In this blog post, we will examine why pseudoscience is dangerous and how it harms society and scientific progress, based on scientific methodology and philosophical perspectives.
We are currently living in the information age. The internet is flooded with a vast amount of information, and anyone can easily access it. However, the enormous amount of information can be both an advantage and a disadvantage of the information age. When false information is mixed in, it becomes difficult to distinguish between what is right and wrong, and the public tends to accept it as fact. This disadvantage is common to many fields and causes many problems, especially in the field of science. Information in the field of science must be conveyed by people who are more specialized and reliable than in other fields, but due to the nature of the Internet, anyone can write and convey information, so this is often not the case. For this reason, content related to pseudoscience, which cannot be considered science, spreads on the Internet, but people believe it to be scientific, causing serious problems. Therefore, I believe that pseudoscience must disappear. Then, how is pseudoscience defined, and why must it disappear?
First, to understand and define pseudoscience, let’s understand what science is and how theories are established in science. Science is an academic discipline that emerged independently from philosophy and refers to the act of theoretically and empirically investigating the laws and knowledge of the human and natural worlds, as well as the methodology used to do so. In order to establish this act and methodology, modern science observes numerous variables that exist in reality, including the laws of nature, and discovers the causal relationships between them through experiments to accumulate and modify knowledge. This is called the scientific method. The scientific method is currently considered the most reasonable method for proving the principles and logic of natural phenomena. To explain this more simply, one example of scientific methodology is the “hypothesis-deductive model,” which establishes a theory through the stages of observation, hypothesis, experiment, and theory. First, the observation stage refers to the stage of finding patterns through repeated and objective observation of a specific object based on the scientist’s research motivation or previous research. In simple terms, it means the process of observing something and asking “Why?” and “How?” Next, based on these observations, a hypothesis is established, and the stage of predicting the subject based on that hypothesis is called the hypothesis stage. The stage of establishing experiments that can verify or disprove this hypothesis is called the experimental stage. This experiment requires setting up an experimental group and a control group to verify the causal relationship and blocking all other variables. If the experimental results support the hypothesis, the hypothesis is proven, and if not (if it is disproved), a new hypothesis is established and the experiment is conducted again. Finally, the experiment to prove the hypothesis is repeated, and if the hypothesis is sufficiently proven through the experimental results, it enters the theoretical stage, providing a perspective from which other problems can be viewed. This is called a theoretical perspective, but as it is not closely related to the topic of this article, we will leave it at that. The core of scientific methodology, such as this hypothesis-deductive model, is that in order for a new theory to replace an existing theory, it must be proven that it can explain phenomena as well as or better than the existing theory. In other words, a new theory must have advantages over existing theories in interpreting a phenomenon in order to replace them, and at the very least, it must not be detrimental in order to become established as the mainstream theory. If there is no reason to believe that another interpretation is better, then it can be considered a scientific method, or mainstream theory. This raises the question of what exactly the scientific method is and how it can be objective and rational, which is usually considered a question of the philosophy of science. In particular, this question leads to a debate over which theories follow the scientific method and which do not, which in turn leads to the important issue in contemporary philosophy of science of distinguishing between science and pseudoscience.
So, what is the exact definition of pseudoscience? Unfortunately, there is no answer to this question yet. This is because the question of demarcation has not yet been resolved, and the definition of the scientific method varies depending on the field of science and the interpretation of each individual. For example, when theory A seeks to replace theory B, it must be proven that theory A has advantages over theory B in explaining natural phenomena, but there is room for subjective interpretation of these advantages. Therefore, although past philosophers of science have proposed various theories to define pseudoscience, logical problems have been found, and pseudoscience has not yet been clearly defined. The general meaning of pseudoscience can be interpreted literally. “Pseudo” means “similar” or “fake,” so “pseudoscience” refers to something that is not science but pretends to be science. More precisely, it refers to a theory that claims to be scientific without undergoing scientific research or verification. It is easier to understand if you think of it as a theory that claims to be scientific without going through the scientific methodology described above. Examples of pseudoscience can be found in various fields, such as blood type personality theory, zodiac personality theory, the golden ratio, biorhythms, claustrophobia, and fortune-telling. Take the golden ratio, known as 1:1.618, as an example. The Venus de Milo, the David statue, and the Parthenon, which are known as buildings that apply the golden ratio, were actually measured and found to have ratios of 1:1.555, 1:1.535, and 4:9, respectively, none of which match the golden ratio. Similarly, when actually measured, parrot shells, resident registration cards, and iPhones are said to have proportions that are unrelated to the golden ratio. From a scientific methodology perspective, it is a theory that claims to be true without proving it through experimentation, skipping the steps of establishing a hypothesis and conducting experiments. Therefore, it is classified as pseudoscience.
From the perspective of the philosophy of science, pseudoscience has not yet been precisely defined. However, from the perspective of scientific methodology, when looking at the theoretical part, it is best to use the most reasonable theory if there is no accurate theory, so when determining whether something is pseudoscience, we use the views proposed by many philosophers in the past. In this article, we will explain from the perspective of Karl Popper, which is closely related to scientific methodology and is still considered valid today, except in specific cases. In his book “Conjectures and Refutations,” Karl Popper divided science and pseudoscience based on the possibility of refutation, defining science as the ability to explain the relationships between empirical cases revealed to date through induction, and theories that are highly likely to be wrong, in other words, theories that can be refuted. This is quite similar to scientific methodology. Suppose there are two conflicting theories, A and B. Suppose that while the two theories are in conflict, a new phenomenon is discovered that refutes theory A. Then, from the perspective of scientific methodology, theory B is more valid in explaining the phenomenon, and theory B is accepted as the established theory. However, this does not mean that theory A is not a scientific claim. This is because theory A is also a theory derived from scientific methodology. Take, for example, the geocentric theory and the heliocentric theory. The geocentric theory was disproved by observations made by Galileo Galilei and other scientists, which contradicted the theory. However, this does not mean that the geocentric theory is not a scientific claim. This is because the geocentric theory was only disproved, and there was evidence to support it. In this sense, Karl Popper defined science as a theory that can be disproved among theories established on valid grounds, and defined pseudoscience as a theory that cannot be disproved. To make it easier to understand, borrowing an expression from a wiki, Karl Popper’s definition of pseudoscience is not a “false theory” but a “theory that is not even false.” Although Popper’s view was refuted by the Duhem-Quine thesis, which showed that complete refutation is impossible due to the indeterminacy of propositions and theories that involve probabilities that are difficult to prove, it is still considered a good perspective for understanding general cases and pseudoscience.
Now, let’s borrow Popper’s perspective and examine pseudoscience in reality. The most representative example is creationism. The concept opposite to creationism is evolution, so let’s compare the two. First, evolution begins with Darwin. It was established as a theory that faithfully followed the “hypothesis-deductive model.” Before Darwin, there was Lamarck’s theory of use and disuse, but Darwin’s theory of natural selection proved to be more suitable for explaining natural phenomena, replacing the theory of use and disuse and becoming the mainstream theory. Darwin’s theory of evolution can be refuted, and theories developed by other scientists have emerged, and through this process of repetition, it continues to evolve. But what about creationism? Not only is it difficult to find evidence based on scientific methodology, but creationism cannot be refuted by scientific methodology, and is therefore classified as pseudoscience. Another famous example is Masaru Emoto’s book, “The Hidden Messages in Water.” In this book, Emoto claims that water reacts to human words and writing, forming beautiful crystals when it hears good words and ugly crystals when it hears bad words. He supports his claim with photographs of water crystals taken during experiments, arguing that water has the ability to understand and remember. If you read it without thinking deeply, the photographs of crystals taken through experiments seem very convincing. However, if you read it carefully and think about it, you will find that there are parts where the results were not properly recorded, such as only selecting the crystals that came out well out of 20 results and taking photographs of them. Although this claim can be refuted through proper experiments, Masaru Emoto’s claim is classified as pseudoscience because it has not been proven by proper experimental results.
In this way, various things such as biorhythms, fortune telling, and astrology are defined as pseudoscience. So what is the problem with pseudoscience? The problem is that unscientific content is considered to be true by the general public. Contents that have no scientific basis and are not recognized as science are spread on the Internet as if they were science, deceiving the public, who then believe them. The books described above, such as “Water Knows the Answer” and “The Dreaming Attic,” which describe pseudoscience, were actually recommended reading for young people, and young people who lack discernment are likely to believe their contents. In a similar context, pseudoscientific content is posted on various websites and spread to people, who accept it as truth. Problems caused by the public’s misinformation can be easily found around us. As in a recent case where people believed false information and insulted someone, driving them to suicide, it is not impossible that a few people believing in pseudoscience, which is misinformation, could cause problems. Pseudoscience also affects the advancement of science. In a broad sense, science aims to improve the quality of human life, but pseudoscience hinders this advancement. Creationists ignore the theory of evolution, which has been built up over centuries through experiments and refutation by scientists, and they disparage those scientists, causing wasteful debates that promote discord and conflict in society. In addition, among those who believe in pseudoscience such as folk remedies, there are people who choose to raise their children without vaccines, a practice known as “anti-vaccination.” The purpose of vaccines is to create antibodies in all members of society to eradicate diseases, with the goal of making vaccines unnecessary for future generations. However, people who practice “Anaki” do not vaccinate their children, slowing progress toward this goal and spreading infectious diseases to those around them. Not only that, but by allowing their children to become ill, they are disrespecting their children’s human rights and insulting the efforts of those who have fallen victim to these diseases and the scientists who invented vaccines to treat them. The same is true in fields other than medicine.
Science does not fall from the sky. It is born through endless efforts, undergoing verification through the stages of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and theory, and repeated experimentation. Let’s say you are a scientist and you have devoted your life to creating a medicine that can eradicate the common cold from the earth. However, how would you feel if people believed in pseudoscience, which has no scientific basis and is nothing more than the nonsense of one person, and refused treatment, so that the cold never disappeared? This is a bit of an extreme example, but keep in mind that it is entirely possible as long as pseudoscience exists. Pseudoscience must be properly publicized and eliminated.
