Why Do People Believe in Pseudoscience?

Gizmodo ^ | 03/11/19 | Daniel Kolitz

[Simon Green]

Most people do not have a good understanding of real science, and can therefore be taken in if a claim is presented in ‘science-y’ language. Thus purveyors of medical pseudoscience will freely use terms like energy, vibrations, frequencies, resonance and so on in describing their interventions but none of these terms are being used in the precise way that a physicist would use them.

Many pseudoscientists will also refer to the latest ideas in real science to imply that their claims are derived from the latest cutting-edge theories. One example would be claiming that homeopathy is consistent with quantum mechanics despite the fact that, in reality, homeopathy is not consistent with any accepted scientific theory and, furthermore, there is no convincing evidence that it has any therapeutic value over and above that of a placebo.

This highlights another feature of pseudoscience: its supporters choose to completely ignore all evidence which undermines their claims, often providing spurious reasons for doing so. These reasons often include the following: (a) your so-called science is too crude to measure the effects involved, (b) your test was based upon a flawed understanding of the pseudoscientific theory, and (c) you have to get the conditions just right for the effects to occur and you failed to do so. In fact these reasons are simply in-built loopholes that allow the pseudoscientist to avoid any possibility of claims being falsified.

Some pseudosciences are inherently non-falsifiable. A good example would be so-called Scientific Creationism. To allow the dismissal of all scientific evidence suggesting that the earth is much older than the few thousand years that Young Earth Creationists believe, the claim is made that God created the earth with that evidence of a prior existence already in place (e.g., fossils in rocks, light in transit from distant stars, rings in trees in the Garden of Eden). Such inherent non-falsifiability is a guarantee that one is dealing with a pseudoscience.

Finally, pseudosciences are popular so because they often provide people with beliefs that they would like to be true—anything from miracle cures to the existence of a benevolent God to life after death and much else besides. Confirmation bias, the most ubiquitous and powerful of all cognitive biases, combined with poor critical thinking skills does the rest.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***Speculate and claim are not synonymous.***

i remember a science book for kids at the time showing what the gates of the canals probably looked like.

[Truthoverpower]

Science is one thing
Engineering is another
Science is NEVER settled It can be pretty damn sure. But never final
So that’s the first thing. When any demoncrap says “science is settled “ you know they’re lying.

Another one is “ 99% of scientists agree “. An accurate statement would be “ a majority of the peer reviewed reasearch papers have shown ....”

The scientist doesn’t matter at all. Reproducibility of research IS . ANY scientist needs to be able to reproduce your results

That is true science. Here take what I’ve found and PROVE ME WRONG

IF you can’t. Then we have a SOLID HYPOTHESIS.

OK NUFF SED

[ifinnegan]

What is truth?

[metmom]

Because science has been so corrupted that people have lost faith in that.

[metmom]

Science makes statements as if it were Truth, written in stone, and then in a week is changing its collective mind.

[Swordmaker]

It was originally meant to be ‘channels,’ probably a distinction without a difference, Anyway, looking at the fuzzy image of Mars available to us at the time, ‘science’ made no claims about their beings canals or not. Speculate and claim are not synonymous.

Perceval Lowell, an amateur astronomer who studied Mars named many of the telescopically observable features of the red planet and published his findings of straight lines which he thought were inter-connected which he labeled "Canali" in Latin, or "Canals" in English. He also thought he saw changes in areas he thought were growing plant life so he claimed the "canali" were waterways to bring irrigation melt water from the poles. The speculations were Lowell’s claims.

Perceval Lowell’s Mars with Canals

Most likely what Lowell was mapping was imperfections in his telescope optics or even in his own retinas, or perhaps it was just mere pareidolia, the seeing of patterns where none exists.

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

The writer just described many Democrats, liberals, college professors, science writers and Bill Nye. Not bad for one article.

[21twelve]

“Another one is “ 99% of scientists agree “”

Get 6 geologists looking at the same outcrop and you’re likely to get 7 different interpretations.

[Cvengr]

John 18:37-38

[mad_as_he$$]

True! I was at a gold prospecting conference and there was a discussion panel of four geos. I presented them with my (deliberate bait) mystery sample of “rock”. They argued about it for 15 minutes. Finally an amateur guy that is well respected nailed the piece with very good accuracy.

[RoosterRedux]

Pseudoscience has been defined as scientific experimentation conducted to support an already embraced ideology.

Those non-scientific sorts who embrace that ideology in the general population are eager to accept the pseudo-scientific work done on their behalf.

"Real science" BTW is scientific experimentation conducted to find the TRUTH whatever if might be (i.e., experimentation conducted with NO IDEOLOGICAL BIAS).

[captain_dave]

The author of this article claims in one breath that homeopathy is fake and in the other breath that we know the age of the Earth. He shows he believes, without question, the official accecpted ideas and rejects all,other ideas. A real scientist questions all ideas.

Homeopathy has been shown to work in some cases. To say it's not better than placebo misses the obvious question of What is the Placebo Effect? And as to the age of the Earth, current estimates are based on wild-ass guessing of achingly slow accretion and geological uniformitarianism, where every change takes thousands and millions of years. When in reality we have seen changes happen within moments, like Mt St Helens, or the New River in Argentina.

Science begins with questioning authority.

[JimRed]

Like psychiatry, psychology and alchemy?

[sparklite2]

In grade school, I told a teacher it looked like the continents fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. She told me it was just a coincidence.

[ifinnegan]

John 14:6

[Cvengr]

Outstanding

[reasonisfaith]

What does Popper know?

[reasonisfaith]

More to the point—what does Popper understand?

[reasonisfaith]

Truth is the basis for everything you say and everything you think.

Don’t forget it.

[Captain Compassion]

In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality. — Karl Popper