PSEUDOSCIENCE!                             1997 William J. Beaty

I notice that many researchers seem to define "pseudoscience" as meaning
"things that reputable scientists know are not true."  UFOs are said to be
pseudoscience, as are psychic phenomena, ball lightning, Yeti, face on
Mars, etc.  But I was under the impression that "pseudoscience" really
meant something closer to this: "using the trappings and jargon of science
but not DOING science."  Which definition is proper?

For example, Parapsychology certainly is a DOING of science, yet by the
first definition it is pseudoscience, since reputable scientists know that
its subject matter can't be real.  People who search for antigravity
effects, cold fusion, relativity violations, etc., are regularly accused
of pursuing pseudoscience.  But what if their scientific practices are
totally sound, and only their subject areas are abhorrant?  If I do a cold
fusion experiment and fail, this means that I did "science?"  And if I
instead obtain a definite excess heat output, then it must have been
"pseudoscience"?  I don't accept this. 

I think the term "pseudoscience" is commonly being used to "demonize" 
subject areas which have dared violate the boundaries of scientific
consensus.  Yes, quack medical scams which hide behind scientific-sounding
jargon should be called pseudoscience.  But speculation about time travel
is not pseudoscience, it is *speculation.* Experimental results which go
against scientific consensus do not indicate pseudoscience, they indicate
either the presence of experimenter errors, or the presence of new,
unexpected discoveries.  Unconventional interpretations of solid evidence
do not indicate pseudoscience, they indicate an unconventional worldview. 

However, it *sounds* much better if I claim to hate "pseudoscience",
rather than to say these:

  - I'm disgusted by speculation

  - I hate researchers with unconventional worldviews

  - I despise any physics concepts which stray from a strictly
       conservative interpretation. 

  - I resist new ideas if they imply that significant parts of my
      present knowledge could be wrong.

It feels good to battle ignorance, but I suspect that the above statements
are often closer to the truth. 

If "pseudoscience" is used as a dirty word to label abhorrant ideas, well,
two can play that game.  What's a good term for "hiding a personal
intolerance for speculative ideas behind a false battle against
ignorance?"  How about this:

     Pseudo(^2)science?    ;)

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-762-3818   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://amasci.com/
Seattle, WA 98117  billbeskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page