How to distinguish science from pseudoscience?

The world is complex, ambiguous and mysterious - humanity has been trying to understand how it works since antiquity. We have achieved some success in this thanks to science. These methods of understanding the world are built on clear rules, which ultimately led to active technological and social development.

Considering the obvious expediency of science, it is logical to assume that humanity will strive specifically for the scientific knowledge of the world. But no, in parallel with science, the so-called pseudo or pseudosciences began to develop.

Source

And now there is a diametrically opposite view of the structure of the Universe with the same claim to truth. Let's try to figure out what the prefix "pseudo" means, why the principle of falsifiability is important, and whether astrologers should be trusted .

How is scientific knowledge different from any other? First of all, science always claims to be objective. This means that, as a kind of human activity, science describes the world, independent of the subject, existing by itself (objective reality). The scientific method, on the other hand, is a definite systematics that allows one to distinguish that "objective" knowledge.

Of course, one can always ask the philosophical question: "Is objective knowledge possible at all?" For now, let's say yes. This method is based on empirical observation - experience. A hypothesis is formed (assumption, unproven statement) based on inductive observations. Then an experiment is conducted to obtain deductive information. This means that the synthesis of information continues until uncertainty is excluded.

The problem of the difference between scientific and non-scientific knowledge is designated as the problem of demarcation. This question has repeatedly arisen throughout the history of the development of science, but it is primarily associated with the name of the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper.

If we can be simple, then any theory that claims to be scientific can be called such only if it is possible to refute it. If a theory is constructed in such a way that it is impossible to verify its correctness, then we are probably dealing with pseudoscience.

For example, astrology has long been considered a serious academic discipline. But towards the end of the 19th century, due to the popularization of the scientific method, scientists showed that in astrology experiment is impossible and the explanatory power of the theory is completely absent.

Source

However, Popper and his principle of falsifiability were subsequently criticized several times. The philosopher Thomas Kuhn believed that Popper was naive in his belief in experience, since empirical evidence alone is insufficient to solve the problem of demarcation. Another philosopher - William Bartley - showed that if the principle of falsifiability is applied to the principle itself, it will turn out to be pseudoscientific.

Also, if Popper's words were axiomatic, then psychoanalysis can be considered a pseudoscience, since many observations are not falsified. However, hardly anyone in the modern academic world will doubt the scientific nature of psychoanalysis and psychology. Despite the criticism and obvious shortcomings of Popper's methodology, the philosopher made significant developments in the dialogue about demarcation.

But, discarding complex philosophical questions, let's figure out how a person of the 21st century understands where real science is, First of all, you need to return to Popper's statement and think about the possibility of refuting the theory. If it is presented as something absolute, irrefutable and always true, then it is probably worth asking a question about the advisability of such knowledge.

The same goes for loud and abstract statements like "heals all diseases" or "helps to come to success." The inability to test research by others is a red flag. If "scientist" leaves them closed to the scientific community, then, most likely, the prefix "pseudo" applies to his title. Of course, this is provided that research is available at all. In a world of endless media noise, the search and verification of sources remains underestimated.

This is why conspiracy theories and controversial research prone to a replication crisis are gaining popularity. Throughout the year, they deliberately published pseudo-studies with loud, politically charged headlines. The studies raised issues of political correctness, sexism, racism and the like. So the scientists wanted to show that in the academic environment, the title can play a greater role than the objectivity of the study.

Source

The good thing about a healthy skepticism is that it helps us avoid mistakes. On the other hand, what's wrong with numerology, astrology and physiognomy? Probably nothing, and such an activity can be considered harmless. But here is the question of the moral responsibility of the scientist.

After all, if we base our life on unverified information, this can be fraught with consequences for personal health. It's okay when the "stars say" that today is going to be a bad day. It's scary when a person is ready to mortgage a house in order to find out what the stars will tell him.

---