The history of nuclear physics as a discipline distinct from atomic physics, starts with the discovery of radioactivity by Henri Becquerel in 1896, made while investigating phosphorescence in uranium salts. The discovery of the electron by J. J. Thomson a year later was an indication that the atom had internal structure. At
the beginning of the 20th century the accepted model of the atom was J.
J. Thomson's "plum pudding" model in which the atom was a positively charged ball with smaller negatively charged electrons embedded inside it.
In the years that followed, radioactivity was extensively investigated, notably by Marie Curie, a Polish physicist whose maiden name was Sklodowska, Pierre Curie, Ernest Rutherford and others. By the turn of the century, physicists had also discovered three types of radiation emanating from atoms, which they named alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. Experiments by Otto Hahn in 1911 and by James Chadwick in 1914 discovered that the beta decay spectrum was continuous rather than discrete. That is, electrons
were ejected from the atom with a continuous range of energies, rather
than the discrete amounts of energy that were observed in gamma and
alpha decays. This was a problem for nuclear physics at the time,
because it seemed to indicate that energy was not conserved in these decays.
The 1903 Nobel Prize
in Physics was awarded jointly to Becquerel, for his discovery and to
Marie and Pierre Curie for their subsequent research into radioactivity.
Rutherford was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1908 for his
"investigations into the disintegration of the elements and the
chemistry of radioactive substances".
In 1905, Albert Einstein formulated the idea of mass–energy equivalence. While the work on radioactivity by Becquerel and Marie Curie
predates this, an explanation of the source of the energy of
radioactivity would have to wait for the discovery that the nucleus
itself was composed of smaller constituents, the nucleons.
Rutherford discovers the nucleus
In 1906, Ernest Rutherford published "Retardation of the a Particle from Radium in passing through matter." Hans Geiger expanded on this work in a communication to the Royal Society with experiments he and Rutherford had done, passing alpha particles
through air, aluminum foil and gold leaf. More work was published in
1909 by Geiger and Ernest Marsden, and further greatly expanded work was published in 1910 by Geiger. In 1911–1912 Rutherford went before the Royal Society to explain the
experiments and propound the new theory of the atomic nucleus as we now
understand it.
Published in 1909, with the eventual classical analysis by Rutherford published May 1911,the key preemptive experiment was performed during 1909, at the University of Manchester. Ernest Rutherford's assistant, Professor Johannes "Hans" Geiger, and an undergraduate, Marsden, performed an experiment in which Geiger and Marsden under Rutherford's supervision fired alpha particles (helium 4 nuclei) at a thin film of gold foil. The plum pudding model
had predicted that the alpha particles should come out of the foil with
their trajectories being at most slightly bent. But Rutherford
instructed his team to look for something that shocked him to observe: a
few particles were scattered through large angles, even completely
backwards in some cases. He likened it to firing a bullet
at tissue paper and having it bounce off. The discovery, with
Rutherford's analysis of the data in 1911, led to the Rutherford model
of the atom, in which the atom had a very small, very dense nucleus
containing most of its mass, and consisting of heavy positively charged
particles with embedded electrons in order to balance out the charge
(since the neutron was unknown). As an example, in this model (which is
not the modern one) nitrogen-14 consisted of a nucleus with 14 protons
and 7 electrons (21 total particles) and the nucleus was surrounded by 7
more orbiting electrons.
Eddington and stellar nuclear fusion
Around 1920, Arthur Eddington anticipated the discovery and mechanism of nuclear fusion processes in stars, in his paper The Internal Constitution of the Stars. At that time, the source of stellar energy was a complete mystery; Eddington correctly speculated that the source was fusion of hydrogen into helium, liberating enormous energy according to Einstein's equation E = mc2.
This was a particularly remarkable development since at that time
fusion and thermonuclear energy, and even that stars are largely
composed of hydrogen (see metallicity), had not yet been discovered.
Studies of nuclear spin
The Rutherford model worked quite well until studies of nuclear spin were carried out by Franco Rasetti at the California Institute of Technology in 1929. By 1925 it was known that protons and electrons each had a spin of ±+1⁄2.
In the Rutherford model of nitrogen-14, 20 of the total 21 nuclear
particles should have paired up to cancel each other's spin, and the
final odd particle should have left the nucleus with a net spin of 1⁄2. Rasetti discovered, however, that nitrogen-14 had a spin of 1.
In 1932 Chadwick realized that radiation that had been observed by Walther Bothe, Herbert Becker, Irène and Frédéric Joliot-Curie was actually due to a neutral particle of about the same mass as the proton, that he called the neutron (following a suggestion from Rutherford about the need for such a particle). In the same year Dmitri Ivanenko suggested that there were no electrons in the nucleus — only protons and neutrons — and that neutrons were spin 1⁄2
particles, which explained the mass not due to protons. The neutron
spin immediately solved the problem of the spin of nitrogen-14, as the
one unpaired proton and one unpaired neutron in this model each
contributed a spin of 1⁄2 in the same direction, giving a final total spin of 1.
With the discovery of the neutron, scientists could at last calculate what fraction of binding energy
each nucleus had, by comparing the nuclear mass with that of the
protons and neutrons which composed it. Differences between nuclear
masses were calculated in this way. When nuclear reactions were
measured, these were found to agree with Einstein's calculation of the
equivalence of mass and energy to within 1% as of 1934.
Proca's equations of the massive vector boson field
Alexandru Proca was the first to develop and report the massive vector bosonfield equations and a theory of the mesonic field of nuclear forces. Proca's equations were known to Wolfgang Pauli who mentioned the equations in his Nobel address, and they were also
known to Yukawa, Wentzel, Taketani, Sakata, Kemmer, Heitler, and
Fröhlich who appreciated the content of Proca's equations for developing
a theory of the atomic nuclei in Nuclear Physics.
Yukawa's meson postulated to bind nuclei
In 1935 Hideki Yukawa proposed the first significant theory of the strong force to explain how the nucleus holds together. In the Yukawa interaction a virtual particle, later called a meson,
mediated a force between all nucleons, including protons and neutrons.
This force explained why nuclei did not disintegrate under the influence
of proton repulsion, and it also gave an explanation of why the
attractive strong force had a more limited range than the electromagnetic repulsion between protons. Later, the discovery of the pi meson showed it to have the properties of Yukawa's particle.
With Yukawa's papers, the modern model of the atom was complete.
The center of the atom contains a tight ball of neutrons and protons,
which is held together by the strong nuclear force, unless it is too
large. Unstable nuclei may undergo alpha decay, in which they emit an
energetic helium nucleus, or beta decay, in which they eject an electron
(or positron).
After one of these decays the resultant nucleus may be left in an
excited state, and in this case it decays to its ground state by
emitting high-energy photons (gamma decay).
A heavy nucleus can contain hundreds of nucleons. This means that with some approximation it can be treated as a classical system, rather than a quantum-mechanical one. In the resulting liquid-drop model, the nucleus has an energy that arises partly from surface tension
and partly from electrical repulsion of the protons. The liquid-drop
model is able to reproduce many features of nuclei, including the
general trend of binding energy with respect to mass number, as well as the phenomenon of nuclear fission.
Superimposed on this classical picture, however, are quantum-mechanical effects, which can be described using the nuclear shell model, developed in large part by Maria Goeppert Mayer and J. Hans D. Jensen. Nuclei with certain "magic" numbers of neutrons and protons are particularly stable, because their shells are filled.
Other more complicated models for the nucleus have also been proposed, such as the interacting boson model, in which pairs of neutrons and protons interact as bosons.
Ab initio methods try to solve the nuclear many-body problem from the ground up, starting from the nucleons and their interactions.
Much of current research in nuclear physics relates to the study of nuclei under extreme conditions such as high spin and excitation energy. Nuclei may also have extreme shapes (similar to that of Rugby balls or even pears)
or extreme neutron-to-proton ratios. Experimenters can create such
nuclei using artificially induced fusion or nucleon transfer reactions,
employing ion beams from an accelerator.
Beams with even higher energies can be used to create nuclei at very
high temperatures, and there are signs that these experiments have
produced a phase transition from normal nuclear matter to a new state, the quark–gluon plasma, in which the quarks mingle with one another, rather than being segregated in triplets as they are in neutrons and protons.
Eighty elements have at least one stable isotope which is never observed to decay, amounting to a total of about 251 stable nuclides. However, thousands of isotopes
have been characterized as unstable. These "radioisotopes" decay over
time scales ranging from fractions of a second to trillions of years.
Plotted on a chart as a function of atomic and neutron numbers, the
binding energy of the nuclides forms what is known as the valley of stability.
Stable nuclides lie along the bottom of this energy valley, while
increasingly unstable nuclides lie up the valley walls, that is, have
weaker binding energy.
The most stable nuclei fall within certain ranges or balances of
composition of neutrons and protons: too few or too many neutrons (in
relation to the number of protons) will cause it to decay. For example,
in beta decay, a nitrogen-16 atom (7 protons, 9 neutrons) is converted to an oxygen-16 atom (8 protons, 8 neutrons) within a few seconds of being created. In this decay a neutron in the nitrogen nucleus is converted by the weak interaction into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. The element is transmuted to another element, with a different number of protons.
In alpha decay,
which typically occurs in the heaviest nuclei, the radioactive element
decays by emitting a helium nucleus (2 protons and 2 neutrons), giving
another element, plus helium-4. In many cases this process continues through several steps of this kind, including other types of decays (usually beta decay) until a stable element is formed.
In gamma decay, a nucleus decays from an excited state into a lower energy state, by emitting a gamma ray. The element is not changed to another element in the process (no nuclear transmutation is involved).
Other more exotic decays are possible (see the first main article). For example, in internal conversion
decay, the energy from an excited nucleus may eject one of the inner
orbital electrons from the atom, in a process which produces high speed
electrons but is not beta decay and (unlike beta decay) does not
transmute one element to another.
Nuclear fusion
In nuclear fusion,
two low-mass nuclei come into very close contact with each other so
that the strong force fuses them. It requires a large amount of energy
for the strong or nuclear forces
to overcome the electrical repulsion between the nuclei in order to
fuse them; therefore nuclear fusion can only take place at very high
temperatures or high pressures. When nuclei fuse, a very large amount of
energy is released and the combined nucleus assumes a lower energy
level. The binding energy per nucleon increases with mass number up to nickel-62. Stars like the Sun are powered by the fusion of four protons into a helium nucleus, two positrons, and two neutrinos.
The uncontrolled fusion of hydrogen into helium is known as
thermonuclear runaway. A frontier in current research at various
institutions, for example the Joint European Torus (JET) and ITER,
is the development of an economically viable method of using energy
from a controlled fusion reaction. Nuclear fusion is the origin of the
energy (including in the form of light and other electromagnetic
radiation) produced by the core of all stars including our own Sun.
Nuclear fission
Nuclear fission
is the reverse process to fusion. For nuclei heavier than nickel-62 the
binding energy per nucleon decreases with the mass number. It is
therefore possible for energy to be released if a heavy nucleus breaks
apart into two lighter ones.
The process of alpha decay is in essence a special type of spontaneous nuclear fission.
It is a highly asymmetrical fission because the four particles which
make up the alpha particle are especially tightly bound to each other,
making production of this nucleus in fission particularly likely.
From several of the heaviest nuclei whose fission produces free
neutrons, and which also easily absorb neutrons to initiate fission, a
self-igniting type of neutron-initiated fission can be obtained, in a chain reaction.
Chain reactions were known in chemistry before physics, and in fact
many familiar processes like fires and chemical explosions are chemical
chain reactions. The fission or "nuclear" chain-reaction, using fission-produced neutrons, is the source of energy for nuclear power plants and fission-type nuclear bombs, such as those detonated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, at the end of World War II. Heavy nuclei such as uranium and thorium may also undergo spontaneous fission, but they are much more likely to undergo decay by alpha decay.
For a neutron-initiated chain reaction to occur, there must be a critical mass
of the relevant isotope present in a certain space under certain
conditions. The conditions for the smallest critical mass require the
conservation of the emitted neutrons and also their slowing or moderation so that there is a greater cross-section or probability of them initiating another fission. In two regions of Oklo, Gabon, Africa, natural nuclear fission reactors were active over 1.5 billion years ago. Measurements of natural neutrino emission have demonstrated that around
half of the heat emanating from the Earth's core results from
radioactive decay. However, it is not known if any of this results from
fission chain reactions.
According to the theory, as the Universe cooled after the Big Bang
it eventually became possible for common subatomic particles as we know
them (neutrons, protons and electrons) to exist. The most common
particles created in the Big Bang which are still easily observable to
us today were protons and electrons (in equal numbers). The protons
would eventually form hydrogen atoms. Almost all the neutrons created in
the Big Bang were absorbed into helium-4 in the first three minutes after the Big Bang, and this helium accounts for most of the helium in the universe today (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis).
Some relatively small quantities of elements beyond helium
(lithium, beryllium, and perhaps some boron) were created in the Big
Bang, as the protons and neutrons collided with each other, but all of
the "heavier elements" (carbon, element number 6, and elements of
greater atomic number) that we see today, were created inside stars during a series of fusion stages, such as the proton–proton chain, the CNO cycle and the triple-alpha process. Progressively heavier elements are created during the evolution of a star.
Energy is only released in fusion processes involving smaller atoms than iron because the binding energy per nucleon
peaks around iron (56 nucleons). Since the creation of heavier nuclei
by fusion requires energy, nature resorts to the process of neutron
capture. Neutrons (due to their lack of charge) are readily absorbed by a
nucleus. The heavy elements are created by either a slow neutron capture process (the so-called s-process) or the rapid, or r-process. The s
process occurs in thermally pulsing stars (called AGB, or asymptotic
giant branch stars) and takes hundreds to thousands of years to reach
the heaviest elements of lead and bismuth. The r-process is thought to occur in supernova explosions,
which provide the necessary conditions of high temperature, high
neutron flux and ejected matter. These stellar conditions make the
successive neutron captures very fast, involving very neutron-rich
species which then beta-decay to heavier elements, especially at the
so-called waiting points that correspond to more stable nuclides with
closed neutron shells (magic numbers).
Precise definitions vary, but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testablepredictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, cumulativeness, replicability, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method. A closely related idea (originating in the nineteenth century with Auguste Comte) is that scientific disciplines can be arranged into a hierarchy of hard to soft on the basis of factors such as rigor, "development", and whether they are basic or applied.
Philosophers and historians of science
have questioned the relationship between these characteristics and
perceived hardness or softness. The more "developed" hard sciences do
not necessarily have a greater degree of consensus or selectivity in accepting new results. Commonly cited methodological differences are also not a reliable
indicator. For example, social sciences such as psychology and sociology
use mathematical models extensively, but are usually considered soft
sciences.While scientific controls are cited as a methodological difference between hard and soft sciences, in certain natural sciences, like astronomy and geology, it is impossible to perform controlled experiments to test most hypotheses and observation and natural experiments are primarily used instead. Survey data about the replication crisis
among researchers strongly suggests that the failure to reproduce
published findings has impacted the natural and applied sciences along
with psychology and the social sciences. However, there are some observable differences between hard and soft sciences. For example, hard sciences make more extensive use of graphs, and soft sciences are more prone to a rapid turnover of buzzwords.
The metaphor has been criticised for stigmatizing soft sciences, creating an unwarranted imbalance in the public perception, funding, and recognition of different fields.
History of the terms
The origin of the terms "hard science" and "soft science" is obscure.
The earliest attested use of "hard science" is found in an 1858 issue
of the Journal of the Society of Arts, but the idea of a hierarchy of the sciences can be found earlier, in the work of the French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798‒1857). He identified astronomy as the most general science, followed by physics, chemistry, biology, then sociology. This view was
highly influential, and was intended to classify fields based on their
degree of intellectual development and the complexity of their subject
matter.
The modern distinction between hard and soft science is often attributed to a 1964 article published in Science by John R. Platt.
He explored why he considered some scientific fields to be more
productive than others, though he did not actually use the terms
themselves. In 1967, sociologist of science Norman W. Storer
specifically distinguished between the natural sciences as hard and the
social sciences as soft. He defined hardness in terms of the degree to
which a field uses mathematics and described a trend of scientific
fields increasing in hardness over time, identifying features of
increased hardness as including better integration and organization of
knowledge, an improved ability to detect errors, and an increase in the
difficulty of learning the subject.
Empirical support
In the 1970s sociologist Stephen Cole
conducted a number of empirical studies attempting to find evidence for
a hierarchy of scientific disciplines, and was unable to find
significant differences in terms of core of knowledge, degree of
codification, or research material. Differences that he did find
evidence for included a tendency for textbooks in soft sciences to rely
on more recent work, while the material in textbooks from the hard
sciences was more consistent over time. After he published in 1983, it has been suggested that Cole might have
missed some relationships in the data because he studied individual
measurements, without accounting for the way multiple measurements could
trend in the same direction, and because not all the criteria that
could indicate a discipline's scientific status were analysed.
In 1984, Cleveland performed a survey of 57 journals and found
that natural science journals used many more graphs than journals in
mathematics or social science, and that social science journals often
presented large amounts of observational data in the absence of graphs.
The amount of page area used for graphs ranged from 0% to 31%, and the
variation was primarily due to the number of graphs included rather than
their sizes. Further analyses by Smith in 2000, based on samples of graphs from journals in seven major scientific
disciplines, found that the amount of graph usage correlated "almost
perfectly" with hardness (r=0.97). They also suggested that the
hierarchy applies to individual fields, and demonstrated the same result
using ten subfields of psychology (r=0.93).
In a 2010 article, Fanelli proposed that we expect more positive
outcomes in "softer" sciences because there are fewer constraints on
researcher bias. They found that among research papers that tested a
hypothesis, the frequency of positive results was predicted by the
perceived hardness of the field. For example, the social sciences as a
whole had a 2.3-fold increased odds of positive results compared to the
physical sciences, with the biological sciences in between. They added
that this supported the idea that the social sciences and natural
sciences differ only in degree, as long as the social sciences follow
the scientific approach.
In 2013, Fanelli tested whether the ability of researchers in a
field to "achieve consensus and accumulate knowledge" increases with the
hardness of the science, and sampled 29,000 papers from 12 disciplines
using measurements that indicate the degree of scholarly consensus. Out
of the three possibilities (hierarchy, hard/soft distinction, or no
ordering), the results supported a hierarchy, with physical sciences
performing the best followed by biological sciences and then social
sciences. The results also held within disciplines, as well as when
mathematics and the humanities were included.
The perception of hard vs soft science is influenced by gender bias
with a higher proportion of women in a given field leading to a "soft"
perception even within STEM fields. This perception of softness is
accompanied by a devaluation of the field's worth.
Criticism
Critics of the concept argue that soft sciences are implicitly considered to be less "legitimate" scientific fields, or simply not scientific at all. An editorial in Nature
stated that social science findings are more likely to intersect with
everyday experience and may be dismissed as "obvious or insignificant"
as a result. Being labelled a soft science can affect the perceived value of a
discipline to society and the amount of funding available to it. In the 1980s, mathematician Serge Lang successfully blocked influential political scientist Samuel P. Huntington's admission to the US National Academy of Sciences,
describing Huntington's use of mathematics to quantify the relationship
between factors such as "social frustration" (Lang asked Huntington if
he possessed a "social-frustration meter") as "pseudoscience". During the late 2000s recessions, social science was disproportionately targeted for funding cuts compared to mathematics and natural science. Proposals were made for the United States' National Science Foundation to cease funding disciplines such as political science altogether.Both of these incidents prompted critical discussion of the distinction between hard and soft sciences.
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 scientific or factual but are inherently 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 ill-health and deaths. 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,
because it suggests something is being presented as science
inaccurately or even deceptively. Therefore, practitioners and advocates
of 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 book 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 mentally communicate with the dead, 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.
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 idea 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.
.png)
