How do you tell science from pseudoscience?

Question

How do you, as a layperson, decide what you think is science and what you think is pseudoscience?

Of course, there are elements in science that fit well into common technology that we prove daily (no one denies the existence of microwaves or the legitimacy of aspirin, for instance); but I'm curious about the things scientists know but can't prove to the general public (either because it's not applicable to technology, because the proofs require extensive educations to understand, or both).

How do you separate the astrology from the astronomy, the chemistry from the alchemy, the cutting edge from the science fiction? If someone tells you about a spectacular new medical technology, how do you decide if it's a great breakthrough or a snake-oil health fad?

I work in physics (quantum and particle physics), and I'm curious about perspectives on this matter from people who aren't scientists; I'm curious how everyday people decide what to trust as legitimate and what not to trust.

Answer 1

Science is based on observable, empirical and measurable evidence. Hypotheses are not considered proven unless they can be tested and confirmed, and the results of the tests are repeatable and consistent.

Psuedo-science generally foregoes many of these requirements. In addition, proponents of the various pseudo-sciences are reluctant to accept or even consider contradictory evidence.

Answer 2

Great question.

A lot of the belief in pseudoscience comes from a willing effort of self delusion. Creationism (or Intelligent design) is grounded in religion and since most people have an early exposure to religious dogma, much of their early belief structures must be unlearned to except the ideas of evolution.

Astrology, alchemy, alien technology and the like are mostly a result of ignorance on the part of the believer. I had a co-worker ask me to watch some video about how America used "alien technology" to build the stealth air crafts. The speaker was very good and claimed to have excellent credentials but ... claimed that we used an "alien element" that was heavier than hydrogen, but lighter than helium ???

So an atomic number of 1.5? How do you get 1/2 a proton ?

Anyway ... In a nut shell it comes down to if the science contradicts a previous belief structure. And in many cases over coming that belief structure can be impossible because most of these people have a support group with similar beliefs that discourage independent thinking.

On the other hand, many of the "snake-oil" health fads once thought crazy by the scientific community are beginning to show actual results in clinical trials. Many of the herbal supplements that got eye rolls from medical doctors are now showing they are excellent anti-oxidants (lycopene for example).

For the most part, IMO most of the beliefs in pseudoscience are a result of a willingness to self-delude with an active support group that encourages the delusion and a lack of education.

Answer 3

This is an excellent question.

When I hear of something new it must first pass the BS meter. Then it's on to how this "something" meshes with what little I know of the scientific understanding of the world. Then, if I'm still not sure--which is frequently the case--I sniff around and try to get some sort of consensus. I'll read what a wide (as possible) variety of sources as I can find and sort of sift through the matter. Then I push it through my "experience" filter, where I temper the discovery of this Great New Thing with the knowledge that many such past discoveries haven't necessarily lived up to their early promise.

Something like "The Secret" fails my BS detector almost immediately while something like the nano particle sounds unlikely, but plausible so it gives me pause. Some study indicating the benefits of eating eggs reminds me of a study that arrived at exactly the opposite conclusion. And then when it comes to quantum anything--as I'm sure you understand--as far as I am able to understand (New Age claims to the contrary) the jury is still out.

Answer 4

i'm a scientist but i will give my opinion anyway. I spend quite a bit of time reading (and trying to answer) creation v. evolution questions. there are two things i noticed that relate to your question. one is, many people don't want to believe evolution. the second is that evolution, like many scientific theories, are support by a great deal of evidence, most of which can not be understood by reading the newspaper or watching YouTube. Yet people think they understand it.

Also, creationists like to use simple terms to create confusion about evolution. one example, many time I hear creationists say things like 'well, i've never seen a rock turn into a dog... have you?' of course no one has and that's not what evolution says. but people remember that.

in summary, i think many people can tell the difference because they have enough common sense or skepticism to chose science, or at least chose neither and wait and see. but when people want to believe something, or when there's a propaganda machine on the side of pseudoscience, it becomes very difficult for people to accept science.

Answer 5

As a scientist, I believe it is impossible for a lay person to make an informed descision over whether something they are told or shown is genuine scientific fact or pseudoscience. It's hard enough as a scientist!

Answer 6

I go by the old"if it sounds to good to be true it probably is".I also consider the source.You don't have to make up your mind right away.Look into things,take your time checking it out.It's not so hard to separate one from the other.

Edit I think Gregg K underestimates us.While some may be difficult to judge.Most is actually quite simple.When it comes to perpetual motion and miracle cures.that type of thing.I'll match my BS meter with anyone,including scientists.Who by the way, not only do we look to for answers.Many times are the people coming out with the pseudoscience.

Answer 7

I guess I'm an"everyday people". I'm sure not a scientist. I look at both sides. Since I've had experiences in the paranormal "world"...I don't have to convince myself that paranormal things happen. But, I don't believe EVERYTHING that people think is paranormal..is. (I go by "It Ain't Necessarily So".) Even some of the things that happened to me might not have been paranormal...well...I KNOW some of them weren't. But even if ONE was...then...what was that ONE???? I'm not trying to convince anyone of the paranormal...I just want to understand what happened to ME !! (This probably isn't an answer to your question..sorry ..I got sidetracked!!)

Answer 8

The existence of quantifiable, repeatable, trials, generating data that can be used to support a theory.