Rationally Speaking: an archived blog about science & philosophy, by Massimo Pigliucci
▼
Monday, November 11, 2013
The pseudoscience black hole
by Massimo Pigliucci
As I’ve mentioned on other occasions, my most recent effort in philosophy of science actually concerns what my collaborator Maarten Boudry and I call the philosophy of pseudoscience. During a recent discussion we had with some of the contributors to our book at the recent congress of the European Philosophy of Science Association, Maarten came up with the idea of the pseudoscience black hole. Let me explain.
The idea is that it is relatively easy to find historical (and even recent) examples of notions or fields that began within the scope of acceptable scientific practice, but then moved (or, rather, precipitated) into the realm of pseudoscience. The classic case, of course, is alchemy. Contra popular perception, alchemists did produce a significant amount of empirical results about the behavior of different combinations of chemicals, even though the basic theory of elements underlying the whole enterprise was in fact hopelessly flawed. Also, let's not forget that first rate scientists - foremost among them Newton - spent a lot of time carrying out alchemical research, and that they thought of it in the same way in which they were thinking of what later turned out to be good science.
Another example, this one much more recent, is provided by the cold fusion story. The initial 1989 report by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann was received with natural caution by the scientific community, given the potentially revolutionary import (both theoretical and practical) of the alleged discovery. But it was treated as science, done by credentialed scientists working within established institutions. The notion was quickly abandoned when various groups couldn't replicate Pons and Fleischmann's results, and moreover given that theoreticians just couldn't make sense of how cold fusion was possible to begin with. The story would have ended there, and represented a good example of the self-correcting mechanism of science, if a small but persistent group of aficionados hadn't pursued the matter by organizing alternative meetings, publishing alleged results, and eventually even beginning to claim that there was a conspiracy by the scientific establishment to suppress the whole affair. In other words, cold fusion had - surprisingly rapidly - moved not only into the territory of discarded science, but of downright pseudoscience.
Examples of this type can easily be multiplied by even a cursory survey of the history of science. Eugenics and phrenology immediately come to mind, as well as - only slightly more controversially - psychoanalysis. At this point I would also firmly throw parapsychology into the heap (research in parapsychology has been conducted by credentialed scientists, especially during the early part of the 20th century, and for a while it looked like it might have gained enough traction to move to mainstream).
But, asked Maarten, do we have any convincing cases of the reverse happening? That is, are there historical cases of a discipline or notion that began as clearly pseudoscientific but then managed to clean up its act and emerge as a respectable science? And if not, why?
Before going any further, we may need to get a bit more clear on what we mean by pseudoscience. Of course Maarten, I and our contributors devoted an entire book to explore that and related questions, so the matter is intricate. Nonetheless, three characteristics of pseudoscience clearly emerged from our discussions:
1. Pseudoscience is not a fixed notion. A field can slide into (and maybe out of?) pseudoscientific status depending on the temporal evolution of its epistemic status (and, to a certain extent, of the sociology of the situation).
2. Pseudoscientific claims are grossly deficient in terms of epistemic warrant. This, however, is not sufficient to identify pseudoscience per se, as some claims made within established science can also, at one time or another, be epistemically grossly deficient.
3. What most characterizes a pseudoscience is the concerted efforts of its practitioners to mimic the trappings of science: They want to be seen as doing science, so they organize conferences, publish specialized journals, and talk about data and statistical analyses. All of it, of course, while lacking the necessary epistemic warrant to actually be a science.
Given this three-point concept of pseudoscience, then, is Maarten right that pseudoscientific status, once reached, is a "black hole," a sink from which no notion or field ever emerges again?
The obvious counter example would seem to be herbal medicine which, to a limited extent, is becoming acceptable as a mainstream practice. Indeed, in some cases our modern technology has uncontroversially and successfully purified and greatly improved the efficacy of natural remedies. Just think, of course, of aspirin, whose active ingredient is derived from the bark and leaves of willow trees, the effectiveness of which was well known already to Hippocrates 23 centuries ago.
Maybe, just maybe, we are in the process of witnessing a similar emergence of acupuncture from pseudoscience to medical acceptability. I say maybe because it is not at all clear, as yet, whether acupuncture has additional effects above and beyond the placebo. But if it does, then it should certainly be used in some clinical practice, mostly as a complementary approach to pain management (it doesn't seem to have measurable effects on much else).
But these two counter examples struck both Maarten and I as rather unconvincing. They are better interpreted as specific practices, arrived at by trial and error, which happen to work well enough to be useful in modern settings. The theory, such as it is, behind them is not just wrong, but could have never aspired to be scientific to begin with.
Acupuncture, for instance, is based on the metaphysical notion of Qi energy, flowing through 12 "regular" and 8 "extraordinary" so-called "meridians." Indeed, there are allegedly five types of Qi energy, corresponding to five cardinal functions of the human body: actuation, warming, defense, containment and transformation. Needless to say, all of this is entirely made up, and makes absolutely no contact with either empirical science or established theoretical notions in, say, physics or biology.
The situation is even more hopeless in the case of "herbalism," which originates from a hodgepodge of approaches, including magic, shamanism, and Chinese "medicine" type of supernaturalism. Indeed, one of Hippocrates' great contributions was precisely to reject mysticism and supernaturalism as bases for medicine, which is why he is often referred to as the father of "Western" medicine (i.e., medicine).
Based just on the examples discussed above - concerning once acceptable scientific notions that slipped into pseudoscience and pseudoscientific notions that never emerged into science - it would seem that there is a potential explanation for Maarten's black hole. Cold fusion, phrenology, and to some (perhaps more debatable) extent alchemy were not just empirically based (so is acupuncture, after all!), but built on a theoretical foundation that invoked natural laws and explicitly attempted to link up with established science. Those instances of pseudoscience whose practice, but not theory, may have made it into the mainstream, instead, invoked supernatural or mystical notions, and most definitely did not make any attempt to connect with the rest of the scientific web of knowledge.
Please note that I am certainly not saying that all pseudoscience is based on supernaturalism. Parapsychology and ufology, in most of their incarnations at least, certainly aren't. What I am saying is that either a notion begins within the realm of possibly acceptable science - from which it then evolves either toward full fledged science or slides into pseudoscience - or it starts out as pseudoscience and remains there. The few apparent exceptions to the latter scenario appear to be cases of practices based on mystical or similar notions. In those cases aspects of the practice may become incorporated into (and explained by) modern science, but the "theoretical" (really, metaphysical) baggage is irrevocably shed.
Can anyone think of examples that counter the idea of the pseudoscience black hole? Or of alternative explanations for its existence?
I believe Michael Ruse once argued that *evolution* moved from pseudoscience to science, and I think it's not a bad argument, if you think of eg Chambers's Vestiges as an example of the pseudoscientific stage. Astrology->astronomy might be another but I don't know much about that. Of course we've only had really modern notions of science since the 1800s anyway so it gets complex...
Applying the concept of pseudoscience to the humanities, I imagined what would be some kind of pseudohistory. We see lots of examples (unfortunately) in the so-called History Channel of what could be considered as a highly speculative and ungrounded way of putting forth hypotheses about human cultures and civilizations that have no ground on sound evidence, but merely on imagination. These ideas aren't put to the test of the scientific community, where they would be dismantled quite easily.
The discovery of Troy, from what I know, started from the assumption that the works of Homer had some truth to it, and were not merely fiction.
Were these assumptions correctly made? Or was it a shot in the dark? Were there strong reasons to assume that Troy was an actual place, instead of an imagined city? Was Schliemann correct in his assumption?
I don't know the story of the discovery of Troy very well, but this argument is usually advanced by those who seek for Atlantis, the Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster, an so on.
If I were to play devil's advocate here, I'd argue that you're taking cases of established science becoming pseudoscience from any point in history, whereas you're expecting cases of pseudoscience becoming established science to conform to our contemporary understanding of science, and thus unfairly limiting the sample period.
If I was being really satanic in my advocacy, I could further argue that -for example - the Heliocentric model was originally seen as pseudoscience by the authorities of the day, and that it then became mainstream.
I don't really think that, but I think it serves well to remember that along with knowing that we don't live in a special place like the center of the universe, it's also most likely the case that we don't live in a special time when we just happen to have hit upon the definitive methodology of investigating the Universe.
Continental drift is often mentioned in this context. Smithsonian magazine published an article titled When Continental Drift Was Considered Pseudoscience. However it's not clear whether continental drift was actually referred to as pseudoscience in the historical literature, or whether the title of the article is another reader-grabbing journalistic device.
But supposing continental drift was in fact called pseudoscience, it may be the exception that proves the rule. As far as I know there wasn't some fundamental change to the Standard Model being proposed -- no Qi or Gaia Energy being claimed responsible for continents drifting. That part was just left unexplained, and when the mechanism was discovered the hypothesis quickly gained traction in the scientific community.
Does 'mainstream science' entertain any notions that may be construed as metaphysical?
> The situation is even more hopeless in the case of "herbalism," which originates from a hodgepodge of approaches, including magic, shamanism, and Chinese "medicine" type of supernaturalism. <
Would the endosymbiotic account of the origins of eukaryotes have been considered pseudoscientific at one time? I'm under the impression that most mainstream biologists thought it was a crackpot theory for quite a while, but I don't really know the history.
Of course, what counts as efforts to "mimic the trappings of science" and what counts as legitimate (if imperfect) science may depend largely on the question of whether, in hindsight, the research turned out to be a success.
The tree of knowledge. Have you eaten from the physics tree of science yet, the tree that found its own measure of nature to be uncertain or only probable at best? Have you swallowed the fruit and become a gambler in their game of dice too? Have you been sold on the scientific snake oil of chance? Have you fallen into the spell yet of quantum mechanics, fallen into the dizzying black holes or rabbit holes of today’s science? If so, can you tell me how deep into uncertainty has science taken you, how deep does science go? Does it go deeper than Higgs or god particles, farther than strings and multiverses, deeper than their own equations? Is it possible to escape once you have fallen in? Is there any way out? Can science escape the gravitation pull of its own smoke and mirrors? And while you are in there can you tell me: Is science the best at calling a kettle black or does black really matter, is a black hole black? And lastly or rather firstly, can you tell me, did the big bang make any sound or is that theory just another pseudo hole of a dud too? Should I eat the fruit too? Thanks, =
So parapsychology can be thrown onto the heal of pseudoscience? Would you care to offer some citations that overwhelmingly debunk the evidence on psi?
Here is a weblink where you can survey the current evidence on psi: http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm
From where I stand, psi research is growing and is very far from being discredited, except perhaps those whose core assumptions get in the way of examining the evidence.
I heard some theories involving DNA being active rather than a mere passive memory were once considered crackpotery but are now mainstream. I am not really sure though... I also remember of similar examples of hypothesis in physics which were considered implausible and are now accepted (the higg boson maybe?). The existence of meteorites is a classical example often cited by pseudoscience proponents , along with continental drifts which was already cited. I would be careful in this matter about retrospective interpretations of history ( such as denying that the new succesful theory was once considered pseudo science)
First of all, I think "ratchet" would make more sense than "black hole." It's an interesting move you're making in splitting praxis off from theory. I know you don't think Democritus counts as pseudo atomism, but I wonder about Michael Faraday's model of EM. Does unproven theory count as pseudo science? Jim Baggott might think so.
yes, Ruse argued that evolution started out as a pseudoscientific notion — indeed, he did this in our own book! But I’m not really convinced by the example. Part of the problem is that we are talking (obviously) before Darwin, which means the dominant paradigm in biology was natural theology. Which isn’t exactly a paragon of science.
Francisco,
Troy is an interesting suggestion, though as you say we are now in the humanities rather than sciences. But the idea that Troy had actually existed was a possibility — remote, unlikely, but still a distinct possibility.
> I don't know the story of the discovery of Troy very well, but this argument is usually advanced by those who seek for Atlantis <
But that’s precisely it: there might have been a time where thinking of Atlantis as a real place was not entirely out of the question, but to insist on it now is definitely pseudoscientific (unless one agrees that “Atlantis” was really the Greek island of Santorini, which I’ve actually visited this past summer, and where I did see the remains of a sophisticated civilization that ended abruptly because of a gigantic earthquake).
Infovoy,
> the Heliocentric model was originally seen as pseudoscience by the authorities of the day <
I don’t think so. Both Copernicus and Galileo were respected scientists, and made quick progress within the scientific community. Even the Church had to take them seriously, despite the “heretic” nature of their theories.
> we don't live in a special time when we just happen to have hit upon the definitive methodology of investigating the Universe. <
Yes, I definitely agree on that one. That’s why the examples have to be historical, or have more or less clearly ran their course (like cold fusion).
Craig,
> However it's not clear whether continental drift was actually referred to as pseudoscience in the historical literature, or whether the title of the article is another reader-grabbing journalistic device. <
I suspect the latter. My understanding of that story is that continental drift was considered speculation, not pseudoscience. And it was finally taken seriously when geologists discovered a plausible mechanism, as you pointed out.
> Does 'mainstream science' entertain any notions that may be construed as metaphysical? <
Of course. But there is sound and unsound metaphysics. As for your requests about definitions, I’m sure you can use Wikipedia just as well as I can. Though I suggest the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy instead.
George,
> So parapsychology can be thrown onto the heal of pseudoscience? Would you care to offer some citations that overwhelmingly debunk the evidence on psi? <
Yup. You can use Google just as well as I can to find plenty of references. And something tells me that no matter what link I’d send you to (volumes and volumes of Skeptical Inquirer?) you’d say that those are just close minded people who don’t really look at the hard evidence.
Peter,
> Would the endosymbiotic account of the origins of eukaryotes have been considered pseudoscientific at one time? <
No, again Margulis was a well respected scientist, and her ideas were considered speculative, but definitely not pseudoscience. Gaia wold be a different story, but I still count that as pseudoscience.
> what counts as efforts to "mimic the trappings of science" and what counts as legitimate (if imperfect) science may depend largely on the question of whether, in hindsight, the research turned out to be a success. <
Indeed, which is why, again, Maarten and insist on the historical dimension of things. The historical hindsight is indispensable.
Quentin,
> I heard some theories involving DNA being active rather than a mere passive memory were once considered crackpotery but are now mainstream. <
Not sure which theories are you referring to. Directed mutation? Epigenetic inheritance?
> the higg boson maybe? <
No, definitely not the Higgs.
OneDay,
> Does unproven theory count as pseudo science? <
Would you put string theory into that category? (I wouldn’t.) And yes, I like the ratchet metaphor.
> Of course. But there is sound and unsound metaphysics. <
I guess this means that there is sound and unsound pseudoscience.
Just curious. Does "string theory" qualify as sound or unsound metaphysics?
> As for your requests about definitions, I’m sure you can use Wikipedia just as well as I can. Though I suggest the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy instead. <
metaphysics: "the part of philosophy that is concerned with the basic causes and nature of things"
naturalism : " a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena"
supernatural : "unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc."
> And something tells me that no matter what link I’d send you [George] to (volumes and volumes of Skeptical Inquirer?) you’d say that those are just close minded people who don’t really look at the hard evidence. <
There are some prominent skeptics (e.g. Sam Harris and Carl Sagan) who seem to disagree with your assessment of psychic phenomena.
"There also seems to be a body of data attesting to the reality of psychic phenomena, much of which has been ignored by mainstream science,[18]" (source: pg. 41, "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris)
"Carl Sagan suggested that there are three claims in the field of parapsychology which have at least some experimental support and "deserve serious study", as they "might be true":[106]
(1) that by thought alone humans can affect random number generators in computers;
(2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them;
(3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have know about in any other way than reincarnation.[106]"
Actually, Sagan was more skeptical of those things than that reference implies. From right after his mention of it in the cited book: "I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that *might* be true." (The word 'might' was in italics in the original.) 'The Demon Haunted World", p 302.
It is my understanding that the best "evidence" for any psi-phenomena come from meta-analyses and reviews over large numbers of carefully picked studies. This results in both a selection bias in the data being used and a ridiculously overpowered significance test. And even then the results only show a very slim effect.
If the effect was real, surely it would show up without resulting to cherry picking and high power levels?
> Actually, Sagan was more skeptical of those things than that reference implies. From right after his mention of it in the cited book: "I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that *might* be true." (The word 'might' was in italics in the original.) 'The Demon Haunted World", p 302. <
The Wikipedia article specifically cites "might be true" (and the term "might": is italicized in the article). The point is that some skeptics are more open to the idea of psychic phenomena than Massimo would lead us to believe.
> And even then the results only show a very slim effect.<
What kind of nonsense is this? A very slim effect is still an effect, an effect with profound implications. (The primary reason why the evidence for psi is rejected by skeptics is because they believe it would undermine their materialistic worldview.)
It seems to me that a distinction has to be made from people who are pursuing science badly, and those who are outright faking it. Those pursuing it badly might still stumble on new important discoveries. Someone has already mentioned the historical archaeological work, much of it driven to prove myths and legends. That may have been poor science, but the people doing it still made important discoveries, even if their interpretation of the evidence was biased.
The people who perpetrated the 'Piltdown man' fraud belong in a different category. The people claiming to have scientific evidence for intelligent design, UFOs, ghosts, or whatever, aren't even trying to do real science, only to make it look like they are. It's hard to see how any of that ever escapes the black hole.
Thanks for your earlier comment. I appreciate the opportunity to debate these important issues.
However, to continue: There is a difference between publications in peer refereed journals and, say, "volumes and volumes of skeptical inquirer," which isn't. In fact, the two aren't anywhere in the same ballpark as far as scientific discourse. The cite I linked is a list of published (refereed) articles on the evidence of psi.
Also your response "something tells me....closed minded people don't look at the evidence" suggests (at the very least) something of lack of curiosity on what the empirical evidence on psi might be.
Phrenology is an extremely interesting example because nowadays its just dismissed as downright pseudoscience. But as I was surprised to discover reading Jerry Fodor's seminal 1983 book The Modularity of Mind, phrenology started off as a serious hypothesis by the physiologist Franz Joseph Gall (1758 - 1828), whom Fodor's says has received "unfairly rotton press." Gall's hypothesis was that the human mind is composed of different "faculties", as this is the best explanation for individual differences. Musically gifted people have a robust music faculty, and mathematically gifted people have a robust mathematical faculty, on this view. Phrenology was then hijacked by quacks and racists, and was rejected as pseudoscience as a consequence. For most of the 20th century, the human mind was thought to be a homogeneous mechanism until Fodor put faculty psychology on the map again.
Today, modularity, the view that the mind is composed of distinct and specialised mechanisms, is the guiding assumption of most neuroscience and psychology. So perhaps we have an example of an idea that has started off as science, got sucked into the pseudoscience blackhole, and was then revived as a serious scientific research programme?
I think the question is slightly problematic. With the benefit of hindsight, we can from our privileged position call ideas which have proven to be true "scientific" or "protoscientific", while ideas which have proven to have no relationship to reality are easy to denigrate as pseudoscience.
From the point of view of an ancient medical practitioner, the idea of Qi may have appeared to be warranted. It was a model with predictions and accounted for health and disease by appeal to a natural system of flows of a substance. As such, it was not a supernatural description - it was a natural description using natural forces which it turns out don't exist.
I say this to sketch an example, not because I actually know anything about it. It may be that the way it was taught and accepted uncritically makes it pseudoscience.
However, if competing ideas had been taught and accepted in another part of the world in much the same way, but which had turned out to be correct, we would be much more likely to retroactively call those science.
As such, my suspicion is that we don't see pseudoscience leaving the "black hole" very often because if we ever did then we would retroactively call it science.
It seems to me there is a problem with finding a counter-example that would question the gravitational pull of a pseudoscience blackhole.
Having in mind what was said in the conversation with Maarten Boudry, I believe that properly called pseudoscientific theories or claims always make fundamental mistakes, either theoretical or experimental. These errors may be honest or dishonest, but that is not important.
By experimental mistake I mean an experimental malpractice: either ill-conceived experiments, statistical irrelevant results, or the simple dismissal of data that does not replicate the proposed results. An example of these are the cases of telepathy experiments and cold fusion.
A theoretical mistake would be an ill-conceived definition, either too vage, contradictory, unfalsifiable or ungrounded to begin with, like freudianism.
I could also rephrase all of the above by reducing the character of pseudoscience to two kinds of unsoundness: by pratice (experimental) or by principle (theoretical).
By refusing to face criticism, these theories are still above their Schwarzschild radius, and are still within the scientific side of the demarcation. It is only if their proponents persist in ignoring contradictory evidence by incurring in either one of these mistakes that the whole thing collapses into darkness…
Now, the problem I mentioned: if any pseudoscientific claim were to be proven valuable or correct, its confirmation couldn't come but from the scientific side of the divide. So any counter-example would necessarily have a parallel and scientific formulation that could put the claim to the test. Then, the proponents of the pseudoscientific claim would have no reasons to say their claim had any soundness, since there was a way of going around the problem without leaving the scientific, singularity-free ground. Pseudoscience would neve score, by definition, since it is a dead end.
So a pseudoscientific claim cannot produce any valid results because it is pseudoscientific, therefore uncapable of producing scientific testable results that would have nothing to do with it in the first place…
If there is a way of rescuing such a claim, the proponents can still catch up by starting over from the scientific train wreck, and proceding within the light side of the Force.
It seams to me that this is true for any scientific theory gone astray or to any basic claim that starts off as a simple working assumption that proceeds without scientific grounds into the realms of silliness.
Or maybe this is a problem with the way I see the divide.
"But there is sound and unsound metaphysics." Isn't this (partly) where the distinction lies? And explains the lack of movement from pseudoscience to science rather than the other way round? Qi energy isn't intrinsically an unsound concept. Of course it is a ridiculous concept, we know that bodies (and physics) just don’t work that way. Much the same can be said of calor and phlogiston: we know that they are nonsense. But we know that these are nonsense now, because of evidence that we now have. It strikes me that Qi, calor and phlogiston were perfectly reasonable conjectures before the evidence that they were nonsense arose. Acupuncture is pseudo scientific (partly) because it requires ignoring the evidence that Qi is nonsense. As evidence always arises rather than disappearing we can only move from “no evidence that x is nonsense” to “evidence that x is nonsense”, never the other way round.
Incidentally Stephen Law has been using the “black hole” analogy for a bit now . His black holes differ from yours in that they are populated by people trapped into believing rubbish, as opposed to fields that cannot escape being rubbish.
There are lists of dozens of "hypothetical particles": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hypothetical_particles. One of my favorites: the chameleon. Are some of the particles in these lists "pseudoscience"? (One, instanton, is called a "pseudoparticle" that appears in some theories of the origin of the universe.) It seems that when you get down to it the only thing separating science and pseudoscience is degree of usefulness.
Massimo- interesting question. I may do my own blog post on it. But quickly - I agree that the question is problematic. Just being speculative or yet unproven is not enough to be pseudoscience. Most sciences start out on the fringe until they accumulate sufficient evidence. Pseudoscience is about method, and is by definition wrong because the method is not valid. So what you are really asking is if there was any pseudoscience that happened to turn out to be true, despite being pseudoscience.
Regarding acupuncture - I think this is an excellent example of a pure pseudoscience, simply one that has become fairly sophisticated. So sophisticated, in fact, that unless you have a fair degree of expertise in the science of acupuncture (even if you are a philosopher with an expertise is pseudoscience) you may miss it.
Herbalism is a complicated example because it's more than one thing.
To sum up my opinion on pseudoscience black holes:
It seems to me that, by definition, a pseudoscientific claim can only escape a black hole iff it i) is scientific or ii) it is not pseudoscientific.
If the black hole definition aims at defining pseudoscience, it will be self-referential and fail. If it is just a corollary, then finding an example of escape will depend on how the demarcation problem was settled.
The reason I explicitely mentioned two apparently equivalent conditions is that there may be a third option for characterizing a claim: a parascientific claim.
A parascientific claim would then be a claim not yet matured, nor part of established scientific knowledge, but nevertheless open to criticism, anaylsis and refinement in an essentially non ad hoc way.
This would not only mark the borderline (event horizon?) between science and pseudoscientce but also between long established scientific theories and honest out-of-the-box thinking and ongoing work. It would then be the continued insistence in deflecting criticism instead of an honest rebuttal of it that made a parascientific claim become pseudoscientific (and maybe the great divide is intelectual honesty after all).
Parascientific claims could then escape pseudoscience black holes. Of course, if they orbit it for two long, they will eventually be dismissed as bad science but not necessarily pseudoscience.
I don't think luminiferous aether qualifies as pseudoscience except with the benefit of hindsight. It isn't actually *incorrect* per se, and indeed it's still possible to interpret the Michelson-Morley results and all of Einsteinian relativity in terms of aether if one so desires.
Einsteinian relativity merely ("merely"?) requires far fewer assumptions, and is therefore preferable as an interpretation on the basis of parsimony.
It would be nice it you don't use Cold Fusion alias LENR as example of pseudo-science. It is now under industrialization process, despite the pathologic denial by the scientific community, pathologic manipulation of peer review (which partially failed, like with Spawa papers and Toyota/Mitsubishi replications, and many others).
Elforsk, the research consortium of swedish electric industry, publicly confirm it works, and say it in their corporate magazine "Elforsk Perspektiv 2013 nr2" http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Trycksaker%20och%20broschyrer/elforsk_perspektiv_nr2_2013.pdf#page=4
For the many companies acting in that domain you can read that http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/
you can also try to find "RIDICULED DISCOVERERS, VINDICATED MAVERICKS" http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html for a shortlist of failed consensus ... prepare to add Fleischmann&Pons soon...
You raise anyway a good question... There are fringe pseudo-science, but there is also mainstream pseudo-science, like Psychoanalysis and LENR-denial. The consensus is not the good way to separate the good from the bad. Peer-review is not much better. Only experiments, reading the data may lead to the reality, but they are ignored. Finally as said Nassim Nicholas taleb, time do the job of filtering.
It can take centuries to recognize that evident fact like existence of germs causing puerperal fever, are real. few years to recognize human flight. few decades to recognize LENR many decades to recognize continental drift.
Given the longstanding unsolved problem of demarcation, I wonder how the black hole of metaphor sucked you in. Do you think demarcation is problematic only in deciding when an issue enters the point of no return, but not vice versa because there is no return? Here's an example that straddled the event horizon for decades now, being seen as pseudo by some and good by other researchers depending on their taste as much as on science: group selection.
An instanton is a well defined mathematical concept: it a classical solution to a quantum field theory with imaginary time. Because imaginary time switches the sign of the metric, sometimes an instanton is called an Euclidean solution. Generally, it is topologically stable and localized in 4D. The name instanton derives from this localization at a particular (imaginary) time and space position. It is used for evaluating (in a semi-classical approximation) the tunneling probabilities between different states or, in quantum field theories, between different vacua. [The Wikipedia article “instanton” is not bad and shows how to use instantons to compute tunneling probabilities in ordinary QM. The algebra is right, but I have not checked factors of ½, etc.]
As for the other particles in the list, all the particles with names ending in “ino” or starting with an “s” are supersymmetric partners of ordinary particles. For instance a photino is the (spin 1/2) partner of the photon. My favorite is the wino (partner of the W.) Also notable are selectrons, sleptons and squarks. You guess whose partners they are. The neutralino is a (quantum) mixture of wino, higgsino and bino. It was once believed to be the dark matter particle, but recent experiments have definitely shown that it does not exist. The LHC has not found the gluino either, so supersymmetry (SUSY) is probably out, meaning that string theory is also out.
Because most of the universe is missing, people are now trying to find alternative (non-SUSY) explanations for the “dark sector.” The chameleon is one of such attempts. After the failure of SUSY, particle physics is in a very messy state, but I would not call even the most ridiculous theories pseudoscience. An exceptions are the anthropic-multiverse-based explanations of everything. They are, in fact, the worst possible kind of pseudoscience and, if they become established dogma, they would mean the end of science and the beginning of a new dark age.
Personally, I am getting impatient with the axion, another dark matter candidate. If I should bet on what dark matter is, today I would chose the “sterile neutrino.” The LHC will not do much to improve our knowledge on neutrinos. I think the best bet in particle accelerators today is project-X from Fermilab. You will find a description of project-X in Lederman's last book, “Beyond the God Particle.”
I thought hypnotism through the 19th century might be an example - being initially popular as Mesmerism, being debunked, then reappearing. The initial animal magnetism model was lost completely along the way, so it may or may not be useful.
> There is a difference between publications in peer refereed journals and, say, "volumes and volumes of skeptical inquirer," which isn't. <
Yes and no, when we are talking about pseudoscience, since most professional scientists simply don’t waste their time with things they don’t consider worth it. At any rate, I’m sure you are aware that there are also technical papers criticizing, for instance, Bem’s experiments.
Alastair,
> I guess this means that there is sound and unsound pseudoscience. <
Sometimes I genuinely wonder whether you really are that naive, or you are playing a game. I lean toward the latter. Pseudoscience is unsound by definition, but there is sound and unsound metaphysics.
> Does "string theory" qualify as sound or unsound metaphysics? <
It’s a scientific theory, not a metaphysical one. (Though, of course, as all science, it makes metaphysical assumptions. Sound ones, as far as I can see.)
Michael,
yes, phrenology started out as legitimate science, so it’s not an example of escape from the black hole.
> Today, modularity, the view that the mind is composed of distinct and specialised mechanisms, is the guiding assumption of most neuroscience and psychology. <
Not really. Strong modularity is an assumption of evopsych, and it has pretty much been dispatched with. Which is not to say that the brain is a flat all-purpose device, of course. But the idea of tight (evolved for specific functions) modules is now dead.
DM,
> With the benefit of hindsight <
That’s why these discussions can only take place within the context of the history of science / pseudoscience.
> From the point of view of an ancient medical practitioner, the idea of Qi may have appeared to be warranted. <
I don’t see how. Contra what you say, it cannot be used to make predictions of any sort. It is a made up “explanation” entirely disconnected from the actual practice.
> my suspicion is that we don't see pseudoscience leaving the "black hole" very often because if we ever did then we would retroactively call it science. <
That may very well be. That’s why we are having this discussion…
Tony,
> "But there is sound and unsound metaphysics.” Isn't this (partly) where the distinction lies? And explains the lack of movement from pseudoscience to science rather than the other way round? <
Yes, that certainly explain some examples. But not all. For instance, ufology isn’t based on bad metaphysics, nor was cold fusion. They are just wrong notions that (some) people still insist in taking seriously way after their epistemic expiration date.
Thomas,
> Surprising: No mention of aether. <
Not surprising. It was a perfectly fine scientific notion until disproven. And nobody has tried to resurrected after that.
>I don’t see how. Contra what you say, it cannot be used to make predictions of any sort. It is a made up “explanation” entirely disconnected from the actual practice.<
Sure it can make predictions. If I stick a needle in your meridians, you will feel less pain. If I stick a needle in random places, it won't really work.
The predictions don't seem to work out, but it does make falsifiable predictions.
It might also predict that we would some day find anatomical features corresponding to the meridians. We find no such features, so this prediction is also falsified.
And there are predictions about how all sorts of different things affect the flow of Qi, such as food, etc.
I don't see how you don't see how Qi can make predictions!
>That may very well be. That’s why we are having this discussion…<
I don't get it. That's why I gave my view... you say that like it's a bad thing or that I'm missing the point.
@Thomas Jones >The Higgs field is not its replacement?<
The Higgs field has nothing to do with aether. All fields permeate all of space, not just the Higgs field, and Higgs has very little if anything to do with the propagation of light.
The electromagnetic field would be a better candidate.
I think we are broadly on the same page. I perhaps incorrectly took you to be saying that the Higgs field could be construed as equivalent to the luminiferous aether, and merely wanted to point out that the electromagnetic field would be more relevant.
> It’s a scientific theory, not a metaphysical one. (Though, of course, as all science, it makes metaphysical assumptions. Sound ones, as far as I can see.) <
Lawrence Krauss argued that if your theory doesn't make a testable prediction, then you're engaging in metaphysics, not physics.
> There are lists of dozens of "hypothetical particles.” Are some of the particles in these lists “pseudoscience"? <
Don’t know about lists in Wikipedia, but I don’t think any hypothetical particle postulated by professional physicists amounts to a pseudoscientific notion. Of course in time some of these may go away because of new theoretical or experimental results. But that’s just science working.
Steve,
> Pseudoscience is about method, and is by definition wrong because the method is not valid. So what you are really asking is if there was any pseudoscience that happened to turn out to be true, despite being pseudoscience. <
Interesting point. But what was wrong, say, with the methods of Fleischmann and Pons? I mean beyond the fact that the results turned out to be spurious, when checked when others applied the same methods?
Francisco,
> By experimental mistake I mean an experimental malpractice: either ill-conceived experiments, statistical irrelevant results, or the simple dismissal of data that does not replicate the proposed results. <
But that’s not enough. After all, that sort of thing happens regularly within standard science. We just call it bad science and throw it away or ignore it.
> A theoretical mistake would be an ill-conceived definition, either too vage, contradictory, unfalsifiable or ungrounded to begin with, like freudianism. <
That’s more interesting, but again there are counter-examples: there is no such mistake in ufology (the theoretical notion is pretty clear), and yet it certainly is a pseudoscience.
> a pseudoscientific claim cannot produce any valid results because it is pseudoscientific <
But that can’t be true by definition, it has to be the result of a historical record of failure, right?
> If the black hole definition aims at defining pseudoscience, it will be self-referential and fail. If it is just a corollary, then finding an example of escape will depend on how the demarcation problem was settled. <
Correct, Maarten and I are clearly looking at the second option.
> Parascientific claims could then escape pseudoscience black holes. <
The co-authors of our book all see demarcation has an inherently fuzzy line (as opposed to a sharp one), so para-science is definitely part of it. The question is: if a para-scientific notion falls clearly on the pseudoscientific side, can it ever emerge again to fight another day?
Joachim,
> Here's an example that straddled the event horizon for decades now, being seen as pseudo by some and good by other researchers depending on their taste as much as on science: group selection. <
Not even the harshest critics of group selection (the late George Williams, for instance) have ever talked about it in terms of pseudoscience. The notion has been shown decisively to be theoretically sound, it is only a question of whether (or how frequently) it actually occurs in nature.
David,
> I thought hypnotism through the 19th century might be an example - being initially popular as Mesmerism, being debunked, then reappearing. <
That’s an interesting example. I don’t know a lot about the history (and current status) of hypnotism.
«But that’s not enough. After all, that sort of thing happens regularly within standard science. We just call it bad science and throw it away or ignore it.»
I agree. The mistake in itself is not enough. What would characterize pseudoscience is not the fact that it makes these kinds of mistakes (as you point out, standard science makes them as well) but the consistentely flawed response of the proponents of the particular claim at stake. Its the bad practice that puts the 'pseudo' in pseudoscience.
«That’s more interesting, but again there are counter-examples: there is no such mistake in ufology (the theoretical notion is pretty clear), and yet it certainly is a pseudoscience.»
It could be argued that ufology is ungrounded (when favouring one arbitrary explanation, such as visitors from outer space) and that, in some cases, it actively ignores simpler explanations for many atmospheric phenomena, thus being pseudoscience. But lets suppose that is not the case. Then it would be an example of parascience: their proponents cannot do anything with it: it's fruitless and untestable, and it will orbit the pseudoscience black hole for ever. It is definitely bad science, and would be an example of what I think parascience is. But perhaps not pseudoscience at all times: that depends on the ufologist.
«But that can’t be true by definition, it has to be the result of a historical record of failure, right?»
Yes. When I said that "a pseudoscientific claim cannot produce any valid results because it is pseudoscientific" I was wondering if it that wasn't actually true by definition. It mustn't be, and that's what I meant when I said that there could be a problem with the definition of a pseudoscience black hole. While thinking of counter-examples I realized that maybe there wasn't one by definition, which wouldn't be very helpful.
«The co-authors of our book all see demarcation has an inherently fuzzy line (as opposed to a sharp one), so para-science is definitely part of it. The question is: if a para-scientific notion falls clearly on the pseudoscientific side, can it ever emerge again to fight another day?»
If it falls in the pseudoscientific side, no. If it is parascientific without being pseudoscientific, yes.
I think the demarcation itself is not as fuzzy as the specific topics of research, because it all depends on the practice history. First, I imagined parascience as the intersection of scientific practice and pseudoscientific practice. But it seems clear to me that it is the subsequent work that will determine the character of each particular field, so now I imagined as the border that separates science from pseudoscience:
{science}&{pseudoscience} = {parascience} or, as I prefer, {science}&{pseudoscience} = {} <=> {pan-science} \ {science}U{pseudoscience} = {parascience}
In the case of ufology, the demarcation seems fuzzy because the definition of ufology is fuzzy. What is ufology anyway? The study of weird stuff in the atmosphere? Very well: its broad definition allows for redemption that would ultimately converge towards atmosphere science, aviation psichophysiology or detection and ranging technology engineering. Rescuing the claim of "visitors from an alien civilization" is, in my opinion, impossible in scientific terms because that claim is not sound. It could be proved true, but it would be a direct discovery and not a confirmation of a preexisting, valid claim.
Okay, there are no examples. But that does not necessarily mean there really is an event horizon for pseudoscience. IMHO, this black hole metaphor mistakes the context of justification with that of discovery. The verdict "pseudoscience" is a retrospective one, decided after the evidence is in and the case closed. The hypothetical discovery that might change this belongs into the context of discovery by definition. Scientists isolate it from its pseudo-scientific origin simply by definition (e.g., the parts of herbal medicine that turned out true). That way, everything that is now science proper has never been pseudo-science by definition.
I believe Michael Ruse once argued that *evolution* moved from pseudoscience to science, and I think it's not a bad argument, if you think of eg Chambers's Vestiges as an example of the pseudoscientific stage. Astrology->astronomy might be another but I don't know much about that. Of course we've only had really modern notions of science since the 1800s anyway so it gets complex...
ReplyDeleteThe discovery of Troy.
ReplyDeleteApplying the concept of pseudoscience to the humanities, I imagined what would be some kind of pseudohistory. We see lots of examples (unfortunately) in the so-called History Channel of what could be considered as a highly speculative and ungrounded way of putting forth hypotheses about human cultures and civilizations that have no ground on sound evidence, but merely on imagination. These ideas aren't put to the test of the scientific community, where they would be dismantled quite easily.
The discovery of Troy, from what I know, started from the assumption that the works of Homer had some truth to it, and were not merely fiction.
Were these assumptions correctly made? Or was it a shot in the dark? Were there strong reasons to assume that Troy was an actual place, instead of an imagined city? Was Schliemann correct in his assumption?
I don't know the story of the discovery of Troy very well, but this argument is usually advanced by those who seek for Atlantis, the Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster, an so on.
If I were to play devil's advocate here, I'd argue that you're taking cases of established science becoming pseudoscience from any point in history, whereas you're expecting cases of pseudoscience becoming established science to conform to our contemporary understanding of science, and thus unfairly limiting the sample period.
ReplyDeleteIf I was being really satanic in my advocacy, I could further argue that -for example - the Heliocentric model was originally seen as pseudoscience by the authorities of the day, and that it then became mainstream.
I don't really think that, but I think it serves well to remember that along with knowing that we don't live in a special place like the center of the universe, it's also most likely the case that we don't live in a special time when we just happen to have hit upon the definitive methodology of investigating the Universe.
Oh, and pseudoscience sucks. :)
Continental drift is often mentioned in this context. Smithsonian magazine published an article titled When Continental Drift Was Considered Pseudoscience. However it's not clear whether continental drift was actually referred to as pseudoscience in the historical literature, or whether the title of the article is another reader-grabbing journalistic device.
ReplyDeleteBut supposing continental drift was in fact called pseudoscience, it may be the exception that proves the rule. As far as I know there wasn't some fundamental change to the Standard Model being proposed -- no Qi or Gaia Energy being claimed responsible for continents drifting. That part was just left unexplained, and when the mechanism was discovered the hypothesis quickly gained traction in the scientific community.
@ Massimo
ReplyDelete> Acupuncture, for instance, is based on the metaphysical notion of Qi energy, <
Questions:
What is your definition of "metaphysics?"
Does 'mainstream science' entertain any notions that may be construed as metaphysical?
> The situation is even more hopeless in the case of "herbalism," which originates from a hodgepodge of approaches, including magic, shamanism, and Chinese "medicine" type of supernaturalism. <
Define "naturalism."
Define "supernaturalism.
Would the endosymbiotic account of the origins of eukaryotes have been considered pseudoscientific at one time? I'm under the impression that most mainstream biologists thought it was a crackpot theory for quite a while, but I don't really know the history.
ReplyDeleteOf course, what counts as efforts to "mimic the trappings of science" and what counts as legitimate (if imperfect) science may depend largely on the question of whether, in hindsight, the research turned out to be a success.
The tree of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteHave you eaten from the physics tree of science yet, the tree that found its own measure of nature to be uncertain or only probable at best? Have you swallowed the fruit and become a gambler in their game of dice too? Have you been sold on the scientific snake oil of chance? Have you fallen into the spell yet of quantum mechanics, fallen into the dizzying black holes or rabbit holes of today’s science? If so, can you tell me how deep into uncertainty has science taken you, how deep does science go? Does it go deeper than Higgs or god particles, farther than strings and multiverses, deeper than their own equations? Is it possible to escape once you have fallen in? Is there any way out? Can science escape the gravitation pull of its own smoke and mirrors? And while you are in there can you tell me: Is science the best at calling a kettle black or does black really matter, is a black hole black? And lastly or rather firstly, can you tell me, did the big bang make any sound or is that theory just another pseudo hole of a dud too?
Should I eat the fruit too?
Thanks,
=
It's curious Ronald Fisher, John Maynard Smith, Walter Bodmer, and William Hamilton were all seduced by the "downright pseudoscience" of eugenics.
ReplyDeleteSo parapsychology can be thrown onto the heal of pseudoscience? Would you care to offer some citations that overwhelmingly debunk the evidence on psi?
ReplyDeleteHere is a weblink where you can survey the current evidence on psi:
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm
From where I stand, psi research is growing and is very far from being discredited, except perhaps those whose core assumptions get in the way of examining the evidence.
I heard some theories involving DNA being active rather than a mere passive memory were once considered crackpotery but are now mainstream. I am not really sure though... I also remember of similar examples of hypothesis in physics which were considered implausible and are now accepted (the higg boson maybe?). The existence of meteorites is a classical example often cited by pseudoscience proponents , along with continental drifts which was already cited.
ReplyDeleteI would be careful in this matter about retrospective interpretations of history ( such as denying that the new succesful theory was once considered pseudo science)
First of all, I think "ratchet" would make more sense than "black hole." It's an interesting move you're making in splitting praxis off from theory. I know you don't think Democritus counts as pseudo atomism, but I wonder about Michael Faraday's model of EM. Does unproven theory count as pseudo science? Jim Baggott might think so.
ReplyDeleteNick,
ReplyDeleteyes, Ruse argued that evolution started out as a pseudoscientific notion — indeed, he did this in our own book! But I’m not really convinced by the example. Part of the problem is that we are talking (obviously) before Darwin, which means the dominant paradigm in biology was natural theology. Which isn’t exactly a paragon of science.
Francisco,
Troy is an interesting suggestion, though as you say we are now in the humanities rather than sciences. But the idea that Troy had actually existed was a possibility — remote, unlikely, but still a distinct possibility.
> I don't know the story of the discovery of Troy very well, but this argument is usually advanced by those who seek for Atlantis <
But that’s precisely it: there might have been a time where thinking of Atlantis as a real place was not entirely out of the question, but to insist on it now is definitely pseudoscientific (unless one agrees that “Atlantis” was really the Greek island of Santorini, which I’ve actually visited this past summer, and where I did see the remains of a sophisticated civilization that ended abruptly because of a gigantic earthquake).
Infovoy,
> the Heliocentric model was originally seen as pseudoscience by the authorities of the day <
I don’t think so. Both Copernicus and Galileo were respected scientists, and made quick progress within the scientific community. Even the Church had to take them seriously, despite the “heretic” nature of their theories.
> we don't live in a special time when we just happen to have hit upon the definitive methodology of investigating the Universe. <
Yes, I definitely agree on that one. That’s why the examples have to be historical, or have more or less clearly ran their course (like cold fusion).
Craig,
> However it's not clear whether continental drift was actually referred to as pseudoscience in the historical literature, or whether the title of the article is another reader-grabbing journalistic device. <
I suspect the latter. My understanding of that story is that continental drift was considered speculation, not pseudoscience. And it was finally taken seriously when geologists discovered a plausible mechanism, as you pointed out.
Alastair,
ReplyDelete> Does 'mainstream science' entertain any notions that may be construed as metaphysical? <
Of course. But there is sound and unsound metaphysics. As for your requests about definitions, I’m sure you can use Wikipedia just as well as I can. Though I suggest the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy instead.
George,
> So parapsychology can be thrown onto the heal of pseudoscience? Would you care to offer some citations that overwhelmingly debunk the evidence on psi? <
Yup. You can use Google just as well as I can to find plenty of references. And something tells me that no matter what link I’d send you to (volumes and volumes of Skeptical Inquirer?) you’d say that those are just close minded people who don’t really look at the hard evidence.
Peter,
> Would the endosymbiotic account of the origins of eukaryotes have been considered pseudoscientific at one time? <
No, again Margulis was a well respected scientist, and her ideas were considered speculative, but definitely not pseudoscience. Gaia wold be a different story, but I still count that as pseudoscience.
> what counts as efforts to "mimic the trappings of science" and what counts as legitimate (if imperfect) science may depend largely on the question of whether, in hindsight, the research turned out to be a success. <
Indeed, which is why, again, Maarten and insist on the historical dimension of things. The historical hindsight is indispensable.
Quentin,
> I heard some theories involving DNA being active rather than a mere passive memory were once considered crackpotery but are now mainstream. <
Not sure which theories are you referring to. Directed mutation? Epigenetic inheritance?
> the higg boson maybe? <
No, definitely not the Higgs.
OneDay,
> Does unproven theory count as pseudo science? <
Would you put string theory into that category? (I wouldn’t.) And yes, I like the ratchet metaphor.
@ Massimo
Delete> Of course. But there is sound and unsound metaphysics. <
I guess this means that there is sound and unsound pseudoscience.
Just curious. Does "string theory" qualify as sound or unsound metaphysics?
> As for your requests about definitions, I’m sure you can use Wikipedia just as well as I can. Though I suggest the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy instead. <
I'll use Merriam-Webster (if you don't mind).
metaphysics: "the part of philosophy that is concerned with the basic causes and nature of things"
naturalism : " a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena"
supernatural : "unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc."
@ Massimo
Delete> And something tells me that no matter what link I’d send you [George] to (volumes and volumes of Skeptical Inquirer?) you’d say that those are just close minded people who don’t really look at the hard evidence. <
There are some prominent skeptics (e.g. Sam Harris and Carl Sagan) who seem to disagree with your assessment of psychic phenomena.
"There also seems to be a body of data attesting to the reality of psychic phenomena, much of which has been ignored by mainstream science,[18]" (source: pg. 41, "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris)
"Carl Sagan suggested that there are three claims in the field of parapsychology which have at least some experimental support and "deserve serious study", as they "might be true":[106]
(1) that by thought alone humans can affect random number generators in computers;
(2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them;
(3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have know about in any other way than reincarnation.[106]"
(source: Wikipedia: Parapsychology)
Actually, Sagan was more skeptical of those things than that reference implies. From right after his mention of it in the cited book:
Delete"I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that *might* be true."
(The word 'might' was in italics in the original.)
'The Demon Haunted World", p 302.
Alastair & George,
DeleteIt is my understanding that the best "evidence" for any psi-phenomena come from meta-analyses and reviews over large numbers of carefully picked studies. This results in both a selection bias in the data being used and a ridiculously overpowered significance test. And even then the results only show a very slim effect.
If the effect was real, surely it would show up without resulting to cherry picking and high power levels?
@ selfawarepatterns
Delete> Actually, Sagan was more skeptical of those things than that reference implies. From right after his mention of it in the cited book:
"I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that *might* be true."
(The word 'might' was in italics in the original.)
'The Demon Haunted World", p 302. <
The Wikipedia article specifically cites "might be true" (and the term "might": is italicized in the article). The point is that some skeptics are more open to the idea of psychic phenomena than Massimo would lead us to believe.
@ JoeDuncan
Delete> And even then the results only show a very slim effect.<
What kind of nonsense is this? A very slim effect is still an effect, an effect with profound implications. (The primary reason why the evidence for psi is rejected by skeptics is because they believe it would undermine their materialistic worldview.)
It seems to me that a distinction has to be made from people who are pursuing science badly, and those who are outright faking it. Those pursuing it badly might still stumble on new important discoveries. Someone has already mentioned the historical archaeological work, much of it driven to prove myths and legends. That may have been poor science, but the people doing it still made important discoveries, even if their interpretation of the evidence was biased.
ReplyDeleteThe people who perpetrated the 'Piltdown man' fraud belong in a different category. The people claiming to have scientific evidence for intelligent design, UFOs, ghosts, or whatever, aren't even trying to do real science, only to make it look like they are. It's hard to see how any of that ever escapes the black hole.
Massimo,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your earlier comment. I appreciate the opportunity to debate these important issues.
However, to continue: There is a difference between publications in peer refereed journals and, say, "volumes and volumes of skeptical inquirer," which isn't. In fact, the two aren't anywhere in the same ballpark as far as scientific discourse. The cite I linked is a list of published (refereed) articles on the evidence of psi.
Also your response "something tells me....closed minded people don't look at the evidence" suggests (at the very least) something of lack of curiosity on what the empirical evidence on psi might be.
Phrenology is an extremely interesting example because nowadays its just dismissed as downright pseudoscience. But as I was surprised to discover reading Jerry Fodor's seminal 1983 book The Modularity of Mind, phrenology started off as a serious hypothesis by the physiologist Franz Joseph Gall (1758 - 1828), whom Fodor's says has received "unfairly rotton press." Gall's hypothesis was that the human mind is composed of different "faculties", as this is the best explanation for individual differences. Musically gifted people have a robust music faculty, and mathematically gifted people have a robust mathematical faculty, on this view. Phrenology was then hijacked by quacks and racists, and was rejected as pseudoscience as a consequence. For most of the 20th century, the human mind was thought to be a homogeneous mechanism until Fodor put faculty psychology on the map again.
ReplyDeleteToday, modularity, the view that the mind is composed of distinct and specialised mechanisms, is the guiding assumption of most neuroscience and psychology. So perhaps we have an example of an idea that has started off as science, got sucked into the pseudoscience blackhole, and was then revived as a serious scientific research programme?
Hi Massimo,
ReplyDeleteI think the question is slightly problematic. With the benefit of hindsight, we can from our privileged position call ideas which have proven to be true "scientific" or "protoscientific", while ideas which have proven to have no relationship to reality are easy to denigrate as pseudoscience.
From the point of view of an ancient medical practitioner, the idea of Qi may have appeared to be warranted. It was a model with predictions and accounted for health and disease by appeal to a natural system of flows of a substance. As such, it was not a supernatural description - it was a natural description using natural forces which it turns out don't exist.
I say this to sketch an example, not because I actually know anything about it. It may be that the way it was taught and accepted uncritically makes it pseudoscience.
However, if competing ideas had been taught and accepted in another part of the world in much the same way, but which had turned out to be correct, we would be much more likely to retroactively call those science.
As such, my suspicion is that we don't see pseudoscience leaving the "black hole" very often because if we ever did then we would retroactively call it science.
It seems to me there is a problem with finding a counter-example that would question the gravitational pull of a pseudoscience blackhole.
ReplyDeleteHaving in mind what was said in the conversation with Maarten Boudry, I believe that properly called pseudoscientific theories or claims always make fundamental mistakes, either theoretical or experimental. These errors may be honest or dishonest, but that is not important.
By experimental mistake I mean an experimental malpractice: either ill-conceived experiments, statistical irrelevant results, or the simple dismissal of data that does not replicate the proposed results. An example of these are the cases of telepathy experiments and cold fusion.
A theoretical mistake would be an ill-conceived definition, either too vage, contradictory, unfalsifiable or ungrounded to begin with, like freudianism.
I could also rephrase all of the above by reducing the character of pseudoscience to two kinds of unsoundness: by pratice (experimental) or by principle (theoretical).
By refusing to face criticism, these theories are still above their Schwarzschild radius, and are still within the scientific side of the demarcation. It is only if their proponents persist in ignoring contradictory evidence by incurring in either one of these mistakes that the whole thing collapses into darkness…
Now, the problem I mentioned: if any pseudoscientific claim were to be proven valuable or correct, its confirmation couldn't come but from the scientific side of the divide. So any counter-example would necessarily have a parallel and scientific formulation that could put the claim to the test. Then, the proponents of the pseudoscientific claim would have no reasons to say their claim had any soundness, since there was a way of going around the problem without leaving the scientific, singularity-free ground. Pseudoscience would neve score, by definition, since it is a dead end.
So a pseudoscientific claim cannot produce any valid results because it is pseudoscientific, therefore uncapable of producing scientific testable results that would have nothing to do with it in the first place…
If there is a way of rescuing such a claim, the proponents can still catch up by starting over from the scientific train wreck, and proceding within the light side of the Force.
It seams to me that this is true for any scientific theory gone astray or to any basic claim that starts off as a simple working assumption that proceeds without scientific grounds into the realms of silliness.
Or maybe this is a problem with the way I see the divide.
A copy-paste mistake: "By refusing to face criticism" should be "By questioning their critics".
ReplyDelete"But there is sound and unsound metaphysics."
ReplyDeleteIsn't this (partly) where the distinction lies? And explains the lack of movement from pseudoscience to science rather than the other way round?
Qi energy isn't intrinsically an unsound concept. Of course it is a ridiculous concept, we know that bodies (and physics) just don’t work that way. Much the same can be said of calor and phlogiston: we know that they are nonsense.
But we know that these are nonsense now, because of evidence that we now have. It strikes me that Qi, calor and phlogiston were perfectly reasonable conjectures before the evidence that they were nonsense arose. Acupuncture is pseudo scientific (partly) because it requires ignoring the evidence that Qi is nonsense. As evidence always arises rather than disappearing we can only move from “no evidence that x is nonsense” to “evidence that x is nonsense”, never the other way round.
Incidentally Stephen Law has been using the “black hole” analogy for a bit now . His black holes differ from yours in that they are populated by people trapped into believing rubbish, as opposed to fields that cannot escape being rubbish.
There are lists of dozens of "hypothetical particles": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hypothetical_particles. One of my favorites: the chameleon. Are some of the particles in these lists "pseudoscience"? (One, instanton, is called a "pseudoparticle" that appears in some theories of the origin of the universe.) It seems that when you get down to it the only thing separating science and pseudoscience is degree of usefulness.
ReplyDeleteMassimo- interesting question. I may do my own blog post on it. But quickly - I agree that the question is problematic. Just being speculative or yet unproven is not enough to be pseudoscience. Most sciences start out on the fringe until they accumulate sufficient evidence. Pseudoscience is about method, and is by definition wrong because the method is not valid. So what you are really asking is if there was any pseudoscience that happened to turn out to be true, despite being pseudoscience.
ReplyDeleteRegarding acupuncture - I think this is an excellent example of a pure pseudoscience, simply one that has become fairly sophisticated. So sophisticated, in fact, that unless you have a fair degree of expertise in the science of acupuncture (even if you are a philosopher with an expertise is pseudoscience) you may miss it.
Herbalism is a complicated example because it's more than one thing.
To sum up my opinion on pseudoscience black holes:
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that, by definition, a pseudoscientific claim can only escape a black hole iff it i) is scientific or ii) it is not pseudoscientific.
If the black hole definition aims at defining pseudoscience, it will be self-referential and fail. If it is just a corollary, then finding an example of escape will depend on how the demarcation problem was settled.
The reason I explicitely mentioned two apparently equivalent conditions is that there may be a third option for characterizing a claim: a parascientific claim.
A parascientific claim would then be a claim not yet matured, nor part of established scientific knowledge, but nevertheless open to criticism, anaylsis and refinement in an essentially non ad hoc way.
This would not only mark the borderline (event horizon?) between science and pseudoscientce but also between long established scientific theories and honest out-of-the-box thinking and ongoing work. It would then be the continued insistence in deflecting criticism instead of an honest rebuttal of it that made a parascientific claim become pseudoscientific (and maybe the great divide is intelectual honesty after all).
Parascientific claims could then escape pseudoscience black holes. Of course, if they orbit it for two long, they will eventually be dismissed as bad science but not necessarily pseudoscience.
I don't think luminiferous aether qualifies as pseudoscience except with the benefit of hindsight. It isn't actually *incorrect* per se, and indeed it's still possible to interpret the Michelson-Morley results and all of Einsteinian relativity in terms of aether if one so desires.
ReplyDeleteEinsteinian relativity merely ("merely"?) requires far fewer assumptions, and is therefore preferable as an interpretation on the basis of parsimony.
It would be nice it you don't use Cold Fusion alias LENR as example of pseudo-science.
ReplyDeleteIt is now under industrialization process, despite the pathologic denial by the scientific community, pathologic manipulation of peer review (which partially failed, like with Spawa papers and Toyota/Mitsubishi replications, and many others).
http://www.lenrnews.eu/evidences-that-lenr-is-real-beyond-any-reasonable-doubt/
Elforsk, the research consortium of swedish electric industry, publicly confirm it works, and say it in their corporate magazine "Elforsk Perspektiv 2013 nr2"
http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Trycksaker%20och%20broschyrer/elforsk_perspektiv_nr2_2013.pdf#page=4
For the many companies acting in that domain you can read that
http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/
you can also try to find
"RIDICULED DISCOVERERS, VINDICATED MAVERICKS"
http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html
for a shortlist of failed consensus ...
prepare to add Fleischmann&Pons soon...
You raise anyway a good question...
There are fringe pseudo-science, but there is also mainstream pseudo-science, like Psychoanalysis and LENR-denial.
The consensus is not the good way to separate the good from the bad. Peer-review is not much better. Only experiments, reading the data may lead to the reality, but they are ignored.
Finally as said Nassim Nicholas taleb, time do the job of filtering.
It can take centuries to recognize that evident fact like existence of germs causing puerperal fever, are real.
few years to recognize human flight.
few decades to recognize LENR
many decades to recognize continental drift.
best regards.
Given the longstanding unsolved problem of demarcation, I wonder how the black hole of metaphor sucked you in. Do you think demarcation is problematic only in deciding when an issue enters the point of no return, but not vice versa because there is no return? Here's an example that straddled the event horizon for decades now, being seen as pseudo by some and good by other researchers depending on their taste as much as on science:
Deletegroup selection.
P.S.: That was not meant as an answer to Alain, soory, but as a general comment.
DeletePhilip,
ReplyDeleteAn instanton is a well defined mathematical concept: it a classical solution to a quantum field theory with imaginary time. Because imaginary time switches the sign of the metric, sometimes an instanton is called an Euclidean solution. Generally, it is topologically stable and localized in 4D. The name instanton derives from this localization at a particular (imaginary) time and space position. It is used for evaluating (in a semi-classical approximation) the tunneling probabilities between different states or, in quantum field theories, between different vacua. [The Wikipedia article “instanton” is not bad and shows how to use instantons to compute tunneling probabilities in ordinary QM. The algebra is right, but I have not checked factors of ½, etc.]
As for the other particles in the list, all the particles with names ending in “ino” or starting with an “s” are supersymmetric partners of ordinary particles. For instance a photino is the (spin 1/2) partner of the photon. My favorite is the wino (partner of the W.) Also notable are selectrons, sleptons and squarks. You guess whose partners they are. The neutralino is a (quantum) mixture of wino, higgsino and bino. It was once believed to be the dark matter particle, but recent experiments have definitely shown that it does not exist. The LHC has not found the gluino either, so supersymmetry (SUSY) is probably out, meaning that string theory is also out.
Because most of the universe is missing, people are now trying to find alternative (non-SUSY) explanations for the “dark sector.” The chameleon is one of such attempts. After the failure of SUSY, particle physics is in a very messy state, but I would not call even the most ridiculous theories pseudoscience. An exceptions are the anthropic-multiverse-based explanations of everything. They are, in fact, the worst possible kind of pseudoscience and, if they become established dogma, they would mean the end of science and the beginning of a new dark age.
Personally, I am getting impatient with the axion, another dark matter candidate. If I should bet on what dark matter is, today I would chose the “sterile neutrino.” The LHC will not do much to improve our knowledge on neutrinos. I think the best bet in particle accelerators today is project-X from Fermilab. You will find a description of project-X in Lederman's last book, “Beyond the God Particle.”
Actually, the neutralino is a mixture of zino, higgsino and bino... The wino is not neutral.
DeleteI thought hypnotism through the 19th century might be an example - being initially popular as Mesmerism, being debunked, then reappearing. The initial animal magnetism model was lost completely along the way, so it may or may not be useful.
ReplyDeleteGeorge,
ReplyDelete> There is a difference between publications in peer refereed journals and, say, "volumes and volumes of skeptical inquirer," which isn't. <
Yes and no, when we are talking about pseudoscience, since most professional scientists simply don’t waste their time with things they don’t consider worth it. At any rate, I’m sure you are aware that there are also technical papers criticizing, for instance, Bem’s experiments.
Alastair,
> I guess this means that there is sound and unsound pseudoscience. <
Sometimes I genuinely wonder whether you really are that naive, or you are playing a game. I lean toward the latter. Pseudoscience is unsound by definition, but there is sound and unsound metaphysics.
> Does "string theory" qualify as sound or unsound metaphysics? <
It’s a scientific theory, not a metaphysical one. (Though, of course, as all science, it makes metaphysical assumptions. Sound ones, as far as I can see.)
Michael,
yes, phrenology started out as legitimate science, so it’s not an example of escape from the black hole.
> Today, modularity, the view that the mind is composed of distinct and specialised mechanisms, is the guiding assumption of most neuroscience and psychology. <
Not really. Strong modularity is an assumption of evopsych, and it has pretty much been dispatched with. Which is not to say that the brain is a flat all-purpose device, of course. But the idea of tight (evolved for specific functions) modules is now dead.
DM,
> With the benefit of hindsight <
That’s why these discussions can only take place within the context of the history of science / pseudoscience.
> From the point of view of an ancient medical practitioner, the idea of Qi may have appeared to be warranted. <
I don’t see how. Contra what you say, it cannot be used to make predictions of any sort. It is a made up “explanation” entirely disconnected from the actual practice.
> my suspicion is that we don't see pseudoscience leaving the "black hole" very often because if we ever did then we would retroactively call it science. <
That may very well be. That’s why we are having this discussion…
Tony,
> "But there is sound and unsound metaphysics.” Isn't this (partly) where the distinction lies? And explains the lack of movement from pseudoscience to science rather than the other way round? <
Yes, that certainly explain some examples. But not all. For instance, ufology isn’t based on bad metaphysics, nor was cold fusion. They are just wrong notions that (some) people still insist in taking seriously way after their epistemic expiration date.
Thomas,
> Surprising: No mention of aether. <
Not surprising. It was a perfectly fine scientific notion until disproven. And nobody has tried to resurrected after that.
Hi Massimo,
Delete>I don’t see how. Contra what you say, it cannot be used to make predictions of any sort. It is a made up “explanation” entirely disconnected from the actual practice.<
Sure it can make predictions. If I stick a needle in your meridians, you will feel less pain. If I stick a needle in random places, it won't really work.
The predictions don't seem to work out, but it does make falsifiable predictions.
It might also predict that we would some day find anatomical features corresponding to the meridians. We find no such features, so this prediction is also falsified.
And there are predictions about how all sorts of different things affect the flow of Qi, such as food, etc.
I don't see how you don't see how Qi can make predictions!
>That may very well be. That’s why we are having this discussion…<
I don't get it. That's why I gave my view... you say that like it's a bad thing or that I'm missing the point.
@Thomas Jones
Delete>The Higgs field is not its replacement?<
The Higgs field has nothing to do with aether. All fields permeate all of space, not just the Higgs field, and Higgs has very little if anything to do with the propagation of light.
The electromagnetic field would be a better candidate.
@Thomas Jones
DeleteI think we are broadly on the same page. I perhaps incorrectly took you to be saying that the Higgs field could be construed as equivalent to the luminiferous aether, and merely wanted to point out that the electromagnetic field would be more relevant.
@ Massimo
Delete> It’s a scientific theory, not a metaphysical one. (Though, of course, as all science, it makes metaphysical assumptions. Sound ones, as far as I can see.) <
Lawrence Krauss argued that if your theory doesn't make a testable prediction, then you're engaging in metaphysics, not physics.
Philip,
ReplyDelete> There are lists of dozens of "hypothetical particles.” Are some of the particles in these lists “pseudoscience"? <
Don’t know about lists in Wikipedia, but I don’t think any hypothetical particle postulated by professional physicists amounts to a pseudoscientific notion. Of course in time some of these may go away because of new theoretical or experimental results. But that’s just science working.
Steve,
> Pseudoscience is about method, and is by definition wrong because the method is not valid. So what you are really asking is if there was any pseudoscience that happened to turn out to be true, despite being pseudoscience. <
Interesting point. But what was wrong, say, with the methods of Fleischmann and Pons? I mean beyond the fact that the results turned out to be spurious, when checked when others applied the same methods?
Francisco,
> By experimental mistake I mean an experimental malpractice: either ill-conceived experiments, statistical irrelevant results, or the simple dismissal of data that does not replicate the proposed results. <
But that’s not enough. After all, that sort of thing happens regularly within standard science. We just call it bad science and throw it away or ignore it.
> A theoretical mistake would be an ill-conceived definition, either too vage, contradictory, unfalsifiable or ungrounded to begin with, like freudianism. <
That’s more interesting, but again there are counter-examples: there is no such mistake in ufology (the theoretical notion is pretty clear), and yet it certainly is a pseudoscience.
> a pseudoscientific claim cannot produce any valid results because it is pseudoscientific <
But that can’t be true by definition, it has to be the result of a historical record of failure, right?
> If the black hole definition aims at defining pseudoscience, it will be self-referential and fail. If it is just a corollary, then finding an example of escape will depend on how the demarcation problem was settled. <
Correct, Maarten and I are clearly looking at the second option.
> Parascientific claims could then escape pseudoscience black holes. <
The co-authors of our book all see demarcation has an inherently fuzzy line (as opposed to a sharp one), so para-science is definitely part of it. The question is: if a para-scientific notion falls clearly on the pseudoscientific side, can it ever emerge again to fight another day?
Joachim,
> Here's an example that straddled the event horizon for decades now, being seen as pseudo by some and good by other researchers depending on their taste as much as on science:
group selection. <
Not even the harshest critics of group selection (the late George Williams, for instance) have ever talked about it in terms of pseudoscience. The notion has been shown decisively to be theoretically sound, it is only a question of whether (or how frequently) it actually occurs in nature.
David,
> I thought hypnotism through the 19th century might be an example - being initially popular as Mesmerism, being debunked, then reappearing. <
That’s an interesting example. I don’t know a lot about the history (and current status) of hypnotism.
Massimo,
ReplyDelete«But that’s not enough. After all, that sort of thing happens regularly within standard science. We just call it bad science and throw it away or ignore it.»
I agree. The mistake in itself is not enough. What would characterize pseudoscience is not the fact that it makes these kinds of mistakes (as you point out, standard science makes them as well) but the consistentely flawed response of the proponents of the particular claim at stake. Its the bad practice that puts the 'pseudo' in pseudoscience.
«That’s more interesting, but again there are counter-examples: there is no such mistake in ufology (the theoretical notion is pretty clear), and yet it certainly is a pseudoscience.»
It could be argued that ufology is ungrounded (when favouring one arbitrary explanation, such as visitors from outer space) and that, in some cases, it actively ignores simpler explanations for many atmospheric phenomena, thus being pseudoscience. But lets suppose that is not the case. Then it would be an example of parascience: their proponents cannot do anything with it: it's fruitless and untestable, and it will orbit the pseudoscience black hole for ever. It is definitely bad science, and would be an example of what I think parascience is. But perhaps not pseudoscience at all times: that depends on the ufologist.
«But that can’t be true by definition, it has to be the result of a historical record of failure, right?»
Yes. When I said that "a pseudoscientific claim cannot produce any valid results because it is pseudoscientific" I was wondering if it that wasn't actually true by definition. It mustn't be, and that's what I meant when I said that there could be a problem with the definition of a pseudoscience black hole. While thinking of counter-examples I realized that maybe there wasn't one by definition, which wouldn't be very helpful.
«The co-authors of our book all see demarcation has an inherently fuzzy line (as opposed to a sharp one), so para-science is definitely part of it. The question is: if a para-scientific notion falls clearly on the pseudoscientific side, can it ever emerge again to fight another day?»
If it falls in the pseudoscientific side, no. If it is parascientific without being pseudoscientific, yes.
I think the demarcation itself is not as fuzzy as the specific topics of research, because it all depends on the practice history. First, I imagined parascience as the intersection of scientific practice and pseudoscientific practice. But it seems clear to me that it is the subsequent work that will determine the character of each particular field, so now I imagined as the border that separates science from pseudoscience:
{science}&{pseudoscience} = {parascience}
or, as I prefer,
{science}&{pseudoscience} = {} <=> {pan-science} \ {science}U{pseudoscience} = {parascience}
In the case of ufology, the demarcation seems fuzzy because the definition of ufology is fuzzy. What is ufology anyway? The study of weird stuff in the atmosphere? Very well: its broad definition allows for redemption that would ultimately converge towards atmosphere science, aviation psichophysiology or detection and ranging technology engineering. Rescuing the claim of "visitors from an alien civilization" is, in my opinion, impossible in scientific terms because that claim is not sound. It could be proved true, but it would be a direct discovery and not a confirmation of a preexisting, valid claim.
Okay, there are no examples. But that does not necessarily mean there really is an event horizon for pseudoscience. IMHO, this black hole metaphor mistakes the context of justification with that of discovery. The verdict "pseudoscience" is a retrospective one, decided after the evidence is in and the case closed. The hypothetical discovery that might change this belongs into the context of discovery by definition. Scientists isolate it from its pseudo-scientific origin simply by definition (e.g., the parts of herbal medicine that turned out true). That way, everything that is now science proper has never been pseudo-science by definition.
ReplyDelete