root yph: "May God make room [the hiphil of the yph root] for Japheth, that he may live in Shem's tents and Canaan may be his slave."
Based on an old Jewish tradition contained in the Aramaic Targum of pseudo-Jonathan ben Uzziel, an anecdotal reference to the Origines gentium in Genesis 10:2–ff has been passed down, and which, in one form or another, has also been relayed by Josephus in his Antiquities, repeated in the Talmud, and further elaborated by medieval Jewish scholars, such as in works written by Saadia Gaon, Josippon, and Don Isaac Abarbanel, who, based on their own knowledge of the nations, showed their migratory patterns at the time of their compositions:
"The sons of Japheth are Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tuval, and Meshech and Tiras, while the names of their diocese are Africa proper, and Germania, and Media, and Macedonia, and Bithynia, and Moesia (var. Mysia) and Thrace. Now, the sons of Gomer were Ashkenaz, and Rifath and Togarmah, while the names of their diocese are Asia, and Parthia and the 'land of the barbarians.' The sons of Javan were Elisha, and Tarshish, Kitim and Dodanim, while the names of their diocese are Elis, and Tarsus, Achaia and Dardania." ---Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Genesis 10:2–5
"The sons of Ḥam are Kūš, and Miṣrayim, and Fūṭ (Phut), and Kenaʻan, while the names of their diocese are Arabia, and Egypt, and Elīḥerūq and Canaan. The sons of Kūš are Sebā and Ḥawīlah and Savtah and Raʻamah and Savteḫā, [while the sons of Raʻamah are Ševā and Dedan]. The names of their diocese are called Sīnīrae, and Hīndīqī, Samarae, Lūbae, Zinğae, while the sons of Mauretinos are [the inhabitants of] Zemarğad and [the inhabitants of] Mezağ." ---Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Genesis 10:6–7
"The sons of Shem are Elam, and Ashur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram. [And the children of Aram are these: Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash.] Now, Arphaxad begat Shelah (Salah), and Shelah begat Eber. Unto Eber were born two sons, the one named Peleg, since in his days the [nations of the] earth were divided, while the name of his brother is Joktan. Joktan begat Almodad, who measured the earth with ropes; Sheleph, who drew out the waters of rivers; and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah, and Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah, and Obal, and Abimael, and Sheba,and Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab, all of whom are the sons of Joktan." ---Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Genesis 10: 22–28
Uncertain, further complicated by its later attestation as Rodanim. Those assuming Dodanim represents the original form have proposed Dodona, Dardania, and Dardanus; whereas those assuming Rodanim represents the original have almost universally proposed Rhodes.
Because
of the traditional grouping of people based on their alleged descent
from the three major biblical progenitors (Shem, Ham, and Japheth) by
the three Abrahamic religions, in former years there was an attempt to
classify these family groups and to divide humankind into three races
called Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid (originally named "Ethiopian"), terms which were introduced in the 1780s by members of the Göttingen school of history.
It is now recognized that determining precise descent-groups based
strictly on patrilineal descent is problematic, owing to the fact that
nations are not stationary. People are often multi-lingual and
multi-ethnic, and people sometimes migrate from one country to another
- whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Some nations have intermingled
with other nations and can no longer trace their paternal descent, or have assimilated and abandoned their mother's tongue for another language. In addition, phenotypes cannot always be used to determine one's ethnicity because of interracial marriages. A nation
today is defined as "a large aggregate of people inhabiting a
particular territory united by a common descent, history, culture, or
language." The biblical line of descent is irrespective of language, place of nativity, or cultural influences, as all that is binding is one's patrilineal line of descent. For these reasons, attempting to determine precise blood relation of any one group in today's Modern Age
may prove futile. Sometimes people sharing a common patrilineal descent
spoke two separate languages, whereas, at other times, a language
spoken by a people of common descent may have been learnt and spoken by
multiple other nations of different descent.
Another problem associated with determining precise
descent-groups based strictly on patrilineal descent is the realization
that, for some of the prototypical family groups, certain sub-groups
have sprung forth, and are considered diverse from each other (such as
Ismael, the progenitor of the Arab nations, and Isaac, the progenitor of the Israelite nation, although both family groups are derived from Shem's patrilineal line through Eber. The total number of other sub-groups, or splinter groups, each with its distinct language and culture is unknown.
Identifying geographically-defined groups of people in terms of their
biblical lineage, based on the Generations of Noah, has been common
since antiquity.
There
exist various traditions in post-biblical and talmudic sources claiming
that Noah had children other than Shem, Ham, and Japheth who were born
before the Deluge.
According to the Quran (Hud
42–43), Noah had another unnamed son who refused to come aboard the
Ark, instead preferring to climb a mountain, where he drowned. Some
later Islamic commentators give his name as either Yam or Kan'an.
According to Irish mythology, as found in the Annals of the Four Masters and elsewhere, Noah had another son named Bith who was not allowed aboard the Ark, and who attempted to colonise Ireland with 54 persons, only to be wiped out in the Deluge.
Some 9th-century manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle assert that Sceafa was the fourth son of Noah, born aboard the Ark, from whom the House of Wessex traced their ancestry; in William of Malmesbury's version of this genealogy (c. 1120), Sceaf is instead made a descendant of Strephius, the fourth son born aboard the Ark (Gesta Regnum Anglorum).
According to the monk Annio da Viterbo (1498), the Hellenistic Babylonian writer Berossus had mentioned 30 children born to Noah after the Deluge, including Macrus, Iapetus Iunior (Iapetus the Younger), Prometheus Priscus (Prometheus the Elder), Tuyscon Gygas (Tuyscon the Giant), Crana, Cranus, Granaus, 17 Tytanes (Titans), Araxa Prisca (Araxa the Elder), Regina, Pandora Iunior (Pandora the Younger), Thetis, Oceanus, and Typhoeus. However, Annio's manuscript is widely regarded today as having been a forgery.
Historian William Whiston stated in his book A New Theory of the Earth that Noah, who is to be identified with Fuxi, migrated with his wife and children born after the deluge to China, and founded Chinese civilization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience A typical 19th-century phrenology
chart: During the 1820s, phrenologists claimed the mind was located in
areas of the brain, and were attacked for doubting that mind came from
the nonmaterial soul. Their idea of reading "bumps" in the skull to
predict personality traits was later discredited. Phrenology was first termed a pseudoscience in 1843 and continues to be considered so.
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited. It is not the same as junk science.
Pseudoscience can have dangerous effects. For example, pseudoscientific anti-vaccine activism
and promotion of homeopathic remedies as alternative disease treatments
can result in people forgoing important medical treatments with
demonstrable health benefits, leading to deaths and ill-health.
Furthermore, people who refuse legitimate medical treatments for
contagious diseases may put others at risk. Pseudoscientific theories
about racial and ethnic classifications have led to racism and genocide.
The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative,
particularly by purveyors of it, because it suggests something is being
presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Therefore, those
practicing or advocating pseudoscience frequently dispute the
characterization.
Etymology
The word pseudoscience is derived from the Greek root pseudo meaning "false" and the English word science, from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge". Although the term has been in use since at least the late 18th century (e.g., in 1796 by James Pettit Andrews in reference to alchemy),
the concept of pseudoscience as distinct from real or proper science
seems to have become more widespread during the mid-19th century. Among
the earliest uses of "pseudo-science" was in an 1844 article in the Northern Journal of Medicine, issue 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.
An earlier use of the term was in 1843 by the French physiologist François Magendie, that refers to phrenology as "a pseudo-science of the present day".
During the 20th century, the word was used pejoratively to describe
explanations of phenomena which were claimed to be scientific, but which
were not in fact supported by reliable experimental evidence.
Dismissing the separate issue of intentional fraud – such as the Fox sisters' "rappings" in the 1850s – the pejorative label pseudoscience distinguishes the scientific 'us', at one extreme, from the pseudo-scientific 'them', at the other, and asserts that 'our' beliefs, practices, theories, etc., by contrast with that of 'the others', are scientific. There are four criteria: (a) the 'pseudoscientific' group asserts that its beliefs, practices, theories, etc., are 'scientific'; (b) the 'pseudoscientific' group claims that its allegedly established facts are justified true beliefs; (c) the 'pseudoscientific' group asserts that its 'established facts' have been justified by genuine, rigorous, scientific method; and (d)
this assertion is false or deceptive: "it is not simply that subsequent
evidence overturns established conclusions, but rather that the conclusions were never warranted in the first place"
From time to time, however, the usage of the word occurred in a more
formal, technical manner in response to a perceived threat to individual
and institutional security in a social and cultural setting.
Relationship to science
Pseudoscience is differentiated from science because – although it
usually claims to be science – pseudoscience does not adhere to
scientific standards, such as the scientific method, falsifiability of claims, and Mertonian norms.
The scientific method is a continuous cycle of observation, questioning, hypothesis, experimentation, analysis and conclusion.
A number of basic principles are accepted by scientists as standards
for determining whether a body of knowledge, method, or practice is
scientific. Experimental results should be reproducible and verified by other researchers.
These principles are intended to ensure experiments can be reproduced
measurably given the same conditions, allowing further investigation to
determine whether a hypothesis or theory related to given phenomena is valid and reliable. Standards require the scientific method to be applied throughout, and bias to be controlled for or eliminated through randomization, fair sampling procedures, blinding
of studies, and other methods. All gathered data, including the
experimental or environmental conditions, are expected to be documented
for scrutiny and made available for peer review, allowing further experiments or studies to be conducted to confirm or falsify results. Statistical quantification of significance, confidence, and error are also important tools for the scientific method.
During the mid-20th century, the philosopher Karl Popper emphasized the criterion of falsifiability to distinguish science from non-science. Statements, hypotheses, or theories have falsifiability or refutability if there is the inherent possibility that they can be proven false, that is, if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument that negates them. Popper used astrology and psychoanalysis as examples of pseudoscience and Einstein's theory of relativity
as an example of science. He subdivided non-science into philosophical,
mathematical, mythological, religious and metaphysical formulations on
one hand, and pseudoscientific formulations on the other.
Another example which shows the distinct need for a claim to be falsifiable was stated in Carl Sagan's publication The Demon-Haunted World
when he discusses an invisible dragon that he has in his garage. The
point is made that there is no physical test to refute the claim of the
presence of this dragon. Whatever test one thinks can be devised, there
is a reason why it does not apply to the invisible dragon, so one can
never prove that the initial claim is wrong. Sagan concludes; "Now,
what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon
who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?". He states that "your
inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as
proving it true", once again explaining that even if such a claim were true, it would be outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
During 1942, Robert K. Merton
identified a set of five "norms" which characterize real science. If
any of the norms were violated, Merton considered the enterprise to be
non-science. His norms were:
Originality: The tests and research done must present something new to the scientific community.
Detachment: The scientists' reasons for practicing this science must
be simply for the expansion of their knowledge. The scientists should
not have personal reasons to expect certain results.
Universality: No person should be able to more easily obtain the
information of a test than another person. Social class, religion,
ethnicity, or any other personal factors should not be factors in
someone's ability to receive or perform a type of science.
Skepticism: Scientific facts must not be based on faith. One should
always question every case and argument and constantly check for errors
or invalid claims.
Public accessibility: Any scientific knowledge one obtains should be
made available to everyone. The results of any research should be
published and shared with the scientific community.
Refusal to acknowledge problems
In 1978, Paul Thagard
proposed that pseudoscience is primarily distinguishable from science
when it is less progressive than alternative theories over a long period
of time, and its proponents fail to acknowledge or address problems
with the theory. In 1983, Mario Bunge
suggested the categories of "belief fields" and "research fields" to
help distinguish between pseudoscience and science, where the former is
primarily personal and subjective and the latter involves a certain
systematic method. The 2018 book about scientific skepticism by Steven Novella, et al. The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe lists hostility to criticism as one of the major features of pseudoscience.
Criticism of the term
Larry Laudan
has suggested pseudoscience has no scientific meaning and is mostly
used to describe human 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". Likewise, Richard McNally
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?"
Alternative definition
For philosophers Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome R. Ravetz
"pseudo-science may be defined as one where the uncertainty of its
inputs must be suppressed, lest they render its outputs totally
indeterminate". The definition, in the book Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy,
alludes to the loss of craft skills in handling quantitative
information, and to the bad practice of achieving precision in
prediction (inference) only at the expenses of ignoring uncertainty in
the input which was used to formulate the prediction. This use of the
term is common among practitioners of post-normal science.
Understood in this way, pseudoscience can be fought using good
practices to assess uncertainty in quantitative information, such as NUSAP and – in the case of mathematical modelling – sensitivity auditing.
The history of pseudoscience is the study of pseudoscientific
theories over time. A pseudoscience is a set of ideas that presents
itself as science, while it does not meet the criteria to be properly
called such.
Distinguishing between proper science and pseudoscience is sometimes difficult. One proposal for demarcation between the two is the falsification criterion, attributed most notably to the philosopher Karl Popper. In the history of science and the history of pseudoscience
it can be especially difficult to separate the two, because some
sciences developed from pseudosciences. An example of this
transformation is the science of chemistry, which traces its origins to the pseudoscientific or pre-scientific study of alchemy.
The vast diversity in pseudosciences further complicates the history of science. Some modern pseudosciences, such as astrology and acupuncture, originated before the scientific era. Others developed as part of an ideology, such as Lysenkoism, or as a response to perceived threats to an ideology. Examples of this ideological process are creation science and intelligent design, which were developed in response to the scientific theory of evolution.
Homeopathic preparation Rhus toxicodendron, derived from poison ivy
A topic, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be termed
pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of
scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.
Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.
Assertion of a claim with little or no explanatory power.
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 measure
or test them independently) (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 razor).
Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories
possess well-articulated limitations under which the predicted
phenomena do and do not apply.
Lack of understanding of basic and established principles of physics and engineering.
Improper collection of evidence
Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they
can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment (See
also: Falsifiability).
Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict.Scientific claims that do not confer any predictive power are
considered at best "conjectures", or at worst "pseudoscience" (e.g., ignoratio elenchi).
Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must therefore be true, and vice versa (See: Argument from ignorance).
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).
Use of myths and religious texts as if they were fact, or basing evidence on readings of such texts.
Use of concepts and scenarios from science fiction
as if they were fact. This technique appeals to the familiarity that
many people already have with science fiction tropes through the popular
media.
Presentation of data that seems to support claims while suppressing
or refusing to consider data that conflict with those claims. This is an example of selection bias or cherry picking,
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.
Repeating excessive or untested claims that have been previously
published elsewhere, and promoting those claims as if they were facts;
an accumulation of such uncritical secondary reports, which do not
otherwise contribute their own empirical investigation, is called the Woozle effect.
Reversed burden of proof:
science places the burden of proof 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 on the
claimant.
Appeals to holism as opposed to reductionism
to dismiss negative findings: proponents of pseudoscientific claims,
especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and
mental health, often resort to the "mantra of holism" .
Lack of openness to testing by other experts
Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (termed "science by press conference"):Some proponents of ideas 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.
Some agencies, institutions, and publications that fund scientific research require authors to share data
so others can evaluate a paper independently. Failure to provide
adequate information for other researchers to reproduce the claims
contributes to a lack of openness.
Appealing to the need for secrecy or proprietary knowledge when an independent review of data or methodology is requested.
Substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all viewpoints is not encouraged.
Absence of progress
Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims. Terence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has changed very little in the past two millennia.
Lack of self-correction: scientific research programmes make mistakes, but they tend to reduce these errors over time.
By contrast, ideas may be regarded as 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.
Statistical significance of supporting experimental results does not
improve over time and are usually close to the cutoff for statistical
significance. Normally, experimental techniques improve or the
experiments are repeated, and this gives ever stronger evidence. If
statistical significance does not improve, this typically shows the
experiments have just been repeated until a success occurs due to chance
variations.
Personalization of issues
Tight social groups and 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.
Assertion of a conspiracy on the part of the mainstream scientific
community, government, or educational facilities to suppress
pseudoscientific information. People who make these accusations often
compare themselves to Galileo Galilei and his persecution by the Roman Catholic Church; this comparison is commonly known as the Galileo gambit.
Attacking the motives, character, morality, or competence of critics, rather than their arguments (see ad hominem)
Use of misleading language
Creating scientific-sounding terms to persuade non-experts to
believe statements that may be false or meaningless: for example, a
long-standing hoax refers to water by the rarely used formal name "dihydrogen monoxide" 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.
Prevalence of pseudoscientific beliefs
Countries
The Ministry of AYUSH
in the Government of India is purposed with developing education,
research and propagation of indigenous alternative medicine systems in
India. The ministry has faced significant criticism for funding systems
that lack biological plausibility
and are either untested or conclusively proven as ineffective. Quality
of research has been poor, and drugs have been launched without any
rigorous pharmacological studies and meaningful clinical trials on Ayurveda or other alternative healthcare systems. There is no credible efficacy or scientific basis of any of these forms of treatment.
In his book The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan discusses the government of China and the Chinese Communist Party's
concern about Western pseudoscience developments and certain ancient
Chinese practices in China. He sees pseudoscience occurring in the
United States as part of a worldwide trend and suggests its causes,
dangers, diagnosis and treatment may be universal.
A large percentage of the United States population lacks
scientific literacy, not adequately understanding scientific principles
and method. In the Journal of College Science Teaching,
Art Hobson writes, "Pseudoscientific beliefs are surprisingly
widespread in our culture even among public school science teachers and
newspaper editors, and are closely related to scientific illiteracy."
However, a 10,000-student study in the same journal concluded there was
no strong correlation between science knowledge and belief in
pseudoscience.
During 2006, the U.S. National Science Foundation
(NSF) issued an executive summary of a paper on science and engineering
which briefly discussed the prevalence of pseudoscience in modern
times. It said, "belief in pseudoscience is widespread" and, referencing
a Gallup Poll,stated that belief in the 10 commonly believed examples of paranormal
phenomena listed in the poll were "pseudoscientific beliefs". The items were "extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts, telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation, and channelling". Such beliefs in pseudoscience represent a lack of knowledge of how science works. The scientific community may attempt to communicate information about science out of concern for the public's susceptibility to unproven claims.
The NSF stated that pseudoscientific beliefs in the U.S. became more
widespread during the 1990s, peaked about 2001, and then decreased
slightly since with pseudoscientific beliefs remaining common. According
to the NSF report, there is a lack of knowledge of pseudoscientific
issues in society and pseudoscientific practices are commonly followed. Surveys indicate about a third of adult Americans consider astrology to be scientific.
There have been many connections between pseudoscientific writers and researchers and their anti-semitic, racist and neo-Nazi backgrounds. They often use pseudoscience to reinforce their beliefs. One of the most predominant pseudoscientific writers is Frank Collin, a self-proclaimed Nazi who goes by Frank Joseph in his writings. The majority of his works include the topics of Atlantis, extraterrestrial encounters, and Lemuria as well as other ancient civilizations, often with white supremacist undertones. For example, he posited that European peoples migrated to North America before Columbus, and that all Native American civilizations were initiated by descendants of white people.
The Alt-Right
using pseudoscience to base their ideologies on is not a new issue. The
entire foundation of anti-semitism is based on pseudoscience, or scientific racism. In an article from Newsweek
by Sander Gilman, Gilman describes the pseudoscience community's
anti-semitic views. "Jews as they appear in this world of pseudoscience
are an invented group of ill, stupid or stupidly smart people who use
science to their own nefarious ends. Other groups, too, are painted
similarly in 'race science', as it used to call itself:
African-Americans, the Irish, the Chinese and, well, any and all groups
that you want to prove inferior to yourself".
Neo-Nazis and white supremacist often try to support their claims with
studies that "prove" that their claims are more than just harmful
stereotypes. For example Bret Stephens published a column in The New York Times where he claimed that Ashkenazi Jews had the highest IQ among any ethnic group.
However, the scientific methodology and conclusions reached by the
article Stephens cited has been called into question repeatedly since
its publication. It has been found that at least one of that study's
authors has been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a white nationalist.
The journal Nature
has published a number of editorials in the last few years warning
researchers about extremists looking to abuse their work, particularly
population geneticists and those working with ancient DNA. One article in Nature, titled "Racism in Science: The Taint That Lingers" notes that early-twentieth-century eugenic pseudoscience has been used to influence public policy, such as the Immigration Act of 1924
in the United States, which sought to prevent immigration from Asia and
parts of Europe. Research has repeatedly shown that race is not a
scientifically valid concept, yet some scientists continue to look for
measurable biological differences between 'races'.
Explanations
In a 1981 report Singer and Benassi wrote that pseudoscientific beliefs have their origin from at least four sources.
A 1990 study by Eve and Dunn supported the findings of Singer and
Benassi and found pseudoscientific belief being promoted by high school
life science and biology teachers.
Psychology
The psychology of pseudoscience attempts to explore and analyze
pseudoscientific thinking by means of thorough clarification on making
the distinction of what is considered scientific vs. pseudoscientific.
The human proclivity for seeking confirmation rather than refutation (confirmation bias),
the tendency to hold comforting beliefs, and the tendency to
overgeneralize have been proposed as reasons for pseudoscientific
thinking. According to Beyerstein, humans are prone to associations
based on resemblances only, and often prone to misattribution in
cause-effect thinking.
Michael Shermer's
theory of belief-dependent realism is driven by the belief that the
brain is essentially a "belief engine" which scans data perceived by the
senses and looks for patterns and meaning. There is also the tendency
for the brain to create cognitive biases,
as a result of inferences and assumptions made without logic and based
on instinct – usually resulting in patterns in cognition. These
tendencies of patternicity and agenticity are also driven "by a meta-bias called the bias blind spot,
or the tendency to recognize the power of cognitive biases in other
people but to be blind to their influence on our own beliefs".
Lindeman states that social motives (i.e., "to comprehend self and the
world, to have a sense of control over outcomes, to belong, to find the
world benevolent and to maintain one's self-esteem") are often "more
easily" fulfilled by pseudoscience than by scientific information.
Furthermore, pseudoscientific explanations are generally not analyzed
rationally, but instead experientially. Operating within a different set
of rules compared to rational thinking, experiential thinking regards
an explanation as valid if the explanation is "personally functional,
satisfying and sufficient", offering a description of the world that may
be more personal than can be provided by science and reducing the
amount of potential work involved in understanding complex events and
outcomes.
Anyone searching for psychological help that is based in science
should seek a licensed therapist whose techniques are not based in
pseudoscience. Hupp and Santa Maria provide a complete explanation of
what that person should look for.
Education and scientific literacy
There is a trend to believe in pseudoscience more than scientific evidence. Some people believe the prevalence of pseudoscientific beliefs is due to widespread scientific illiteracy.
Individuals lacking scientific literacy are more susceptible to wishful
thinking, since they are likely to turn to immediate gratification
powered by System 1, our default operating system which requires little
to no effort. This system encourages one to accept the conclusions they believe,
and reject the ones they do not. Further analysis of complex
pseudoscientific phenomena require System 2, which follows rules,
compares objects along multiple dimensions and weighs options. These two
systems have several other differences which are further discussed in
the dual-process theory.
The scientific and secular systems of morality and meaning are
generally unsatisfying to most people. Humans are, by nature, a
forward-minded species pursuing greater avenues of happiness and
satisfaction, but we are all too frequently willing to grasp at
unrealistic promises of a better life.
Psychology has much to discuss about pseudoscience thinking, as
it is the illusory perceptions of causality and effectiveness of
numerous individuals that needs to be illuminated. Research suggests
that illusionary thinking happens in most people when exposed to certain
circumstances such as reading a book, an advertisement or the testimony
of others are the basis of pseudoscience beliefs. It is assumed that
illusions are not unusual, and given the right conditions, illusions are
able to occur systematically even in normal emotional situations. One
of the things pseudoscience believers quibble most about is that
academic science usually treats them as fools. Minimizing these
illusions in the real world is not simple.
To this aim, designing evidence-based educational programs can be
effective to help people identify and reduce their own illusions.
Boundaries with science
Classification
Philosophers classify types of knowledge. In English, the word science is used to indicate specifically the natural sciences and related fields, which are called the social sciences. Different philosophers of science may disagree on the exact limits – for example, is mathematics a formal science that is closer to the empirical ones, or is pure mathematics closer to the philosophical study of logic and therefore not a science? – but all agree that all of the ideas that are not scientific are non-scientific. The large category of non-science includes all matters outside the natural and social sciences, such as the study of history, metaphysics, religion, art, and the humanities.
Dividing the category again, unscientific claims are a subset of the
large category of non-scientific claims. This category specifically
includes all matters that are directly opposed to good science.
Un-science includes both "bad science" (such as an error made in a
good-faith attempt at learning something about the natural world) and
pseudoscience. Thus pseudoscience is a subset of un-science, and un-science, in turn, is subset of non-science.
Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or
spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained
by empirical research and testing. The most notable disputes concern the evolution 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.
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. Moreover, some specific
religious claims, such as the power of intercessory prayer to heal the sick, although they may be based on untestable beliefs, can be tested by the scientific method.
Some statements and common beliefs of 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.
Indeed, pop science is disseminated to, and can also easily emanate
from, persons not accountable to scientific methodology and expert peer
review.
If claims of a given field can be tested experimentally and
standards are upheld, it is not pseudoscience, regardless of how odd,
astonishing, or counterintuitive those claims are. If claims made are
inconsistent with existing experimental results or established theory,
but the method is sound, caution should be used, since 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". Protoscience
is a term sometimes used to describe a hypothesis that has not yet been
tested adequately 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.
Karl Popper stated it is insufficient to distinguish science from pseudoscience, or from metaphysics (such as the philosophical question of what existence means), by the criterion of rigorous adherence to the empirical method, which is essentially inductive, based on observation or experimentation.
He proposed a method to distinguish between genuine empirical,
nonempirical or even pseudoempirical methods. The latter case was
exemplified by astrology, which appeals to observation and
experimentation. While it had empirical evidence based on observation, on horoscopes and biographies, it crucially failed to use acceptable scientific standards. Popper proposed falsifiability as an important criterion in distinguishing science from pseudoscience.
To demonstrate this point, Popper gave two cases of human behavior and typical explanations from Sigmund Freud and Alfred Adler's
theories: "that of a man who pushes a child into the water with the
intention of drowning it; and that of a man who sacrifices his life in
an attempt to save the child." From Freud's perspective, the first man would have suffered from psychological repression, probably originating from an Oedipus complex, whereas the second man had attained sublimation. From Adler's perspective, the first and second man suffered from feelings of inferiority
and had to prove himself, which drove him to commit the crime or, in
the second case, drove him to rescue the child. Popper was not able to
find any counterexamples of human behavior in which the behavior could
not be explained in the terms of Adler's or Freud's theory. Popper
argued
it was that the observation always fitted or confirmed the theory
which, rather than being its strength, was actually its weakness. In
contrast, Popper gave the example of Einstein's gravitational theory, which predicted "light must be attracted by heavy bodies (such as the Sun), precisely as material bodies were attracted."
Following from this, stars closer to the Sun would appear to have moved
a small distance away from the Sun, and away from each other. This
prediction was particularly striking to Popper because it involved
considerable risk. The brightness of the Sun prevented this effect from
being observed under normal circumstances, so photographs had to be
taken during an eclipse and compared to photographs taken at night.
Popper states, "If observation shows that the predicted effect is
definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted." Popper summed up his criterion for the scientific status of a theory as depending on its falsifiability, refutability, or testability.
Paul R. Thagard
used astrology as a case study to distinguish science from
pseudoscience and proposed principles and criteria to delineate them. First, astrology has not progressed in that it has not been updated nor added any explanatory power since Ptolemy. Second, it has ignored outstanding problems such as the precession of equinoxes in astronomy. Third, alternative theories of personality
and behavior have grown progressively to encompass explanations of
phenomena which astrology statically attributes to heavenly forces.
Fourth, astrologers have remained uninterested in furthering the theory
to deal with outstanding problems or in critically evaluating the theory
in relation to other theories. Thagard intended this criterion to be
extended to areas other than astrology. He believed it would delineate
as pseudoscientific such practices as witchcraft and pyramidology, while leaving physics, chemistry, astronomy, geoscience, biology, and archaeology in the realm of science.
In the philosophy and history of science, Imre Lakatos
stresses the social and political importance of the demarcation
problem, the normative methodological problem of distinguishing between
science and pseudoscience. His distinctive historical analysis of
scientific methodology based on research programmes suggests:
"scientists regard the successful theoretical prediction of stunning
novel facts – such as the return of Halley's comet or the gravitational
bending of light rays – as what demarcates good scientific theories from
pseudo-scientific and degenerate theories, and in spite of all
scientific theories being forever confronted by 'an ocean of
counterexamples'". Lakatos offers a "novel fallibilist
analysis of the development of Newton's celestial dynamics, [his]
favourite historical example of his methodology" and argues in light of
this historical turn, that his account answers for certain inadequacies
in those of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn.
"Nonetheless, Lakatos did recognize the force of Kuhn's historical
criticism of Popper – all important theories have been surrounded by an
'ocean of anomalies', which on a falsificationist view would require the
rejection of the theory outright...Lakatos sought to reconcile the rationalism of Popperian falsificationism with what seemed to be its own refutation by history".
Many philosophers have tried to
solve the problem of demarcation in the following terms: a statement
constitutes knowledge if sufficiently many people believe it
sufficiently strongly. But the history of thought shows us that many
people were totally committed to absurd beliefs. If the strengths of
beliefs were a hallmark of knowledge, we should have to rank some tales
about demons, angels, devils, and of heaven and hell as knowledge.
Scientists, on the other hand, are very sceptical even of their best
theories. Newton's is the most powerful theory science has yet produced,
but Newton himself never believed that bodies attract each other at a
distance. So no degree of commitment to beliefs makes them knowledge.
Indeed, the hallmark of scientific behaviour is a certain scepticism
even towards one's most cherished theories. Blind commitment to a theory
is not an intellectual virtue: it is an intellectual crime.
Thus a statement may be pseudoscientific even if it is eminently
'plausible' and everybody believes in it, and it may be scientifically
valuable even if it is unbelievable and nobody believes in it. A theory
may even be of supreme scientific value even if no one understands it,
let alone believes in it.
— Imre Lakatos, Science and Pseudoscience
The boundary between science and pseudoscience is disputed and
difficult to determine analytically, even after more than a century of
study by philosophers of science and scientists, and despite some basic agreements on the fundamentals of the scientific method.
The concept of pseudoscience rests on an understanding that the
scientific method has been misrepresented or misapplied with respect to a
given theory, but many philosophers of science maintain that different
kinds of methods are held as appropriate across different fields and
different eras of human history. According to Lakatos, the typical
descriptive unit of great scientific achievements is not an isolated
hypothesis but "a powerful problem-solving machinery, which, with the
help of sophisticated mathematical techniques, digests anomalies and
even turns them into positive evidence".
To Popper, pseudoscience uses
induction to generate theories, and only performs experiments to seek to
verify them. To Popper, falsifiability is what determines the
scientific status of a theory. Taking a historical approach, Kuhn
observed that scientists did not follow Popper's rule, and might ignore
falsifying data, unless overwhelming. To Kuhn, puzzle-solving within a
paradigm is science. Lakatos attempted to resolve this debate, by
suggesting history shows that science occurs in research programmes,
competing according to how progressive they are. The leading idea of a
programme could evolve, driven by its heuristic to make predictions that
can be supported by evidence. Feyerabend claimed that Lakatos was
selective in his examples, and the whole history of science shows there
is no universal rule of scientific method, and imposing one on the
scientific community impedes progress.
— David
Newbold and Julia Roberts, "An analysis of the demarcation problem in
science and its application to therapeutic touch theory" in International Journal of Nursing Practice, Vol. 13
Laudan maintained that the demarcation between science and non-science
was a pseudo-problem, preferring to focus on the more general
distinction between reliable and unreliable knowledge.
[Feyerabend] regards Lakatos's
view as being closet anarchism disguised as methodological rationalism.
Feyerabend's claim was not that standard methodological rules should
never be obeyed, but rather that sometimes progress is made by
abandoning them. In the absence of a generally accepted rule, there is a
need for alternative methods of persuasion. According to Feyerabend,
Galileo employed stylistic and rhetorical techniques to convince his
reader, while he also wrote in Italian rather than Latin and directed
his arguments to those already temperamentally inclined to accept them.
— Alexander Bird, "The Historical Turn in the Philosophy of Science" in Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Science
Politics, health, and education
Political implications
The demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience brings up debate in the realms of science, philosophy and politics. Imre Lakatos, for instance, points out that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union at one point declared that Mendelian genetics was pseudoscientific and had its advocates, including well-established scientists such as Nikolai Vavilov, sent to a Gulag
and that the "liberal Establishment of the West" denies freedom of
speech to topics it regards as pseudoscience, particularly where they
run up against social mores.
Something becomes pseudoscientific when science cannot be separated from ideology,
scientists misrepresent scientific findings to promote or draw
attention for publicity, when politicians, journalists and a nation's
intellectual elite distort the facts of science for short-term political gain,
or when powerful individuals of the public conflate causation and
cofactors by clever wordplay. These ideas reduce the authority, value,
integrity and independence of science in society.
Health and education implications
Distinguishing science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.
Treatments with a patina of scientific authority which have not
actually been subjected to actual scientific testing may be ineffective,
expensive and dangerous to patients and confuse health providers,
insurers, government decision makers and the public as to what
treatments are appropriate. Claims advanced by pseudoscience may result
in government officials and educators making bad decisions in selecting
curricula.
The extent to which students acquire a range of social and cognitive
thinking skills related to the proper usage of science and technology
determines whether they are scientifically literate. Education in the
sciences encounters new dimensions with the changing landscape of science and technology,
a fast-changing culture and a knowledge-driven era. A reinvention of
the school science curriculum is one that shapes students to contend
with its changing influence on human welfare. Scientific literacy, which
allows a person to distinguish science from pseudosciences such as
astrology, is among the attributes that enable students to adapt to the
changing world. Its characteristics are embedded in a curriculum where
students are engaged in resolving problems, conducting investigations,
or developing projects.
Alan J. Friedman
mentions why most scientists avoid educating about pseudoscience,
including that paying undue attention to pseudoscience could dignify it.
On the other hand, Robert L. Park
emphasizes how pseudoscience can be a threat to society and considers
that scientists have a responsibility to teach how to distinguish
science from pseudoscience.
Pseudosciences such as homeopathy, even if generally benign, are used by charlatans.
This poses a serious issue because it enables incompetent practitioners
to administer health care. True-believing zealots may pose a more
serious threat than typical con men because of their delusion to
homeopathy's ideology. Irrational health care is not harmless and it is
careless to create patient confidence in pseudomedicine.
On 8 December 2016, journalist Michael V. LeVine pointed out the dangers posed by the Natural News website: "Snake-oil salesmen have pushed false cures since the dawn of medicine, and now websites like Natural News
flood social media with dangerous anti-pharmaceutical, anti-vaccination
and anti-GMO pseudoscience that puts millions at risk of contracting
preventable illnesses."
The anti-vaccine movement has persuaded large numbers of parents not to vaccinate their children, citing pseudoscientific research that links childhood vaccines with the onset of autism. These include the study by Andrew Wakefield, which claimed that a combination of gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression, which are often seen in children with ASD, occurred within two weeks of receiving vaccines. The study was eventually retracted by its publisher, and Wakefield was stripped of his license to practice medicine.
Alkaline water
is water that has a pH of higher than 7, purported to host numerous
health benefits, with no empirical backing. A practitioner known as Robert O. Young who promoted alkaline water and an "Alkaline diet" was sent to jail for 3 years in 2017 for practicing medicine without a license.
.jpg)
.png)
