Ten Characteristics of Pseudoscience pp 6 - 10

1. Outward appearance of science- Pseudoscientist may use language that

sounds scientific, but they cannot back up this language with substance.
Vague and obtuse language to mystify or to evade scrutiny. Example: human
energy field

2. Absence of skeptical peer review: No colleague peer review to agree or

disagree with findings.

3. Reliance on personal experience: Personal experience can suggest

hypotheses but are inadequate for testing them; they are not considered
reliable sources of evidence.

4. Evasion of risky tests: An experiment should provide a risky test, one that a
false hypothesis will not pass. Example: explaining the past is a relatively
weak test of a theory, whereas prediction the future is a riskier test. Pseudo
scientist does prevent evidence; it is often of little value because it is based on
a very weak test.

5. Retreats to the supernatural: Current science uses observable results where

pseudoscienes resort to supernatural explanation when their claims are shown
to be false. Example: Touch therapy-scientist could not prove the human
energy field so they said it must be a supernatural event.

6. The mantra of Holism: A major task of science involves specific distinctions

to generate useful theories. Pseudoscience, on the other hand, often rebels
against such distinctions in the name of holism. Holism is extremely vague
about what this term actually means. Holism can serve as a shield against the
effortful learning and careful drawing of meaningful distinctions, offering in
their place only rhetoric or empty verbiage.

7. Tolerance of inconsistencies: scientist use principles of formal logic, among

them the notion that contradictory statements cannot both be true.
Pseudoscientists are known for their tolerance of logical contradictions within
and across disciplines: example: Orthomolecular medicine involves taking
mega doses of dietary supplements to attempt to increase potency whereas
homeopathy involves diluting ingredients to increase potency.

8. Appeals to authority: Science is based on empirical data where

pseudoscience has little data to offer. Instead they urge others to believe in
their practices based on their say-so using their authoritative pronouncements.

9. Promising the impossible: Science involves respect for the limitations of

present knowledge and current technological capabilities. Pseudoscience is
unbounded by reality and often profits by making grandiose promises that it
 cannot fulfill. Example: science has constants such as the speed of light and
PS have claimed that UFOs travel faster than the speed of light.

Stagnation: sticking characteristics of a healthy scientific discipline is the rapid rate of

change that it undergoes; new research refines the old research. PS are remarkably static
and contribute this as virtue claiming ancient wisdom.

The ancient wisdom fallacy (p 59)

Ancient wisdom often substitutes for actual evidence. Proponents suggest that any belief
that has been held for a long time must be valid which can lead to dangerous
consequences. If beliefs are grated truth owing merely their age this would justify sexism,
racism, and anti Semitism. Social progress involves the continual questioning of ancient
wisdom.

The popularity fallacy (pp 59-60)

A ploy to overestimate the extent to which others subscribe to a given belief. Example:
skewed numbers that one and three Americans seek alternative medical treatments.

The fallacy of self-proclaimed expertise (pp 60-61)

A person can claim that from all their experience they are now experts. Example: students
have different learning styles and should and there should be different teaching styles
based on perceptual learning modalities. When colleagues asked important questions in
regards to the learning modalities such as what is the evidence that altering teaching on
the basis of these learning styles will enhance learning? The theory predicts that students’
learning styles should interact with teaching styles such that the appropriate matches
results in superior learning relative to mismatches. However in many studies on the
effectiveness of different teaching styles, teachers usually use just one style apiece for all
the students that they teach. Critics wanted to know if teachers should adopt different
styles for different students (visual, auditory) The experts became frustrated and evasive
and handed the colleagues a list of references and moved on. The request for evidence
was viewed as a hostile treat, not the basic of any respectable scientist. When asked one
last time, the presenter confirmed my colleague’s suspicion that nobody, in fact, had ever
directly examined whether learning is enhanced through a match between teaching and
learning styles. Educators were asked to modify their beliefs and teaching behaviors
based on speculation.

Falsifiability p 15
For a claim to have the potential of being scientifically meaningful, it must pose a
hypothesis that could be disproved. That is, if the claim is false, there must be a way to
demonstrate its falsity. Example: fire breathing dragons live in garage, you can’t prove
that it does or that it doesn’t because it can’t be tested.

Vividness (pp 106-108)

Stories that emphasize concrete, personal, and emotional content.
Availability (p 108)
Our judgments are biased by the ease with which we imagine or recall information.

The media paradox (pp 109-110)

Joint operation of vividness and availability on our judgments.

Post-hockery (p 116)
Post hoc “after the fact” are interpretations of alleged phenomena, with only selective
consideration of existing evidence.

Understand the importance of prediction, and the difference between the generation
and testing of hypothesis, and about the context of discovery and the context of
verification (p 116)

In the context of discovery, our outstanding pattern recognition and reasoning abilities are
indispensable. We can detect potentially relevant information and formulate sophisticated
hypotheses about underlying causal relationships. However, unaided judgment can fail us
in the context of verification. We do not routinely subject our cherished beliefs to
rigorous tests, and we often accept the first proffered exploitation as fact.

Hot Hand: if a player has scored 5 times then the belief is that they are more likely to
score than anyone else because of their “wining streak” however they have the same
odds as any other play or making or missing the point.