2006-07-21T19:04:00.000-07:00

[click here to return to the main document, http://standtoyourduty.blogspot.com/]

.[a necessary quote; via an expert witness in science]

"There is no way that science can support the supernatural ['the religious,' and kind]. The reason why Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller trial declared ID unconstitutional when it's taught in a public school classroom is that [...] ID is a religious idea [and therein a First Amendment 'Establishment Clause' violation...] this is a religious idea, and as such, cannot be taught as science [...] I don't see any way that the idea of the supernatural can be considered scientifically valid. The supernatural is beyond the reach of any empirical methodology that scientists have. And science operates on the basis of empirical data which are gleaned by the use of empirical methodologies. ID rejects modern scientific methodology, which means that scientists out of pragmatic necessity because they can't do otherwise limit themselves to searching for natural explanations for natural phenomena. So, to even ask whether ID is science simply is to overlook the fact that by its own proponents definition, it is a belief in the supernatural. There's no way that scientific data can address that question at all [...] you just can't call that science [...] that is not science, that is where you step beyond science into either your personal theological preferences or your personal philosophical views [while naturopathy claims the supernatural and scientifically rejected is within science, as 'science-based'; e.g., vitalism, spiritism, teleology and kind]."

-- Barbara Forrest, "Point of Inquiry"{02-16-2007}, Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Area School District expert witness.

(click here,

http://libsyn.com/media/pointofinquiry/POI-2-16-07.mp3)

.[a necessary quote; via a science personality]

"People believe in all kinds of things: astrology, psychic powers, and alien visitors from other worlds, but science and pseudoscience are exact opposites. Science uses basic principles such as objectivity and accuracy to establish a finding. Pseudoscience uses invented modes of analysis to pretend the finding meets the requirements of scientific method. If you don’t have the proof, the claim just doesn’t hold up, but when you do…that’s science!”

-- Bill Nye, "The Eyes of Nye: Episode 2 - Pseudoscience."

(click here,

http://www.eyesofnye.org/eyesofnye.html

{then “menu” / “episodes” / “Episode 2 - Pseudoscience”})

.[recommended searches]

per google.com:

>pseudoscience< here;

per msn.com:

>"the nature of science"< here; >"a largely pseudoscientific approach" here<

01. schools:

Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania states:

[in “Ecology and Evolution – 50.102-03 Fall 2005” -- Corbin, C.E. (PhD ?), Biological and Allied Health Sciences]

“science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method [...] pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific [...e.g.] alchemy, astrology [...] creation science [...] homeopathy [...] metaphysics [...] orgonomy [...] vedic science”;

(click here,

http://facstaff.bloomu.edu/ccorbin/EE_FAll_2005_01.ppt)

02. national org.s:

the British Center For Science Education states:

[in "What Is Creationism?"]

"[per Flank, L. (? ?)] within the USA creationism [creation science, ID] is synonymous with fundamentalism. Christian fundamentalism is almost uniquely an American phenomenon. Although most of the history of fundamentalist thought occurs in the United States, however, this phenomenon was itself, originally, a reaction to a series of intellectual trends that happened in Europe [...per the European 'Higher Criticism' or] documentary hypothesis [...which] the conservative elements of the [American] Protestant churches [..] flatly rejected the [this] idea of a Bible that was pieced together years after the events which it describes [...] William Jennings Bryan, one of the most prominent Christian conservatives, thundered, 'give the modernist three words, allegorical, poetical, and symbolically, and he can suck the meaning out of every vital doctrine of the Christian Church and every passage in the Bible to which he objects' [...at about 1900] the [American] conservative traditionalists settled on a set of five principles [dogma, doctrines] which, they argued, defined [their] Christianity [...including] the inerrancy of the Bible [literal interpretation...] from these booklets, the conservative Christians became known as 'the fundamentalists' [...per] literalist interpretations of Biblical passages [...] in addition to the five Biblical 'fundamentals,' the conservative Protestants also came to largely accept and embrace a number of other concepts that had not previously been a tenet of any of the major Christian denominations. These included [...] defenses of an inerrant Bible that was to be taken as literal history and revelation [...] it was the third major target of the fundamentalists [...] which ignited a conflict that continues to this day and is the direct ancestor of the creationist/intelligent design movement -- the political campaign targeting science, and, in particular, evolution [...] after Darwin first published On the Origin of Species, there was, as Darwin had expected, a storm of criticism from religious figures who viewed the idea that humans had descended from animals as a direct attack on the Bible [...] in a remarkably short time, however, [mainstream] religion had made its peace with Darwin, and by 1900, nearly every religious authority in Europe accepted the conclusions of science, just as it had accepted the conclusions of the Bible's literary scholars concerning the documentary hypothesis. In America, however, the situation was quite different. The fundamentalists rejected evolution and the scientific outlook with all the fervor and vitriol that they had aimed at the German biblical scholars [...] 'killing evolution' is not their only goal. The Christian Right is defiantly open about its ultimate aims. As Bob Werner, a leader of the 'Christian shepherding' movement, bluntly put it, 'the Bible says we are to . . . rule. If you don't rule and I don't rule, the atheists and the humanists and the agnostics are going to rule. We should be the head of our school board. We should be the head of our nation. We should be the Senators and Congressmen. We should be the editors of our newspapers. We should be taking over every area of life' [...] 'we are talking about the Christianizing of America' [...] 'we don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism' [...] in essence, the fundamentalists and their creationist allies want to do for the United States what the fundamentalist Taliban did for Afghanistan and the Ayatollahs have done for Iran--they want to run the country in accordance with their interpretation of 'God's will' [theocracy, it comes about when there is 'no such thing allowed' as secularism...and per 'Science Explained, Pseudoscience Exposed'...per Smith and Strahler] acquiring a full appreciation of science is much like climbing a high, rugged mountain peak - it can only be done in steps, sweated out one by one [...] science philosopher Mario Bunge of McGill University thinks of the various mountains of human knowledge as cognitive fields [...] 'we shall characterize a science, as well as a pseudoscience, as a cognitive field, genuine or fake. A cognitive field may be characterized as a sector of human activity aiming at gaining, diffusing, or utilizing knowledge of some kind, whether this knowledge be true or false. There are hundreds of cognitive fields in contemporary culture: logic and theology, mathematics and numerology, astronomy and astrology, chemistry and alchemy, psychology and parapsychology, social science and humanistic sociology, and so on' [...] the first member of each pair belongs to science; the second to pseudoscience, or false science [...] a salient point has been made here. The mountains of knowledge can be separated into two mountain ranges, between which lies a great gulf [...] there are two kinds of cognitive fields. One, Bunge says, consists of belief fields, in which the knowledge rests on belief - belief in something that cannot be observed to exist [the a priori]. He cites religions and political ideologies as examples. He also puts pseudoscience in with the belief fields. The other, Bunge says, consists of the research fields, in which knowledge rests solely on observation of the real world [the a posteriori]. He puts science - both basic and applied varieties - in this category along with the humanities [...] Bunge gives us one distinguishing feature that clearly separates the two fields: 'whereas a research field changes all the time as a result of research, a belief field changes, if at all, as a result of controversy, brute force, or revelation' [...] scientific statements must conform to a special standard of quality, both in the manner in which they are arrived at and in the language by which they are transmitted. Scientific knowledge: the best picture of the real world that humans can devise, given the present state of our collective investigative capability [...in method] (a) observe, (b) [explain] the most satisfactory explanation of what is observed in terms of interrelatedness to other phenomena and to basic or universal laws, and (c) description and explanation that carry the greatest probability of being a true picture of the real world [...] scientific method: the method or system by which scientific knowledge is secured. It is designed to minimize the commission of observational errors and errors of interpretation. The method uses a complex system of checks and balances [...] the strength or weakness of a hypothesis must be considered strictly on its scientific content and supporting evidence [...] findings made by one scientist must be shared freely and openly with the entire scientific community [...] the principle of communality [...] scientists must practice organized skepticism [...] perhaps the most important part of the policing action occurs through peer reviews of articles submitted to scientific journals [...] authors of pseudoscientific material shy away from the scientific community. Instead, they seek support in the nonscience community, and particularly from those persons having little higher education in any field of knowledge [...] as for the pseudoscientists, the norm of disinterestedness is simply not there, and no shame is to be incurred from violating such a norm [...] as to the producers of pseudoscience, professional recognition within the scientific community is nonexistent [...] attitudes and activities of scientists and pseudoscientists [...] typical attitudes and activities [...per scientists] admits own ignorance, hence need for more research; finds own field difficult and full of holes; advances by posing and solving new problems; welcomes new hypotheses and methods; proposes and tries out new hypotheses; attempts to find or apply new laws; cherishes the unity of science; relies on logic; uses mathematics; gather or uses data, particularly quantitative ones; looks for counterexamples; invents or applies objective checking procedures; settles disputes by experimentation or computation [...] updates own information [...] seeks critical comments from others [...per pseudoscientists] falls back consistently on authority; suppresses or distorts unfavorable data [...] note from Michael Brass of BCSE: readers will do well to also note that the 'lunatic fringe,' pseudoscience in all its variants, ignore the standard scientific concept of 'Occam's Razor.' In other words, this guiding principle warns us against constructing elaborate ideas based on flimsy grounds when a more simplified, stronger hypothesis is either available or can be constructed. 'Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity'”;

(click here,

http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/WhatIsCreationism?)

the Corvallis Secular Society states:

[in "Willamette Freethinker: Higher (Dis)Education in Oregon and Washington"{vol.8 no.8, 08-2001}]

"[quoting Barrett, S. (MD ?)] naturopathy, sometimes referred to as ‘natural medicine,’ is a largely pseudoscientific approach that asserts that diseases are the body’s effort to purify itself, and that cures result from increasing the body’s ‘vital force.’ The notion of a ‘vital force’ or ‘life force’ – a nonmaterial force that transcends the laws of chemistry and physics – originated in ancient times. Historians call it the doctrine of vitalism. No scientific evidence supports this doctrine, but a huge body of knowledge, including the entire discipline of organic chemistry, refutes it […] the ‘energies’ postulated by vitalists cannot be measured by scientific methods";

(click here,

http://corvallissecular.org/newsletter/2001/wf2001_08.pdf)

the National Science Foundation states:

[in "Science And Engineering Indicators 2002: National Science Board. Chapter 07. Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding. Science Fiction and Pseudoscience"]

"What is pseudoscience? Pseudoscience is defined here as 'claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility' (Shermer 1997, p. 33). In contrast, science is 'a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed and inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation' (Shermer 1997, p. 17). According to one group [CSI] studying such phenomena, pseudoscience topics include yogi flying, therapeutic touch, astrology, fire walking, voodoo magical thinking, Uri Gellar, alternative medicine, channeling, Carlos hoax, psychic hotlines and detectives, near-death experiences, Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), the Bermuda Triangle, homeopathy, faith healing, and reincarnation";

(click here,

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c7/c7s5.htm)

UK-Skeptics states:

[highly recommended]

[in "Pseudoscience"]

“what is pseudoscience? A theory, methodology, or practice that is without scientific foundation [...] pseudosciences are practices that masquerade themselves as science but have little or no scientific evidence or cohesion to support them. They claim to be factual and scientific, yet do not adhere to scientific methodology and principles; notably the scientific principle of falsifiability [...] pseudoscience has many recognizable features that are distinct from genuine science [...] any claimed scientific practice that displays at least some of these features is increasingly likely to be pseudoscientific [...a pseudoscience is 1] dogmatic. A dogmatic belief or position is one that is deemed, by its proponents, to be accepted authority[...in] science, observations are made, data are gathered, a hypothesis is formed, testing is done and if the hypothesis is accepted, a theory (provisional conclusion) is formulated. If any evidence comes to light that invalidates the conclusion, the conclusion will be rejected and a replacement theory sought. In pseudoscience, they begin with a solid conclusion (such as 'homeopathy works'), form theories as to why it works, collect data that support the conclusion and reject or explain away data that doesn't; which inevitably results in the conclusion being confirmed. With this system, no evidence is capable of contradicting the conclusion [...2] the idea is aimed directly at the public [...while] scientific breakthroughs will normally have been published in science journals, scrutinized by other scientists, and only announced to the public once scientists have agreed that the scientific breakthrough is indeed genuine [...3] ideas that are non-testable [...] pseudoscientific ideas [...] cannot be tested in any meaningful way [...] nebulous and vague [...] just about anything could be made to fit the outcome to support the original claim [...] a claim or theory [that] cannot be tested [...] cannot be falsified and [...therein] violates a central principle of science [...] a theory [that] cannot be falsified [...] is thus scientifically meaningless. Ideas that cannot be tested are no more right than there [sp., they] are [...] wrong [...4] verbose language and prose [...] the language used by the proponents is far too vacuous itself [...e.g.] a ‘theory’ that is so conceptually slippery it becomes difficult to identify what is actually being argued – or how one might test it [...per] nebulous content [...and] all sorts of circular reasoning errors. Over-complex words, phrases and over-long sentences are employed in an attempt to ‘look’ scientific and intelligently [...] in pseudoscience the more scientific-type language employed, the more ‘plausible’ it appears to be [...] poorly defined terms like ‘energy,’ ‘resonance,’ ‘quantum,’ ‘nano,’ [and] ‘dimensions’ are all used with no useful explicit definitions provided [...5] conceptual hijacking [...] to hijack aspects from mainstream science in an attempt to appear more scientific [...6] confirmation-bias (selective evidence) [...7] metaphorical / analogy driven thinking [...8] anecdotes as evidence [...] contrary to the popular saying, data is not the plural of anecdote [...9] lack of explicit mechanisms [...10] special pleading [...11] conspiracy theory [...in summary] the defining feature of science is that hypotheses and theories that are put forward must be capable of being tested and shown to be false should they actually be so - this is the scientific criterion of falsifiability. As our examples above show, the tell-tale signs of pseudoscience are ploys that lead their claims away from being falsifiable. Pseudoscience [...comprises] theories, methodologies or practices that claim to be scientific but which are presented in such a manner that they can not be falsified by empirical testing”;

(click here,

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=pseudoscience.php)

03. state org.s:

the Middle District of Pennsylvania United States District Court [a Federal regional Court] states:

[in " Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover School District, et al."]

[the naturopathic / naturopathy is similarly, though much more -- exceedingly -- 'supernaturalism steeped;' 'not of science though claiming to be' steeped]

"[per 1982's McLean] the court concluded that creation science 'is simply not science' because it depends upon 'supernatural intervention,' which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation [just like vitalism & spiritism], and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable [...creation science as] biblical creationism in a new guise [...that] served only to advance religion [...and per Edwards merely] 'restructuring the science curriculum to conform with a particular [p.022] religious viewpoint' [...] creation science, an inherently religious view [...] a religious doctrine [p.023...] ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion [...] prominent ID proponents have made abundantly clear that the designer is supernatural [p.029...Behe's] ID [...] means 'not designed by the laws of nature” [...] Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered [...] it is ID's project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural [...] Johnson concluded that science must be redefined to include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing [p.030...] not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition [...] ID [...] directly involves a supernatural designer [p.031...] whether ID is science [...] ID is not science [...] ID fails on three levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science [...1] ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation [...and 3] ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community [...and] ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research [...] expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena [p.064...] while supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not a part of science [...] this self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, ir referred to by philosophers as 'methodological naturalism' and is sometimes known as the scientific method [...] methodological naturalism is a 'ground rule' of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify [p.065...the] NAS is in agreement that science is limited to empirical, observable, and ultimately testable data [...per] 'science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data -- the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science' [...] this rigorous attachment to 'natural' explanations is an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention [...] attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that lie outside the natural world is a 'science stopper' [...] once you attribute a cause to an untestable supernatural force, a proposition that cannot be disproven, there is no reason to continue seeking natural explanations [...] ID is predicated on supernatural causation [...] ID takes a natural phenomenon and, instead of accepting or seeking a [p.066] natural explanation, argues that the explanation is supernatural [...] ID is predicated on supernatural causation [...] non-natural, or supernatural [...] ID's rejection of naturalism and commitment to supernaturalism [...] it is notable that defense experts' own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world [...] an inherently religious concept [p.067...] ID aspires to 'change the ground rules' of science [...] Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology [...] Minnich [...] acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces [...] prominent IDM leaders are in agreement with the opinions expressed by defense expert witnesses that the ground rules of science must be changed for ID to take hold and prosper [...i.e.] Dembski [...] an IDM leader, proclaims that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argue that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper [p.068...] NAS, the 'most prestigious' scientific association in this country, views ID as follows: 'creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention [...] are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or [p.069] religious belief [...without] hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstrations of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge' [...and per AAAS] ID [...] 'has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims' and that 'the lack of scientific warrant for so-called intelligent design theory makes it improper to include as a part of science education' [...] not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science [...] defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as the term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best 'fringe science' which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community [...] it is therefore readily apparent to the court that ID fails to meet the essential ground rules that limit science to testable, natural explanations [...] science cannot be defined differently for Dover students than it is defined in the scientific community [p.070...] ID's failure to meet the ground rules of science is sufficient for the court to conclude that it is not science [p.071...] the purported positive argument for ID does not satisfy the ground rules of science which require testable hypotheses based upon natural explanations [...] ID is reliant upon forces acting outside of the natural world, forces that we cannot see, replicate, control or test [...] they are simply not testable by scientific means and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific theory [p.082...] to conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation [...] our view is that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science [p.089]”;

(click here,

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf)

04. journals:

Medscape’s Medscape Med Students states:

[in “Roundtable Discussion: What Are the 'Top 3' Changes Needed to Improve US Healthcare?”{Medscape Med Students, 2006;8(2)}]

“[Donnell, R.W. (MD ?) states in the section] The Invasion of Pseudoscience Into Mainstream Medicine. Increasing numbers of patients are turning to unscientific health methods under the rubric of ‘complementary and alternative medicine’ [CAM!…] society seems more tolerant of pseudoscience and quackery now than ever before […] Mesmer, who was thoroughly debunked for his magnetic ‘energy healing’ claims in the 18th century, likely would find a niche in mainstream medicine today [..and] fabled snake oil salesman […] Brinkley […of] the 1930s, would fare well in today's medical climate […] Flexner […] spurred reforms that essentially banished the teaching and promotion of quackery that was rampant in US and Canadian medical schools a century ago. You would hardly know it today, as the uncritical promotion of pseudoscience is once again pervasive in medical schools […yet, and in spite of] the rising popularity of alternative medicine, patients who come to us [physicians!] expect treatment based on science, not an eclectic world view […] it is a violation of fiduciary duty to betray patients' expectations by offering or promoting scientifically unsound treatments. Medicine has devolved [that is, backward-stepped, degenerated, deteriorated] away from rigorous standards of science […] what should we do to address this problem? Congress must take a critical look at the funding of dubious complementary and alternative medicine ‘research.’ Medical student and faculty activism against promotion of quackery is needed. Finally, we need another Abraham Flexner to do some house cleaning in our medical schools”;

(click here for the article,

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/546795 {registration is free})

(click here for the section,

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/546795_3)

05. practitioners: [yet to be]

06. academics & authors:

Bird, A. (? ?) states:

[in "Philosophy of Science"(1998)]

"what is science? When is a claim scientific? How do we distinguish science from non-science or pseudo-science? […per] the judge, William R. Overton [who decided McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education…] a scientific theory has the following features […] it is guided by natural law […] it has the ability to be explanatory by reference to natural law […] it is testable against the empirical world […] its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word […] it is falsifiable [p.003]";

(ISBN 0773517731)

Bloomberg, M.R. (mayor of NYC) states:

[in "In Speech to Medical Graduates, Bloomberg Diverges From G.O.P. Line" {reported by Cardwell, D. (? ?); NYT, N.Y. / Region; 05-26-2006}]

"in a speech to graduating students of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Mr. Bloomberg railed against what he sees as ideologically motivated arguments [...] '"today, we are seeing hundreds of years of scientific discovery being challenged by people who simply disregard facts that don't happen to agree with their agenda,' Mr. Bloomberg said. 'Some call it pseudoscience, others call it faith-based science, but when you notice where this negligence tends to take place, you might as well call it political science'";

(click here,

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/26/nyregion/26mayor.html?ex=1171170000&en=525488816ebd146d&ei=5070)

Bunge, M. (? ?) states:

[in "Finding Philosophy in Social Science"(1996)]

"one of the peculiarities of pseudoscience is isolation [p.130...] a pseudoscience is a body of belief or practice advertised or sold as scientific without really being such [...] easily detected and refuted [!...and] dangerous [...] pseudoscientists either do not conduct any research at all [...] or they conduct flawed research [...] when sincere, they are gullible and on the whole impervious to criticism. They fail to comply with the moral and institutional imperative that Merton called 'organized skepticism' [...e.g.] alchemy and astrology, dowsing and UFO-ology, 'scientific' creationism and Lysenko's plant 'science' [...] homeopathy and holistic medicine [...] all projective techniques [...] most scientists diagnose these bodies of popular belief for correctly for what they are, and believers or practitioners thereof are correspondingly outside the scientific community [p.205...] pseudosciences are isolated and tradition-bound [p.208]";

(ISBN 0300066066)

de Grasse, N. (? ?), Goldsmith, D.T. (? ?) state:

[in "Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution"(2004)]

"science depends on organized skepticism, that is, on continual, methodical doubting [p.017]";

(ISBN 0393059928)

Derry, G.N. (PhD{physics} ?) states:

[in "What Science Is and How It Works"(2002)]

"science, pseudoscience, and how to tell the difference [...] 'pseudo' comes from a Greek word meaning false, so pseudoscience literally means false science [...] counterfeit or deceptive [...] a false science that pretends to be real [...] a set of characteristics that can be used to identify pseudoscience and distinguish it from genuine science [p.158...] one of the hallmarks of real science is growth and progress [...] ideas change over time as new discoveries are made [...] the ideas in a pseudoscience either remain static [...per] dogmatic ideas [...] or else change randomly [...] ideas come and go at random because there is to particular reason to accept some and reject others [...without] discernible progress [...] the pseudoscience has neither an anchor in a well-established foundational body of knowledge, nor any systematic comparison with observation [...] vague mechanisms to acquire understanding [...] in genuine science, the goal of the activity is to achieve some coherent understanding of our observations [...and] we must reject our understanding if it is incoherent or if it conflicts with observations or experiments [p.159...pseudoscience's] procedures are only caricatures of those found in genuine science [...] many different premises [...] neither coherent nor consistent with observation [...] loosely connected thoughts [...] rigorous logic, a strict chain of deductive reasoning with no gaps or weak spots, is highly prized in the sciences [...] in pseudoscience, we often find wide, gaping holes in the logic [...often] no logic at all, just some loosely connected thoughts [p.160...] when logical errors occur in science, there is a way to correct them built into the normal process of doing science; in pseudoscience, such correction processes don't exist [...] lack of organized skepticism [...] the important role of skepticism in scientific thought [...] a new idea or result in science is usually presumed wrong until it is shown to be right [...] the norm in science is to subject ideas, experiments, and interpretations to criticism in order to weed out bogus results [...] even the consensus remains subject to criticism [...thus] skepticism keeps open the possibility of change even as it tends at the same time to foster conservatism in science [...but] for those pseudosciences that are based on a preconceived belief, skepticism is in fact forbidden [...] they simply don't engage routinely in any practice of critical thinking [...] disregard of established results [...] scientific advance virtually always builds on previous work [p.161...] the foundational knowledge that has been developed by the sciences over hundreds of years [...per] well-established results have become so through a long hard process of critical scrutiny [...remaining established] because they continue to explain a wide variety of observations and experiments in a coherent and satisfying manner [...] a scientist works to integrate results into a larger framework (which ultimately includes all of the sciences) [...and concerning] the unorthodox idea and the established idea [...] the unorthodox idea must be subjected to a much greater burden of proof [...and] isolation [p.162...] activities that meet the [above] criteria and also claim to be sciences are pseudosciences [p.162]";

(ISBN 0691095507)

Enloe, C.L. (? ?), Garnett, E. (? ?), Miles, J. (? ?), Swanson, S. (? ?) state:

[in "Physical Science: What the Technology Professional Needs to Know"(2000)]

"pseudoscience [...] it is important to be able to distinguish the difference between science and pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is defined as a set of ideas put forth as scientific, when, in fact, they are not [p.007...] science deals with facts and data that can be reproduced in support of a given hypothesis or theory. Pseudoscience deals with the unknowable, indisputable, and unprovable, and so cannot be called science. There are no hypotheses or theories that can be tested [...] astrology is pseudoscience. It gives the impression that it is scientific but it is not [...] pseudo-scientists typically claim to use the scientific method and to base their theories on experimental evidence [...but] pseudo-scientists want to claim the authority of science, but are unwilling to abide the rules that has earned science its reputation for finding the truth [...] reproducibility is key to science. Pseudoscience harms the credibility of science and, unfortunately, much of the public cannot discern one from the other [...] there is a difference between a hypothesis that was not properly tested and a scientific hypothesis that is presented and later proven wrong [p.008...] the systemic pursuit of a scientific knowledge involves the recognition of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of various hypotheses and theories [...] peer review and reproducibility are the two other cornerstones of all scientific endeavors [...] one of the best tests to discriminate between true science and pseudoscience is to ask 'can someone else do the same experiment and obtain the same results?' If the answer is no, then it is not good science [p.021...] glossary [...] pseudoscience: a set of ideas or hypothesis put forth as scientifically valid when, in fact, they are not [p.515]";

(ISBN 047136018X)

Enger, E.D. (MS{biology} UM), Ross, F.C. (MS{biology} WSU), Tillery, B.W. (? ?) state:

[in "Integrated Science"(2nd ed., 2003)]

"what is science? [p.001...] science, nonscience, and pseudoscience [p.016...] science and nonscience. The differences between science and nonscience are often based on the assumptions and methods used to gather and organize information, and most important, the testing of these assumptions [...] a scientist continually challenges and tests principles and assumptions to determine a cause-effect relationship [...] physics, chemistry, geology, and biology are always considered sciences [...] pseudoscience [...] takes on the flavor of science but is not supportable as valid or reliable [p.017...and the] purpose of pseudoscience is to confuse or mislead [p.018...] pseudoscience uses scientific appearances to mislead [p.019] pseudoscience: use of the appearance of science to mislead; the assertions made are not valid or reliable [p.629]";

(ISBN 0072467002)

Ford, E.D. (? ?) states:

[in "Scientific Method For Ecological Research"(2000)]

"teleology. Aristotle [...] codified and developed the science of logic and produced an extensive natural science, particularly biology, that was still in existence almost 2000 years after his death [p.239...] teleology [...] in biology is the interpretation of biological structure or functioning in terms of purpose [...] monadic teleology should be avoided because [...] teleological statements are closed to logical development [...] they are not true or false and they are not questions [...] even in speculative discussion, teleological statements encourage further teleology [...] most scientists would agree that this type of description is pointless [p.240...] modern Western science began as part of a new questioning approach in society and developed into a direct challenge to Aristotle's science and its teleology [...] 'no more causes should be proposed than are necessary to explain a phenomenon. Occam's razor asserts the principle of parsimony in making propositions [...] it is vain to do through more what can be done with less' [p.242]";

(ISBN 052166005X)

Forrest, B. (PhD{philosophy} ?) states:

[in “Point of Inquiry”{02-16-2007}]

“[D.J. Grothe] every week on this show we at central questions facing us in society through the lens of scientific naturalism. We focus mostly on three research areas: pseudoscience and the paranormal, alternative medicine, and secularism and religion [00.01.06...] I'm pleased to be joined on the show this week by Barbara Forrest [...] you might know her as one of the expert [science] witnesses at the Dover intelligent design trail in late 2005 [00.02.047...] what is true in science isn't decided by a majority vote. Science is not a democracy. Science a process in which people who do research gradually come to a consensus about what their data mean. And that's not a political process. The idea that there are many opinions and that every opinion is just as valid regarding science is simply...it's an argument that the creationists periodically try to use because it is to their advantage to do so. But, in science, that's not the case that every opinion in a classroom should be heard. Just as science is not a democracy, neither is public school classrooms [00.08.44...] that's not the way science works and it's really not the way the educational process works [00.09.00...D.J.] sum up for me what scientists say about ID, why scientists say its bunk. I mean, why did Judge Jones, and anyone else who followed the Dover trial that you were a part of, conclude that intelligent design is just not science [00.09.21...Forrest] because the intelligent design creationist have never produced any science. They don't do science. These people are simply the newest version of the creationism that has plagued American education for decades [00.09.36...] creationists don't do any science and the reason they don't is because it would be very hard to do science. There is no way that science can support the supernatural. The reason why Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller trial declared ID unconstitutional when it's taught in a public school classroom is that it's very easy to show because the ID people themselves have said that ID is a religious idea. And so you don't really have to look very hard to see that ID is basically a religious belief, it's rooted in the Gospel of John as stated by its own proponents [00.10.22]. So once that became clear to the judge, it was very clear the way he had to rule. This is a religious idea, and as such, cannot be taught as science. [D.J.] But can't religious ideas be scientifically valid? [Forrest] I don't see any way that the idea of the supernatural can be considered scientifically valid. The supernatural is beyond the reach of any empirical methodology that scientists have [00.10.46]. And science operates on the basis of empirical data which are gleaned by the use of empirical methodologies. ID rejects modern scientific methodology, which means that scientists out of pragmatic necessity because they can't do otherwise limit themselves to searching for natural explanations for natural phenomena. So, to even ask whether ID is science simply is to overlook the fact that by its own proponents definition, it is a belief in the supernatural. There's no way that scientific data can address that question at all [00.11.24...concerning the DI, Forrest] ultimately their goal is to undermine the foundations of secular democracy [00.14.37...] they don't like the way that modern science, especially Darwin's ideas, has undermined the idea that man was created in god's image. If you read their strategy document, 'The Wedge Strategy,' it starts off with the observation that the West was founded on the idea that man was created in the image of god. They very much dislike the fact that we live in a secular society and that we have a secular government, with a secular public education system. If you read their writings, some of their peripheral writings, for example essays in a book called “Unapologetic Apologetics' [00.15.20...] they openly and very blatantly criticize the whole idea of secular society. They don't like it and they would like to undermine it and substitute for it something more in line with their own religious preferences [...] it is a major goal that the DI has [00.15.43...] if people for religious reasons choose to interpret nature as pointing to god, I have no objection to that. People can draw whatever conclusions they want, and put whatever interpretive framework around the natural world that they would like. But you just can't call that science [00.23.33...] what I object to [...] that is not science, that is where you step beyond science into either your personal theological preferences or your personal philosophical views [00.23.59...] those are a matter of personal choice and preference, but they are not science. Science is a very limited enterprise. It's very powerful, it's the most powerful way we have of understanding the natural world, but it cannot step beyond the reach of the natural explanations that scientists come up with for the data that they have. So my only objection is that people sometimes consider what the DI what they're doing as science, and they are not doing science. They are doing religious interpretation of science [00.24.33...D.J.] science is not intrinsically atheistic [0025.57...] leaving god out is not the same thing as atheism. It's merely to decline to address it because science doesn't have a way to do that [00.26.15...] evolution is a natural process [00.26.24]“;

(click here,

http://libsyn.com/media/pointofinquiry/POI-2-16-07.mp3)

Friedlander, M.W. (? ?) states:

[in "At the Fringes of Science: With a New Epilogue"(1998)]

"'pseudoscience is a permanent companion to science [...due to] a large reservoir of people for whom the methods and much of the content of science remain unknown, hazy, or confused [p.ix...] characteristic rules' for identifying 'symptoms of pathological science' [...per Langmuir, a] maximum effect [...] is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause [...with] the effect [...] of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability [...] claims of great accuracy [...] fantastic theories contrary to experience [...] criticisms are met my ad hoc excuses [...] ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually into oblivious [...a] useful checklist for the identification of pseudoscience [...per] Bunge [...paraphrased] the new theory is rigid, generally resistant to new research results [...] adherents generally consist of adherents who do not carry out research [...] is some cases support comes from commercial interests [...] most phenomena of pseudoscience are unverifiable, except by adherents, and many imply supernatural effects [p.162...] supporting arguments are often drawn from outdated or discredited sources or are unverifiable [...and] lack clarity and consistency [...] use of mathematics is rare, and logical argument is often absent [...] many of the phenomena being claimed are very old [...with] little or no development in ideas [...and] unwillingness to entertain new hypotheses and suppression or distortion of unfavorable data [and per Gardner, a pseudoscientist often] considers himself a genius [...] regards his colleagues, without exception, and ignorant blockheads [...] believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against [...] has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories [...] writes[s] in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined [...plus] an essential component of a scientific theory is its ability to be tested [p.163]";

(ISBN 0813390605)

Gambrill, E.D. (? ?) states:

[in "Social Work Practice: A Critical Thinker's Guide"(1997)]

"the difference between science and pseudoscience. The term pseudoscience refers to material that makes science-like claims but provides no evidence for them (see Bunge, 1984). Pseudoscience is characterized by a causal[casual?] approach to evidence (weak evidence is accepted as readily as strong evidence is […] a critical attitude – which Karl Popper (1972) defines as a willingness and commitment to open up favored views to severe scrutiny – as basic to science, distinguishing it from pseudoscience. Indicators of pseudoscience include irrefutable hypotheses and a reluctance to revise beliefs even when confronted with relevant criticism. It makes excessive (untested) claims of contributions to knowledge […referring to Bunge 1984, Gray 1991] hallmarks of pseudoscience: discourages critical examination of claims / arguments; the trappings of science are used without the substance; relies on anecdotal evidence; is not self-correcting; is not skeptical; equates an open mind with an uncritical one; falsifying data are ignored or explained away; relies on vague language; is not empirical; produces beliefs and faith but not knowledge; is often not testable; does not require repeatability [p.086..] quackery refers to the promotion and marketing, for a profit, of untested, often worthless and sometimes dangerous, health products and procedures […] fraud is the intentional misrepresentation of the effect of certain actions […] to persuade people to part with something of value […] by means of deception and misrepresentation [p.087…] pseudoscience: material that makes science-like claims but provides no evidence for them. Quackery: the promotion of products and procedures known to be false or which are untested for a profit […] false knowledge: beliefs that are not true and that are not questioned [p.094…] skepticism: a provisional approach to claims; the careful examination of all claims [p.095…] benefits of critical thinking […] recognize propaganda, pseudoscience, quackery, and fraud [p.130…] thinking critically about claims and arguments will help you detect pseudoscience, fraud, quackery, and avoid their influence [p.136]";

(ISBN 0195113322)

Gardell-Cutter, M.A. (? ?) states:

[in "Reframing Disease Contextually"(2004)]

"briefly put, pseudoscience can be defined as the promotion of unsubstantiated, allegedly scientific opinions [...ideas] built on inaccurate premises, or they do not follow logically from what is observable [...per] lack of scientific method in pseudoscientific assertions prevents us from being able to determine the validity of the ideas. Often, pseudoscience involves claims for which it is almost impossible to provide scientific evidence [p.092]";

(ISBN 1402017960)

Gauch, H.G. (? ?) states:

[in "Scientific Method in Practice"(2002)]

"as the gateway to scientific thinking, an understanding of the scientific method is essential for success and productivity in science [...per] reliance on evidence and [...] use of inductive logic, probability, parsimony, and hypothesis testing [...per] the scientific method [intro. page...] elementary scientific method [...] intended for college freshmen and sophomores [...] hypothesis formulation, hypothesis testing, deductive and inductive logic, controlled experiments replication repeatability, interactions between data and theory, limits to science's domain [...most intro. texts though] are unlikely [...] to include any discussion of parsimony or any exploration of the history of scientific method [...] mastering the principle of parsimony or simplicity in order to gain efficiency and increase productivity is anything but simple, requiring precise distinctions, subtle concepts, and complex calculations [in physics particularly p.011...] in essence, Ockham's razor advises scientists to prefer the simplest theory among those that fit the data equally well. Ockham's rejection, on grounds of parsimony, of Aristotle's theory of impetus paved the way for Newton's theory of inertia [p.054...] the principle of parsimony recommends that from among theories fitting the data equally well, scientists choose the simplest theory [...as well as] predictive accuracy, explanatory power, testability, fruitfulness in generating new insights and knowledge, coherence with other scientific and philosophical beliefs, and repeatability of results [...] parsimony is an important principle of the scientific method for two reasons [...first] the entire scientific enterprise has never produced, and never will produce, a single conclusion without invoking parsimony [...it is] absolutely essential and pervasive [...and second] parsimonious models of scientific data can facilitate insight, improve accuracy, and increase efficiency [p.269...] the venerable law of parsimony, lex parsimoniae [...] Aristotle rejected Plato's forms on the basis of a parsimony argument [...] Aristotle held the more parsimonious view that only individual dogs existed [...while] Plato believed that both the perfect form of a dog and individual dogs existed [p.271...with parsimony defined per] 'plurality is not to be posited without necessity' [...aka] 'entities must not be multiplied without necessity' [...] 'what can be explained by the assumption of fewer things is vainly explained by the assumption of more things'";

(ISBN 0521017084)

Hackworth, M. (PhD ?) states:

[in “From Skepticism to Belief, the Interface of Science and Society”]

“skepticism – evaluating belief systems. All scientific claims should be subject rigorous, unbiased examination. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof […] science – characterized by the scientific method. Science is a communal process that does not work in a vacuum […] the ‘practical’ scientific method […] ability to prove false is crucial […] pseudoscience – scientific sound jargon but little sense […] chiropractic, intelligent design, perpetual motion, herbalism, homeopathy, therapeutic touch, fringe medicine”;

(click here,

http://www.physics.isu.edu/~hackmart/sciencepseudoscience.pdf)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20060114221037/http://www.physics.isu.edu/~hackmart/sciencepseudoscience.pdf)

Hexham, I. (? ?) states:

[in "The Concise Dictionary of Religion"(1993)]

"falsifiability: a variant of the verification principle developed by Sir Karl Popper, who argued that while we cannot absolutely prove that something is scientifically true, it is possible to falsify theories and beliefs, thus eliminating error. He made falsification the test of truth in this theory of science and used it to distinguish between science and pseudoscience [p.081...] pseudoscience: the practice of such things as [examples...] on the basis of supposed scientific evidence which is in fact nonsensical. Pseudoscience uses scientific-sounding terminology but totally lacks scientific support. It ignores systematic investigation and scientific methodology and is usually openly hostile to modern science [p.178]";

(ISBN 1573831204)

Hines, T. (? ?) states:

[in "Pseudoscience and the Paranormal"(2003)]

"the nature of pseudoscience. What is pseudoscience? […] a pseudoscience is a doctrine or belief system that pretends to be a science. What distinguishes pseudoscience from real science? Radner and Radner (1982) and MacRobert (1986) have discussed criteria for separating real science from pseudoscience and for helping to decide if a new claim is pseudoscientific. The most common characteristic of a pseudoscience is the nonfalsifiable or irrefutable hypothesis […] a hypothesis against which there can be no evidence […] there is no evidence that can show the hypothesis to be wrong [p.013…] a second characteristic of pseudoscience is the proponents’ unwillingness to look closely at the phenomenon they claim exists. In other words, careful, controlled experiments that would demonstrate the existence of the phenomena – if it were real – are not conducted. The reality of the phenomenon is uncritically accepted, and the need for hard data and facts is belittled [p.015…] in reality, the burden of proof should rest squarely on the one who is making the extraordinary claim [p.016…] no only is the burden of proof on the proponents of pseudoscience to prove their claims, but the burden on them is greater than on someone making a claim that does not challenge the bulk of known facts [p.018…] naturopathy shares with many other branches of ‘alternative’ medicine a dislike for objective testing of its claims and procedures as well as a vacuous vocabulary with empty talk about energies, vibrations, and life forces […whose treatments include] acupuncture, aromatherapy, biofeedback, breathing exercises, copper bracelets, enemas or high colonics, faith healing, fasting (also called cleansing), herbs and supplements, homeopathy, hydrotherapy, hypnosis, joint manipulation (aka Rolfing), magnets, massage, positive thinking, therapeutic touch and yoga, among others [p.373]";

(ISBN 1573929794)

Kida, T.E. (? ?) states:

[in "Don't Believe Everything You Think: The 6 Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking"(2006)]

"we live in an age of science, but as we've seen, many of us hold unscientific and pseudoscientific beliefs. Pseudoscience refers to 'claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack sufficient supporting evidence and plausibility' [per Shermer...aka] junk science, or voodoo science [...] pseudoscience is an endeavor that pretends to be science, but lacks the rigor of science [...] claims made in the pseudosciences have a couple of common features [...] the evidence typically is of dubious quality [...&] the claim is often at odds with current well-established scientific principles [p.039...] why do we hold many pseudoscientific beliefs? Probably the main reason is that we want to believe them. As the noted astronomer Carl Sagan observed, pseudoscience and other weird beliefs often meet our emotional needs [...] we want simplicity in our lives, and belief in superstition, fate, the supernatural, and other pseudoscientific beliefs often provide simple explanations for life's events [p.040...] characteristics of pseudoscientific thinking: preconceived notion of what to believe, search for evidence to support a preconceived belief, ignore evidence that would falsify a claim or belief, disregard alternative explanations for a phenomenon, hold extraordinary beliefs, accept flimsy evidence to support an extraordinary claim, rely heavily on anecdotal evidence, lack of tightly controlled experiments to test a claim, employ very little skepticism [p.041]";

(ISBN 1591024080)

(for a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here {entire},

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCVyDUPHi6w)

(for an amazon.com short review of this, click here,

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3GQII0AGGQSKG/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm)

Lakatos, I. (? ?) states:

[in "The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers"(1980)]

"knowledge in Latin is scientia [...] what distinguishes knowledge from superstition, ideology or pseudoscience? [...] the objective, scientific value of a theory is independent of the human mind which creates it or understands it. Its scientific value depends on what objective support these conjectures have in facts [...] no degree of commitment to beliefs makes them knowledge. Indeed, the hallmark of scientific behavior is a certain skepticism even towards one's most cherished theories. Blind commitment to a theory is not an intellectual virtue: it is an intellectual crime [p.001]";

(ISBN 0521280311)

Levy, E.S. (? ?) states:

[in “Medical Fairy Tales”{NYT; Letter to the Editor; 05-14-2002}]

“'Religion and Health: New Research Revives Old Debate'' (May 7) raises critical issues. Pseudoscience is already running rampant in our society and in our country's educational system, as creationists are trying harder than ever to sabotage science in schools. Critical thinking, skepticism and logic are becoming rare commodities. If medical schools follow suit and begin teaching these 'spiritual medicine' fairy tales in an age when 'evidence-based medicine' is supposed to be our credo, then we have sadly lost our way”;

(click here,

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE5DA1539F937A25756C0A9649C8B63)

Lilienfeld, S.O. (PhD ?), Lohr, J.M. (PhD ?), Lynn, S.J. (PhD ?) [editors] state:

[in "Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology"(2003)]

"in North America today, entire industries sail under the flags of pseudoscience [...] pseudoscience by definition promises certainty, whereas science gives us probability and doubt. Pseudoscience is popular because it confirms [p.xv] what we believe; science is unpopular because it makes us question what we believe [...] pseudoscientific programs, potions, and therapies have always been an entrenched part of American culture [...and] will always remain with us, because there are so many economic and cultural interests promoting them [...] the best way to combat pseudoscience is to do good science [p.xvi...] we intend to assist readers with the crucial goal of distinguishing science from pseudoscience in mental health practice [p.xix...] the principal differences between scientific and pseudoscientific research programs [...] science probably differs from pseudoscience in degree rather than in kind [...] the fuzziness of such categories does not mean that distinctions between science and pseudoscience are fictional or entirely arbitrary [...i.e.] the fact that the precise boundary between day and night is indistinct does not imply that day and night cannot be meaningfully differentiated [p.005...] some of the most frequent features of pseudoscience [...] (1) an overuse of ad hoc hypotheses designed to immunize claims from falsification [...] (2) absence of self-correction [...] (3) evasion of peer review [p.006...] (4) emphasis on confirmation rather than refutation [...] (5) reversed burden of proof [...] (6) absence of connectivity [p.007...] (7) over-reliance on testimonial and anecdotal evidence [...] (8) use of obscurantist language [...] (9) absence of boundary conditions [...] (10) the mantra of holism [p.008]";

(ISBN 1593850700)

Lower, S. (PhD{physical chemistry} UBC) states:

[in "Pseudoscience. What Is It? How Can We Recognize It?"]

"a pseudoscience is an established body of knowledge which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms […] the most important of its defects is usually the lack of the carefully controlled and thoughtfully interpreted experiments which provide the foundation of the natural sciences and which contribute to their advancement […] there is no single test that unambiguously distinguishes between science and pseudoscience, but as the two diverge more and more from one another, certain differences become apparent, and these tend to be remarkably consistent across all fields of interest. In examining the following table, it might be helpful to consider examples of astronomy vs. astrology, or of chemistry vs. alchemy, which at one time were single fields that gradually diverged into sciences and pseudosciences […per] science […] the primary goal of science is to achieve a more complete and more unified understanding of the physical world […] most scientific fields are the subjects of intense research which result in the continual expansion of knowledge in the discipline […] the search for new knowledge is the driving force behind the evolution of any scientific field. Nearly every new finding raises new questions that beg exploration. There is little evidence of this in the pseudosciences […] workers in the field commonly seek out counterexamples or findings that appear to be inconsistent with accepted theories […] sciences advance by accommodating themselves to change as new information is obtained […] in science, the person who shows that a generally accepted belief is wrong or incomplete is more likely to be considered a hero than a heretic […] observations or data that are not consistent with current scientific understanding, once shown to be credible, generate intense interest among scientists and stimulate additional studies […] science is a process in which each principle must be tested in the crucible of experience and remains subject to being questioned or rejected at any time […] scientific ideas and concepts must stand or fall on their own merits, based on existing knowledge and on evidence […] scientific explanations must be stated in clear, unambigous[sp.] terms […while] pseudosciences are more likely to be driven by ideological, cultural, or commercial goals […] some examples: astrology (from ancient Babylonian culture,) UFO-ology (popular culture and mistrust of government), Creation Science (attempt to justify Biblical interpretation), ‘structure-altered’ waters (commercial quackery) […] the field has evolved very little since it was first established. The small amount of research and experimentation that is carried out is generally done more to justify the belief than to extend it […] in the pseudosciences, a challenge to accepted dogma is often considered a hostile act if not heresy, and leads to bitter disputes or even schisms […] observations or data that are not consistent with established beliefs tend to be ignored or actively suppressed […] have you noticed how self-styled psychics always seem eager to announce their predictions for the new year, but never like to talk about how many of last years' predictions were correct? […] the major tenets and principles of the field are often not falsifiable, and are unlikely ever to be altered or shown to be wrong. Enthusiasts incorrectly take the logical impossibility of disproving a pseudoscientific priniciple[sp.] as evidence of its validity […] pseudoscientific concepts tend to be shaped by individual egos and personalities, almost always by individuals who are not in contact with mainstream science. They often invoke authority (a famous name, for example) for support. Have you ever noticed how proponents of pseudoscientific ideas are more likely to list all of the degrees they have? […] pseudoscientific explanations tend to be vague and ambiguous, often invoking scientific terms in dubious contexts. Phrases such as ‘energy vibrations’ or ‘subtle energy fields’[aka life forces, per vitalism] may sound impressive, but they are essentially meaningless”;

(click here,

http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20050207013916/http://chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html)

Lum, C. (? ?) states:

[in "Scientific Thinking in Speech and Language Therapy"(2001)]

"one characteristic of science is that it represents an evolution toward discovering the truth […] scientific knowledge evolves as a result of methodical and systematic investigations […] the other difference between science and pseudoscience lies in how scientific knowledge is derived. In pseudosciences, knowledge is […] based on age-old traditional knowledge or has, through trial and error, been found to be useful. In contrast, science presupposes that there is a principled approach to discovery of knowledge, known as the scientific method [per Bunge pseudoscience is] ‘a body of beliefs and practices but seldom a field of active inquiry; it is tradition bound and dogmatic rather than forward looking and exploratory’ […] a main criteria is to ask whether there is evidence [p.016…] we can discriminate between science and pseudoscience […] this dichotomy between science and pseudoscience […] characteristics of science and pseudoscience […with science] objective – based on systematic methods that involved hypothesis testing, systematic observations, and verification; productive – evolving process, progress depends accumulated growth of knowledge over time during which useful features are retained and nonuseful features are discarded; based on a system of confirmation or rejection of hypotheses (Shermer 1997); verifiable – knowledge based on empirical evidence […with pseudoscience] subjective – often scientistic (i.e. uses terms that make events appear scientific but there is in fact no evidence); not productive – knowledge does not change, moribund state of knowledge based on age-old traditions; not verifiable – knowledge based on anecdotes [p.018]";

(ISBN 080584029X)

Martin, D.J. (? ?) states:

[in "Elementary Science Methods with Infotrac: A Constructivist Approach"(2005)]

"characteristics of the scientific enterprise [...] science rejects authority and authoritarianism [p.040...] science is honest [p.041...] significant portions of Americans hold pseudoscientific beliefs [...] science searches for natural rather than supernatural explanations [...] science rejects supernatural explanations as primary explanations for observed phenomena. Examples include witchcraft, astrology, alien abductions, extrasensory perception (ESP), plant emotions, biorhythms, and alternative medicine [...which are] often referred to as pseudoscience [...since they] lack the support of systematic observational data and frequently have been arrived at through faulty reasoning or poor scientific methodology [...] science is skeptical and rejects the notion that it is possible to attain absolute truth [p.042...] science is parsimonious [...] science seeks consistency [p.043]";

(ISBN 0495004952)

Miller, K.R. (PhD[biology] ?) states:

[in “The Collapse of Intelligent Design....”{Case Western Reserve U. Presentation, 01.57.10 timing}]

[Key Plaintiff Witness in the Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Area School District trial]

“we live in interesting times [00.02.04...] for those of you who don't know me [...] I'm a cell biologist, I work at Brown University [00.02.22...] if when you were in high school you used any of these books for high school biology, I wrote them [00.03.25...] tonight I'm going to focus on the issue of intelligent design [00.04.22...] debaters on this issue claim to lead a purely scientific movement [06.43.00... concerning] whether intelligent design should be included in the curriculum of Ohio public schools [06.58.00...] this [supposedly] purely scientific movement attracts an awful lot of support which is not necessarily scientific [07.06.00...] how does science respond? [00.9.49...] one way is to develop a proper understanding of science [00.09.54...] Dr. Marburger said evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology [00.12.26.00...] he was also asked at the National Association of Science Writers, he said, 'Look, intelligent design is not a scientific theory [...] I don't regard intelligent design as a scientific topic' [00.12.49...] 'evolution is a theory,' it certainly is [00.15.08...] but when you say 'it's a theory, not fact' it makes it sound like theories and facts are opposite things. As if, we're really sure of facts, and were not so sure of theories. In fact, theory in science is a higher level of understanding than facts because what theories do is that they explain facts, they unite them [00.15.31...theory as] a system of explanations that explain thousands, then of thousands of facts [00.15.52...] science is built around theories which are strongly supported by factual evidence. Everything in science should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered [00.16.42...] 'why are you singling out one topic for special consideration?' And if that reason turns out to be Constitutionally prohibited, you might be in difficult straits [00.17.16...] this didn't end down in Georgia. The next migration of this controversy was to Dover, PA where the board of education, a little more than a year ago, decided that they would like to teach something called intelligent design [00.17.32]. They ordered their biology teachers to prepare an intelligent design curriculum. The teachers refused, and they cited a provision of the PA teacher code of ethics in which the teachers had to promise in that State that they would never knowingly present false information to a student. And they told their superintendent this is false information, we can't violate our oaths [00.17.53...] I was honored by being the lead witness for the plaintiffs in the case [00.18.25...] the trial eventually was decided [00.18.32...] the Federal judge who rendered this verdict, John Jones, basically ruled that intelligent design was unconstitutional. His verdict was sweeping. This is, he not only ruled on the narrow issue of whether this is appropriate, he ruled on the broader issue of whether or not intelligent design was actually a legitimate scientific idea that belonged in the classroom at all [00.21.13...] he is simply, I am convinced, someone who is bright, intelligent, and who understands the meaning of the constitution [00.22.33...] advocates of 'intelligent design' scored a major victory in Kansas this year by attacking 'naturalism' in state standards [00.24.08...] now what do I mean by naturalism? [00.24.13...] if you really want to know what is at risk from the antievolution movement, look at Kansas. And the reason for that, is when the antievolution movement got control of the state board of education, what did they do? They rewrote the definition of science itself, not just biology, not just evolution, science [00.25.12...] now, what do I mean by rewriting the definition of science? [00.25.23...] this was the definition of science [...] 'science is the human activity of seeking natural explanation for what we observe in the world around us,' it seems to me like a straightforward, common sense, easy to understand definition of science [00.24.38...] what do they mean by 'more adequate' as opposed to natural explanations? [00.26.00]. Remember the standards once said we seek natural explanations from science [...] the board majority explained this to everybody [...] here's what we want to do [00.26.14]. We want to get rid of the concept of methodological naturalism [...] and basically we think that what naturalism does is that is limits inquiry and permissible explanations and promotes the philosophy of naturalism. In short, we want to open science up to nonnaturalistic explanations [...] what is a nonnaturalistic explanation? I can't think of anything except the supernatural explanation. Supernatural explanations may be correct [00.26.48...] even if correct, is not science because its not testable [00.27.11...] the notion of promoting nonnaturalistic explanations is exactly what's happened in Kansas [00.27.18...] what are we talking about when we talk about both sides of chemistry, neurobiology, physics, or astronomy? [...] alchemy, phrenology, outright magic or astrology [00.27.46...] nobody really wants these things in the science classroom [00.28.04...] until the Dover trial, I would have thought that too. But a funny thing happened at the Dover trial [...] where would intelligent design take the science classrooms? Michael Behe was placed on the stand under oath in the Dover trial [...] he is very much in favor of intelligent design [00.28.33...] on cross examination, Dr. Behe admitted that his definition of theory was so broad it would also include astrology [...] if you stretch the definition of science to include intelligent design, you know what else fits in that strike zone? Astrology [00.29.13]. And I would add so does mysticism, pyramid power, New Age spiritualism, and Wiccan teaching or witchcraft [00.29.20...] one of things that it [all those mentioned] is not is science [...] you want to open the science classroom up to intelligent design, you will also open it to astrology and a whole host of pseudoscientific beliefs. Is this really what you want to do? [00.29.44] In terms of reforming science teaching [00.29.47...] what we saw with the literal collapse of intelligent design as a scientific theory [00.30.54...] science is enormously self-critical [00.33.58...] natural selection is blind [00.40.49..] the 'Lemon' test [...] 'the government action must have a legitimate secular purpose; the government action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and; the government's action must not result in an excessive entanglement' of the government and religion' [00.52.16...] the actions of the Dover board failed all three prongs of the Lemon test [...per] no legitimate secular purpose in promoting the teaching of intelligent design [...] if intelligent design is a religious idea, so what? What's wrong with introducing it in the science classroom? [00.52.48...] introducing this [ID] as an idea into the science classroom, as he points out, it sets up what will be perceived by students as a god-friendly science [ID...] one that explicitly mentions an intelligent designer, and the other science, evolution, that has no position. What I told the judge is that I though a false duality would be produced. It would tell students quite explicitly choose god on the side of intelligent design, or choose science on the side of evolution and reject god [00.53.26...] and introducing such religious conflict into the classroom, the judge wrote 'is very dangerous because it forces students to chose between god and science, not a choice that schools should be forcing' [...] this false choice between religion and science [00.54.27...] you might say intelligent design is not religious, I think it is [00.55.35...] Dr. Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered [00.56.02...] Fuller testified that it is ID's project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural [00.56.10...] ID is in fact inherently religious [00.56.17...] 'intelligent design's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that is cannot withstand' [01.04.35...] how does science deal with a new idea? [...] what we expect people to do, is to do real research to back up those claims, to submit them to peer review, to engage in the give and take of scientific argument, to win a scientific consensus, and eventually if the evidence is on the side of these ideas [...] they will eventually find their way into classroom and textbook [01.05.40...ID] would like a direct injection into classroom and textbook, and they'd like that injection with the aid of the political process [01.06.29...] what is at stake in this? [...] everything [...] a generation of Americans growing up with a wedge driven between them and science [01.08.48...] the intelligent design movement proposes to drive exactly that wedge, which is aimed to produce what they call a theistic science [01.08.56]”;

(click here,

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20060822075508/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg)

Novella, S. (MD ?) states:

[in “Podcast #73”{12/13/2006}]

“[from Segment #2] the point really is that science cannot deal with the supernatural, because it cannot be subjected to any kind of empirical testing, or hypothesis testing, or falsification [00.15.24]”;

(click here,

http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2006-12-13.mp3)

(its table of contents, click here,

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podcastinfo.asp?pid=73)

Novocek, M.J. (?[paleontology] ?) [senior vice-president of the American Museum of Natural History] states:

[in “Exhibition Review: Meet the Relatives. They’re Full of Surprises"{reported by Wilford, J.N. {? ?}; NYT, Art & Design; 02-09-2007}]

"a scientific theory is an argument that is very carefully tested against scientific evidence";

(click here,

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/arts/design/09orig.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=science)

Parks, J.B. (? ?), Quarterman, J. (? ?) state:

[in "Contemporary Sport Management"(2003)]

"pseudoscience -- information that appears to be based on systematic [scientific!] research when it is not [p.410]";

(ISBN 0736042431)

Pennock, R.T. (? ?) states:

[in "Teaching Evolution and the Nature of Science […] The Nature of Science & the Scientific Virtues"]

"What is distinctive about science is not its conclusions, but rather its methods. A scientific hypothesis stands or falls as a function of empirical tests against the natural world. The supernatural possibilities considered by creationism [as just one example of supernaturalism; naturo.'s vitalism and spiritism are just as supernatural and outside of science] are not testable and do not belong in science classrooms. Science's epistemology requires a special kind of discipline from scientists, with a set of characteristic virtues, including a special kind of integrity that must be defended in science education”;

(click here,

http://www.nyas.org/ebriefreps/main.asp?intSubsectionID=3662#pennock)

(archived here,

)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20060928095940/http://www.nyas.org/ebriefreps/main.asp?intSubsectionID=3662)

ii.

[in "On Teaching Evolution and the Nature of Science"]

"the best science teaching reveals not just the science of nature [scientific knowledge] but also the nature of science [the methods of creating scientific knowledge...i.e. science's] methods of investigation [...] science begins not in words but in observations. Science is not so much a list of facts [scientific knowledge] we have discovered as a set of methods that let us know when we are justified in adding to or revising that list. Science advances by observation and inductive reasoning [...e.g.] evolution [...] ought to be held up as a model of how good science is done [p.007...as] descent with modification and adaptation result[ing] from the natural selection of heritable random variations [p.008...] the ultimate test in science is pragmatic. That a claim is put in scientific-sounding language does not make it scientific; for something to be recognized as a scientific fact, it cannot just talk the talk; it must walk the walk. That is to say, it has to make an empirical difference [p.010...] evolution is not a belief taken on faith, but the very opposite; it is a fundamental scientific discovery that has been empirically confirmed by the most rigorous of observational tests [p.012...] evolution is science done right, and it is one of the best examples to illustrate the nature of science [p.007...] the basic commitment of science is to the empirical testability of hypotheses. Competing hypotheses are tested by checking their observable consequences and assessing whether and how well they fare. Claims that are not susceptible to empirical confirmation or disconfirmation are not a part of science. A necessary step for any scientist, therefore, is to put forward clear statements that are amenable to testing [...] scientists do not usually just collect observations as one might collect rocks. A more important kind of reasoning is what is called the method of hypothesis or sometimes the inference to the best explanations [p.008...] rival hypothesized models are put forward and then compared for how well they explain observed patterns of data. The one that provides the best explanation of the phenomena is most likely to be true. Scientific testing is a ruthless process in which only those hypotheses that can adequately account for the data will survive -- rather like evolution itself [p.009]";

(click here,

http://www.bscs.org/library/EvolutionaryScience_Part1.pdf)

Rescher, N. (? ?) states:

[in "Studies in the Philosophy of Science"(2007)]

"there is indeed a line between science and pseudoscience -- and also between competent science and poor science. Yet, such boundaries cannot be drawn on substantive grounds. The line between science and pseudoscience cannot be defined in terms of content -- in terms of what sorts of theses or theories are maintained -- but only in terms of method, in terms of how these theories are substantiated. The inherent unpredictability of science change is the very hallmark of science. It sets real science apart from the closed structures of pseudoscience, whose methodological defect is precisely the 'elegance' with which everything falls much too neatly into place. And it means that no sort of idea, mechanism, or issue can be placed with reasonable assurance outside the realm of science a such. Science, as already noted, is simply too opportunistic to be fastidious about its mechanisms [p.127]";

(ISBN 3938793201)

Ridley, B.K. (? ?) states:

[in "On Science"(2001)]

“so what is science? I cannot do better than quote from Edward O. Wilson’s book Consilience […] ‘science […] is the organized, systematic enterprise that gathers knowledge about the world and condenses the knowledge into testable laws and principles. The diagnostic features of science that distinguish it from pseudo-science are first, repeatability […] second, economy [i.e. parsimony…per] simplest and most pleasing […aka] elegance’ […] third, mensuration [measurement…and] forth, heuristics [p.021]”;

(ISBN 0415249805)

Ross, F.C. (MS{biology} WSU) states:

[in "Cell Biology and Chemistry for Allied Health Science"(6th ed., 2003)]

"learning objectives [...] understand the difference between science, nonscience, and pseudoscience [...] recognize that pseudoscience appears to be scientific but can be used to mislead [...] the difference between a scientific approach to understanding our world and other approaches that a philosophically valid but not scientific [p.002...] a scientist is a health skeptic [...with] a strong ethic of honesty [...] a scientific approach to the world requires a certain way of thinking [...] scientists must separate opinions from statements of fact [...] great care is taken to to clearly distinguish fact from opinion [...e.g.] an an insistence on ample supporting evidence by numerous studies rather than easy acceptance of strongly stated opinions [...with science] conducted in the open in front of one's peers [p. 014...] pseudoscience (pseudo = false) takes on the flavor of science but is not supportable as valid or reliable. Often, the purpose of pseudoscience is to confuse or mislead [p.018...] science and nonscience can be distinguished by the kinds of laws and rules that are constructed to unify the body of knowledge [...but] if the rules [of a body of knowledge] are not testable or if no rules are used, it is not science [...] pseudoscience uses scientific appearances to mislead [...] science involves the continuous testing of rules and principles by the collection of new facts [...via] the scientific method -- observation, questioning, exploring resources, hypothesis formation, experimentation, theory formation, and law formation [p.026...] glossary [...] pseudoscience [...] the use of the appearance of science to mislead. The assertions made are not valid or reliable [p.027...] review questions [...] 4. How do you identify pseudoscience? [p.028...] short-answer questions [...] 3. List three ways you could distinguish between true science and pseudoscience [p.032...] comprehensive glossary [...] pseudoscience [...] the use of the appearance of science to mislead. The assertions made are not valid or reliable [p.390]";

(ISBN 0787299588)

Saariluoma, P. (? ?) states:

[in "Foundational Analysis: Presuppositions in Experimental Psychology"(1997)]

"science diverges from lay thinking or pseudoscience, such as astrology, in that scientific knowledge is more firmly founded [...per] its argumentative structures [...its] rational arguments [...] which binds all the individual pieces of knowledge together [...] it is the justification which makes the difference between scientific knowledge and pseudoscience or lay thinking [p.001...] testability became also the criterion and major border between science and pseudoscience [...and] falsification [...] in principle, if a theory does not have verifiable consequences, it should be abandoned and replaced [...] the hypothesis-testing logic is one of the major mechanisms in scientific progress [p.005...] the problem of demarcation between science and pseudoscience is easily resolvable [p.020...] pseudoscience is a stance which denies the value of testability as a criterion of truth [...] to pseudoscience it is all the same, whether a test exists or not. Pseudoscience is a mere belief and not knowledge [p.060...per] the differences between science and pseudoscience [...] the ultimate demarcation seems to be in the self-corrective mechanisms of scientific argumentation, such as testing, predicting, criticizing and theory building [...] the ultimate reason for the superiority of scientific knowledge is its argumentative character [...] the self-correcting mechanisms of science guarantee that scientific conceptions in the long run and as a whole are more truth-like than pseudoscientific ideas [p.145]";

(ISBN 0415145856)

Schopf, J.W. (PhD{paleobiology} Harvard) states:

[in “Evolution!: Facts and Fallacies”(1999)]

“pseudoscience makes claims that have the trappings of science and sound scientific but disallows proper tests of its claims which are based on inadequate evidence, false authority, or unsupported beliefs. The results can be humorous and entertaining, but sometimes are tragic and costly. For example, Americans spend billions of dollars each year on peudoscientific[sp.] remedies for health problems […] science, on the other hand, employs logic, critical thinking, and appropriate evidence; subjects all authority to scrutiny; and encourages testing of its claims [p.075…] glossary […] pseudoscience: theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific [p.147]”;

(ISBN 0126288607)

Schumm, S.A. (? ?) states:

[in "To Interpret the Earth: Ten Ways to Be Wrong"(1991)]

"pseudoscience and the scientific approach […] Bunge [1984…] describes both science and pseudoscience [p.032…] attitudes and activities of scientists […] admits own ignorance, hence need for more research […] finds own field difficult and full of holes […] advances by posing and solving new problems […] welcomes new hypotheses and methods […] proposes and tries new hypotheses […] attempts to find or apply laws […] cherishes the unity of science […] relies on logic […] uses mathematics […] gathers or uses data, particularly quantitative ones […] looks for counter-examples […] invents or applies objective checking procedures […] settles disputes by experiment or computation […] updates own information […] seeks critical comments from others [p.033]";

(ISBN 0521395070)

Shermer, M. (PhD ?) states:

[in “Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design”(2006)]

“[as regards the 1981 Arkansas trail] Judge Overton summarized why creation-science is not science by explaining what science is: 1) it is guided by natural law; 2) it has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; 3) it is testable against the empirical world; 4) its conclusions are tentative; 5) it is falsifiable [p.095…] ‘creation science […] fails to meet these essential characteristics […] knowledge does not require the imprimatur of legislation in order to become science’ [p.096…] demonstrating his understanding of the provisional nature of science, Judge Jones added that uncertainties in science do not translate into evidence for a nonscientific belief [p.104…quoting Judge Jones of the Dover ID trial] ‘Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to trust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions’ [p.105]”;

(ISBN 0805081216)

07. reference tools:

(click here, >http://thereisareasonabledifference6.blogspot.com/<)

Appendix K.00. [master menu] - Science and Pseudoscience: