“If you aren’t trying to get to the truth, you aren’t really inquiring”
-S. Haack [1]
A case of sour grapes
We live in a world of science. Because of its high regard as a source of truth about the world, the concept of ‘science’ is often abused by scoundrels [2] and its appearance is hijacked. Presenting an alternate viewpoint as a scientific theory is commonly used in order to elevate some unorthodox idea to a level to compete with real scientific ideas [3]. If your idea at least sounds scientific, you’ve got it made. At least, in the public eye.
To make a case for a truth about the world without regards to evidence, logic or argument is called pseudoinquiry or sham reasoning/inquiry [4]. Sham inquiry gives the impression of scientific inquiry but lacks substance and rigor. It’s hard to distinguish genuine science from false science (pseudoscience). Pseudoscientific ideas are elaborate, encompass lots of details, and use technical terminology. A layman would be hard pressed to understand it, just like real science. (Pick up Nature and try to read one of the research reports.)
Many nonscientists want desperately to make a breakthrough, be endowed as an expert and be associated with the elite community of respected scientists. The scientific community does not usually respond warmly to a fringe theory. When scorned by the elite community, the theorist may come down with a bad case of “sour grapes” and seek other outlets to distribute their work because they are convinced of its great importance.
They believe they are advancing knowledge by the act of challenging orthodoxy. One can evade the demands and harsh critiques that authentic scientists have to face by appealing to a small circle of supporters . Instead of true scientific accolades, the “maverick” can gain rewards thorough media attention and respect from a small group of ardent admirers.
Many characteristics consistently appear in false science and can be used as a general guide for spotting sham inquiry:
- Unorthodox and proud of it
- Fancy jargon and complexity
- Irrefutable
- Immutable and Closed to Criticism
- Low quality of evidence
- Using subterfuge to build a case
I’ll examine what it means to play pretend science. And, show you examples of how they do it: Cryptozoology and Ghost Hunting. I found unorthodox professionals elbowing in on good science.
And, I found the maverick scientist’s iconic example of how science is wrong.
—————-
[1] Haack, S. (1995). “Concern for Truth and Why it Matters”. The Flight from Science and Reason (1996). P. R. Gross, N. Levitt, M.W. Lewis, New York Academy of Sciences. p. 58.
[2] Levitt, N. (1999). Prometheus Bedeviled, Rutgers Univ Press. p. 1
[3] Toumey, C. (1996). Conjuring Science, Rutgers Univ Press. p. 93
[4] Haack, p. 58.