Pseudoscience, Authority, and Definitions

When people call something a pseudoscience, the meaning depends on who is making the claim. The definition is vague and malleable like a putty you can squish between your toes and track onto the carpet. It is used to provoke negative emotions, often by those who are attempting to protect consensus in the secular science industry from scrutiny.

Ironically, Wickedpedia defines and discusses pseudoscience, and its material can be used to define evolution as a pseudoscience. Further, pseudoscience supposedly lacks falsifiability — a frequent problem in evolutionary research.

Phrenological skull, WikiComm / Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Phrenology was, to state it simply, the study of the brain and skull to determine behavior. It was also considered for use in criminology. Phrenology is listed as a pseudoscience, but was it really that or simply discredited by better science? Asking for a friend.

Several fields considered pseudosciences (astrology, f'rinstance) are propped up by adherents as actual sciences. Some areas that had been written off are gaining credibility, but are still on many pseudoscience lists. Those lists also include biblical creation science and the Intelligent Design movement.

Is there a final arbiter? One jasper puts himself on that throne along with skeptics. Sure, they try to debunk pseudosciences, but they have biases. Their biggest problem is that they presuppose materialism, so they think the Creator does not exist. That means even if evidence and processes point to something they dislike, it will be rejected out of hand!

Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci has carved part of his career out of efforts to identify pseudoscience and separate it from virtuous science. . . . 

He thinks that any suggestion that our minds are not merely what our brains do is “antiscientific” and that there is no free will. So it’s worth noting that, in a recent article at Skeptical Inquirer, he shows that isolating pseudoscience from virtuous science is not so easy after all:

You can read the entire article at "What Is Pseudoscience? A Philosopher Tries To Sort It Out." Note: It is not a creation science site. Be sure to come back for a companion article!

Regular readers have seen that scientists have the same passions and greed as us reg'lar folks. In the secular science industry, the atheistic majority do not have a consistent moral foundation. When they cheat and fudge data, they are being consistent with their worldview; doing so may get them money and prestige to help them to survive better.

Some not only use the scientific principle of Making Things Up™, but even use artificial intelligence to do it for them. Many non-human papers are floating around the system. In a debate I heard recently, one atheist smugly asserted that he only reads peer-reviewed material. (I have encountered a few like this myself.) If that is true, then he has held many polished turds instead of valid scientific material.

Also, he was implying that creationists never publish in peer-reviewed journals, which is false. When it comes to origin science and the Genesis Flood, there are rigorous standards in biblical creation science journals because secular journals blackball creation science material.

Secular scientists are aware of some of the problems creationists discuss. To consider one, use a popular phrase: "Follow the money." Some people may rightly recollect when doctors advertised cigarettes and said tobacco did not cause ill effects, but tobacco companies were slapped down for that rubbish. While it may seem like a fallacy, it doesn't hurt to look more closely at research that is sponsored by those who stand to benefit. One indication of junk science is when researchers are sponsored to make something look good. There are other signals of fake science, of course.

Historically, interest and investment in science — and reliance on it — has waxed and waned. It has increased when people see an actual benefit. But if, over time, “studies show” mainly amounts to a publicity campaign for some project approved by powerful interests, with no practical benefits to recommend it, we can expect public trust to decline further. And blaming the public for not believing what’s not believable is hardly a useful response.

This short article, also that non-creationist site, is worth your attention. To read it all, click on "How Science Can Slowly Morph Into Junk. Or not." You'll thank me later.