Detecting Pseudo-Science


See also this internet classic.


  1. A guest post at Bart's blog relates, and reminds me that the first point on this list is a little trickier than simple "willingness to change with evidence". Actually - for good reason - bodies of scientific knowledge are quite resistant to change in the short-term. They're made up of webs of interconnected concepts; hence why paradigm shifts are hard to come by.

    Though to qualify that: paradigm shifts never invert previous scientific knowledge - or rather, they can invert the way science views something fundamental about the structure of reality (Newton vs Einstein) but the actual physical predictions won't be largely different between paradigms.

  2. Lewandowsky LOG12 = pseudo science..?

    Methodology not as stated (LOG12), conclusions of diverse audience and wide readership unsupported by any evidence..

    When ask for proof of this claim, say I had the url, but lost it.. (mere incompetence)

    Then it transpires that this must be a lie (or really really bad incompetence) as the survey was not posted (even SkS colleagues confirmed this, as does wayback evidence)

    Ignore people reporting error, then attack then in science papers labeling them with psychological defects?
    all this before the 1st paper gets published, and when it does, the error remains uncorrected.

    All Lew has do do is answer a simple question.

    Did you publish your survey (as claimed in LOG12|) at Skeptical Science and to Prove IT.

  3. Also I think our community might come up with a different list based on the characteristics of the pseudoscience we are typically presented with. This one appears to come from the life and health sciences. But there is certainly a lot of overlap.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.