Some people, especially in this part of the world, are so obsessed with science that they use it for everything they do including pushing their views through (pseudo) 'scientific' explanations. Some do it out of respect and trust too!  Others do it to attract people and give strength to their weak arguments. People are trying to give their ideas, views, opinions, agendas a scientific twist  and as a result , pseudo-science is developing parallel  to the real science here in India.

The big difference between science and pseudo-science is a difference in approach. While a pseudo-science is set up to look for evidence that supports its claims, a science is set up to challenge its claims and look for evidence that might prove it false. In other words, pseudo-science seeks confirmations and science seeks falsifications (3). Scientific claims are falsifiable -- that is, they are claims where you could set out what observable outcomes would be impossible if the claim were true -- while pseudo-scientific claims fit with any imaginable set of observable outcomes. What this means is that you could do a test that shows a scientific claim to be false, but no conceivable test could show a pseudo-scientific claim to be false. Sciences are testable, pseudo-sciences are not.
The important difference seems to be in which approach gives better logical justification for knowledge claims. A pseudo-science may make you feel like you've got a good picture of how the world works, but you could well be wrong about it. If a scientific picture of the world is wrong, that hard-headed scientific attitude means the chances are good that we'll find out we're wrong and switch to a different picture. Science discards it if some idea or theory was found wrong. The scientific attitude is aimed at locating and removing the false claims -- something that doesn't happen in pseudo-sciences.

The techniques used to generate such ideas and answers are similar to those known to all science students, and used by some dishonest scientists. Instead of starting with the facts and reaching a conclusion, they take a conclusion and try to find facts to support it. Of course, sometimes there are no facts, so they have to 'invent' them.

Also real science  is a very slow process because, scientists have to prove their work is right all the way to the last bit unlike people who deal with irrationality and need not provide evidence for any of their silly beliefs and logic. They just go ahead merrily preaching their views in the name of science in attractive ways as if they are absolute truths in much less time and unfortunately they stick with people.

I came across some strange things several times in the media especially on the internet people cleverly pushing their fixed beliefs and thoughts with the aid of outside evidence of  "scientific research data" and "references". Some cherry pick only the data that suits their arguments without showing the full picture and propagate false ideas (2).  They sometimes "twist the data" to provide proof to their beliefs! Some do it for commercial purposes too. They smartly and selectively give references to the scientific explanations and don't give details how their beliefs and ideas can be supported by the scientific data. If we are not careful, even people like us who are trained in science might fall victims to these pseudo-science (or anti-science) theories.  I can imagine how the man on the street without any scientific base can easily fall pray to this false propaganda in the name of science. I will give an example. One of my friends read somewhere about the health benefits of magnetic belts. So she started wearing them on her arms. She even showed me the article in which it was argued that the magnetic waves from the arm band traveled through the human body and reached the vital parts of the body -especially the brain - and gave relief from certain ailments and with full scientific evidence and references. If we read the article we would think all that is true.
But I watched a programme on Discovery science in which it was shown (with experiments conducted before my own eyes) that these magnetic waves from the arm belts were so weak, they couldn't even penetrate  human skin leave alone having health benefits or curing the diseases! Had I not seen the programme on Discovery Science, even I would have believed what the article my friend showed me said! It was so cleverly written with all the scientific data fully supporting the magnetic wave cure! One should be very alert to these "full-proof pseudo-science stories".

Did my friend get any health benefits because of wearing magnetic belts? The moment you came across the  word 'pseudo-science' in my article, you might have guessed that the answer would be a 'no'! Yes, your guessing is right - it is a big NO!

Several people say- with several conflicting reports on scientific research they come into contact everyday through media, they will be in a state of confusion and don't know which ones to believe and  which ones to ignore. "What is the way out?" - they ask me.

Yes, I agree, there is a chance of vested interests "influencing" the research outcomes by manipulating the data. So we get conflicting data from different sources - some true ones and some manipulated ones confusing the people more.

Moreover, some researchers don't take all the factors into account while conducting studies. Resolution in the form of reasoning gives "clarity" to science as the field demands clarity. In order to get it you have to consider and take into account several things that might effect the result of an experiment. Otherwise the results of scientific research becomes cloudy. An example here will help understand how this happens. I read an article in one prestigious science journal about research on lie detection which showed how forensic scientists should go about detecting lies. One of the important points mentioned there was on "establishing eye contact". The paper says if a person is unable to look directly into the eyes of an investigation officer, it suggests that the person is lying and is hiding something therefore can be considered as "suspect". I pointed out that the research was flawed as it was not fine-tuned to all the possible truths. I told the researchers - in my part of the world  the culture tells women not to look directly into the eyes of men who are strangers as it is considered as bad manners. So if we go to some other part of the world and there if we are being investigated for some crime we haven't committed, and our minds that are conditioned by our cultures don't allow us to look directly into the eyes of a male investigating officer, does that mean we are lying and therefore can be treated as suspects? In the research work done by the forensic scientists the aspect of cultural conditioning of the mind was not taken into account. Therefore the work is not of "high resolution quality" and flawed. That is why peer - reviewing of scientific research is important in pointing out these flaws. It acts as high resolution instrument where all the aspects of your work will be put under a microscope, details will be thoroughly searched  - especially for the flaws, tells you whether you are correct or not, whether you followed all the rules or not and ask you to correct yourself if your work is flawed. Here the criticism is based on facts and rules. Therefore in science you should have clarity (of high quality) of what you are doing. In order to get it your thoughts must be tuned to high resolution to get all the details correctly.

And when you take one or two aspects to study, their influence on something in lab conditions, the results cannot be treated as full proof as they might vary in natural conditions where several things might influence each aspect.  Therefore the evidence obtained in  lab conditions is incomplete because the complexity of different factors governing a phenomenon is  ignored here! In such cases, the results will not show the full picture and therefore become faulty! Testing under various natural conditions, therefore, is very important in scientific research.

And some vested interests who have completely closed minds propagate anti-science theories. They fear if science becomes popular, they will lose their jobs. Also a scientifically educated mind will never come under the influence of people who try to hoodwink people in the name of beliefs, baseless theories and superstitions. Rejection of evolutionary theory is one such thing (ref 1) . There is a mission to try to completely remove scientific theories like Evolution from school curricula altogether! We will have to be careful in identifying the dramas played by these anti-science institutions.

When asked the question, "What is the most widely accepted pseudo-science?" , several scientists said these interesting things in a survey:

*Folk medicine of various sorts. The most widely accepted class of pseudo-scientific beliefs would probably be alternative "medicine" of all sorts. Homeopathy,  "energy healing" or crystals etc.

*The most accepted single pseudo-scientific belief would probably be astrology.

*Psychology, evolutionary psychology, social theories, etc. any "science" that doesn't follow the scientific method. Any science with excessive use of probabilities instead of fundamental principles and laws. Psychiatry, sociology, women's studies, all valid philosophical subjects but not science. [ Science is when we have a defined hypothesis and a generally accepted method (experiment) to invalidate it. We can never fully validate a hypothesis because many explanations can be offered for the same phenomenon but we can set up a test so as to exclude an explanation.]

*In the USA " creation science " and ID must be the largest pseudosciences. Followed closely by both secular creationism and alternative medicine. The former is a social constructionist concept held in sociology, cultural anthropology and some of psychology. Some in sociology and cultural anthropology do not even hide their pseudo scientific tendencies and call for the abolition of the scientific method in their disciplines.

*Nutritional supplements and dieting products.

* 'Science' explaining traditional and cultural rituals.

So how can we identify the pseudo-stuff?
Intellectuals don't believe everything they read or hear. They don't accept the face value of a theory! They give a thorough thought to everything that comes to their notice using logic, rationale and reasoning power. They take each individual case and study it analysing each and every point given as reference or proof and how they relate to the case using their grey matter and try to find out if there is any truth in it or not. Just believing in any scientific theory is just a description about you. It’s not an account of how you reason. Studying, understanding the data, neutrally and critically thinking about what you come across, tallying it with natural laws, then accepting what makes sense is what makes you a real person of science.

If common people cannot understand scientific theories, they can take the help of experts who can do this for them - like my sister does - she always consults me whenever she comes in contact with such stories.  An intelligent person after listening to or reading interesting stories, doesn't come under their influence immediately. S/he gives it a thorough thought . S/he dissects it taking each and every point into consideration, finds out the truth and falseness aspects of them using  his/her analytical abilities. Then depending on the evaluation, s/he decides whether to accept the stories or reject them. Following the routes that are taken by intellectuals is the only way to protect yourself from not  falling into the traps laid by the pseudo-science promoters!

The very first thing to do is to check the source of a claim. Was it published? If it was, where? If it’s in a news article, does the article give a citation to a reputable journal? Then it’s probably reasonable to accept it - at least for your purposes…you’ll likely need more than a lay person’s education to distinguish between scientific articles after they’re published.                                  Why a journal? Scientific journals are peer-reviewed, a process based on the simple idea that only experts are qualified to evaluate the work of other experts. Peer review is a pretty high standard, though it can’t always detect deliberate deception. Deception that makes it through peer review can often be identified when other researchers try to replicate or build upon the results of a scientist’s published work.  Therefore,  it is not easy to fool experts on the subject. Books are tricky, because you can’t tell which are peer reviewed and which aren’t. Like blogs, people can publish anything they want in a non-peer-reviewed book. Be very, very skeptical when someone cites a book as their source for a finding.

Journalists, even some who specialize in science reporting, get things wrong much more frequently than you might think. So if a news source reports a science finding that you are really interested in, it can be worth checking the journal article they’re basing the report on. Or, alternatively, read several different news reports about the same story. See if they differ, and how. Because these days even the journalists are not neutral. They are sometimes associated with religious groups, commercial organizations, political parties, and several other vested interests. Therefore they might try to 'influence' people with pseudo-scientific stories.

Science is based on the philosophy that there are natural explanations for natural phenomena. Any non-natural explanations ( magic, “energy”, ghosts, anything that violates the laws of physics) are by definition non-scientific.

Personal experiences don’t count for the purposes of scientific research. People are flawed, however well-intentioned. Their observations of the world can be distorted by incomplete information and their personal biases. A single person’s testimony isn’t useful for scientific knowledge, which requires reproducibility. If people claim that they have done 'research and studies' on the products they are promoting or selling, ask them whether they have published their work in peer reviewed journals and if they have,  to give references to their papers. Then, read them, ask tough questions to identify the facts and differentiate them from half-truths.

Scientific discoveries are progressive, building upon a history of tested and accepted or rejected ideas and experiments. Generally, the most recent discoveries are the most useful because of this process. With pseudoscience, however, the opposite is true: the oldest findings are considered the most valuable, and “lost” knowledge is revered more than research published yesterday.  Ancient knowledge was built on the conditions and information processing available then which was very limited both in terms of quantity and quality. It was untested too. Therefore, it need not be correct always.

Keeping these things in mind would definitely help you in identifying real science form pseudo-science. "Cautious approach" is better than getting deceived or cheated by 'pseudo-scientists'.

Pseudo-science goes to places where science refuses to tread - Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa

Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance - G.B. Shaw

Ref 1 : http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/21/tennessee-bill-te...

Ref 2 : http://www.vnews.com/news/townbytown/strafford/8556736-95/letter-ps...

3. http://scientopia.org/blogs/ethicsandscience/2006/12/02/has-the-dem...

My art work based on the theme of this article:

Science, pseudo-science and anti-science

Copyright 2012 Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.

Dr. Challa's poem on pseudo-science:

All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.