# What is Pseudoscience?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/what-is-pseudoscience/276>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [May 27, 2018, 4:00pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/what-is-pseudoscience/276 "2018-05-27T16:00:57Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 6:02pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/what-is-pseudoscience/276/4 "2018-05-27T18:02:09Z")

</div>

> [@jongarvey](#):
>
> an equally nebulous concept of “pseudoscience”

This recent book is very helpful. @jongarvey, I’d love to hear your take.

> **[Amazon.com: Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science: 9780262037426:...](https://www.amazon.com/Pseudoscience-Conspiracy-Against-Science-Press/dp/0262037424?tag=swamidass-20)**
>
> Amazon.com: Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science: 9780262037426: Kaufman, Allison B., Kaufman, James C.: Books

This review has some great insight.

> **[Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pseudoscience-the-conspiracy-against-science/)**
>
> An excellent new book examines pseudoscience in 22 essays by prominent scientists from various fields.

This paragraph alone is worth its weight (0g?) in gold:

> In the first chapter, David Hecht argues that understanding pseudoscience is as important as debunking it. Science and pseudoscience are opposite ends of one spectrum; we can easily identify the extremes, but there is no clear line separating them. Pseudoscientific beliefs are not as random or indefensible as they seem, and science is not as objective and detached as we would like to think. Science is powerful but imperfect; and until we understand its limitations, we shouldn’t condemn those who choose not to trust it. We must avoid dogmatism and remember that scientific knowledge is always provisional.

The key lessons offered in the forward:

> In a foreword, Scott Lilienfeld summarizes the valuable lessons in this book:
> 
> 1. We are all subject to cognitive biases.
> 2. We are largely unaware of our biases.
> 3. Science is a systematic set of safeguards against biases.
> 4. **Scientific thinking doesn’t come naturally to humans.**
> 5. Scientific thinking is exasperatingly domain-specific. Even Nobel Prize winners can fall prey to pseudoscience in fields outside their area of expertise.
> 6. **Pseudoscience and science lie on a spectrum.**
> 7. Pseudoscience is characterized by a set of fallible, but useful, warning signs such as an absence of self-correction, overuse of ad hoc maneuvers to immunize claims from refutation, use of scientific-sounding but vacuous language, extraordinary claims in the absence of compelling evidence, over-reliance on anecdotal and testimonial assertions, avoidance of peer review, etc.
> 8. Scientific claims can be wrong. Pseudoscientific claims differ from erroneous claims in that they are deceptive: they appear to be scientific, but they are not.
> 9. **Scientific and pseudoscientific thinking are cut from the same basic psychological cloth**. Heuristics (mental shortcuts or rules of thumb) are invaluable in everyday life, but when misapplied they can lead to mistaken conclusions.
> 10. Skepticism differs from cynicism. **Skeptics must guard against dismissing implausible claims out of disconfirmation bias.**

I want to point out that I did a Veritas Forum a couple months ago with Scott Lilienfield at Emory: What it Means to Be Human? I’ll post the video when it goes live. Great guy he is; I was impressed.

@Patrick, I’m curious your thoughts on #10.

I’d also point out my strong endorsement of #4. That means intuitive understanding (contra Axe) is _often_ unscientific.

> [@Forum Disclaimer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/forum-disclaimer/186/1):
>
> **Science is not intuitive**. It is very mathematical and technical. Science requires very careful adherence to specific logical rules and standards. There are a multitude of rhetorically strong points (that convince the crowds) that are totally false scientifically. The rules and conclusions of mainstream science, for this reason, are not going to be altered by public debate or consensus.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/what-is-pseudoscience/276)._