science is a systematic method of acquiring information. it depends on the idea that the natural world works according to certain principles, and that we can discover those principles through observation and experimentation. science isn’t the the only way of knowing about the world, but we give it special respect because it works so well. (i talked more about that in my previous post).
sometimes unscientific belief systems masquerade as science in order to claim the benefit of that special respect. in many cases (magic, ghosts, the loch ness monster), it’s fairly easy to tell them apart. but what about homeopathy? intelligent design? energy healing? schools don’t do a very good job teaching students to recognize and understand good scientific research. fortunately it’s really not that difficult, but it does take one or two more steps beyond just accepting what you read.
why this matters
do we really care that some people claim that the pyramids were built by aliens? maybe not, but we should absolutely care when kids catch preventable diseases because their parents bought into the deception that vaccines cause autism.
non-scientific, non-rational explanations are attractive because they appeal to the romantic, and can be fun to think about. it’s fine to believe what you want, but it’s dishonest and harmful to pretend that arguments are scientific when they’re not. i like how quackwatch describes the importance of distinguishing between science and pseudoscience:
pseudoscience often strikes educated, rational people as too nonsensical and preposterous to be dangerous and as a source of amusement rather than fear. unfortunately, this is not a wise attitude. pseudoscience can be extremely dangerous.• penetrating political systems, it justifies atrocities in the name of racial purity
• penetrating the educational system, it can drive out science and sensibility;
• in the field of health, it dooms thousands to unnecessary death or suffering
• penetrating religion, it generates fanaticism, intolerance, and holy war
• penetrating the communications media, it can make it difficult for voters to obtain factual information on important public issues.
how to identify pseudoscience
the very first thing to do is to check the source of a claim. where was it published? if it’s in a news article, does the article give a citation to a reputable journal? then it’s probably reasonable to accept it (at least for your purposes…you’ll likely need more than a lay person’s education to distinguish between scientific articles after they’re published. if something is really really important to you, that’s the point at which you ask an expert).
why a journal? scientific journals are peer-reviewed, a process based on the simple idea that only experts are qualified to evaluate the work of other experts. peer review is a pretty high standard, though it can’t always detect deliberate deception. for example, andrew wakefield, the former physician who fraudulently claimed to have
found a link between vaccines and autism actually did get his study published in the prestigious journal “the lancet”. but the deception was subsequently uncovered, the paper was retracted, and wakefield’s medical license revoked. deception that makes it through peer review can often be identified when other researchers try to replicate or build upon the results of a scientist’s published work.
it’s important to know that there are some fake science journals out there, so if you’re dealing with a controversial subject you might consider looking up the journal here, or googling it to make certain that it’s legitimate.
but what about claims published in places other than academic journals? i’ve made a simple figure to illustrate the “hierarchy” of authority, to you answer the question “can i trust what this source is saying? ”
we all know, of course, not to read the comments section of the internet for any reason other than entertainment, and i would really caution you against trusting crowd-sourced knowledge on places like reddit. utterly shun the vileness that lurks in the comments below youtube videos.
read blogs skeptically. be certain that all facts posted are cited to some source (and call me on this if you notice i post something unsupported).
journalists, even some who specialize in science reporting, get things wrong much more frequently than you might think. so if a news source reports a science finding that you are really interested in, it can be worth checking the journal article they’re basing the report on. or, alternatively, read several different news reports about the same story. see if they differ, and how.
“textbooks” can be biased.
in addition to asking “where was it published? ”, here are some warning signs to alert you that what you’re reading might be pseudoscience.
be cautious if what you’re reading:
