May 25 2005
Prev/Next Posts: « Venus || Buzzkill »
Pseu-pseu-pseudio
Note added May 26, 2005: I submitted the following entry to the Skeptics’ Circle carnival of critical thinking, and good ol’ St. Nate accepted it for the Ninth Skeptics’ Circle, even though I was a couple of hours late on the deadline. Thanks Nate!
Note added June 1, 2005: and if that’s not enough, it’s also part of The Tangled Bank, a collection of science blogs. As usual, there are some really stellar entries there, so go take a look!
I was just over at RedStateRabble, and he mentions a creationist, calling him a “pseudoscientist”. I used to use this term, but I’ve stopped. I have a new one, but first I want to say why I switched.
I read a book talking about “framing”, the idea that phrasing things in a certain way can engender a desired response. It’s more than just using a name for something, it’s sculpting the name in such a way as to bring about an almost reflexive response in your listener.
An example: not to be contentious, but take abortion. People who are for it are “pro-choice”. People who are against it are “pro-life”. Where is the word “abortion”? Nowhere. Are people who are not “pro-life” then “anti-life”? Not necessarily, but the words certainly imply it. Are people who are not “pro-choice” then “anti-choice”? Again, not necessarily, but it sure sounds like it.
Framing.
I put up a web page last year about debating pseudoscientists. Incidentally, I still stick to what I said there. In it, I use the word “pseudoscientist” many times. A pseudoscientist is someone who is not a scientist and does not practice the scientific method, but who does make extraordinary claims on little or no evidence, and discusses these claims using a veneer of scientific-sounding language.
At least, that’s what skeptics think when they use the word. But I suspect that to the public, this sounds more like “someone-who-is-sorta-like-a-scientist”. To them, “pseudo” might mean “quasi”, and not “false”, as it should.
This framing of the situation isn’t aggressive enough, and may be misunderstood. We need a word that shows, correctly, that these pseudoscience jokers are not only not scientists, but are actively eroding away at science, trying to promote ideas that chip away at peoples’ ability to think critically. Creationists, Moon Hoax proponents, the Planet X crowd… you can think of a few on your own, I have no doubt.
So I came up with the word “antiscientists”. That’s a frame I think gets the point across. These twinkies aren’t sortof scientists, or even bad scientists. Science uses evidence, is testable, and if it fails the test, the idea is modified or dropped. When an antiscientist talks about their idea, they fabricate evidence, or wildly distort real evidence, or wildly misinterpret real evidence. When confronted with truth, they ignore it, or claim it to be false, or cast aspersions on the person who said it and then ignore it. That is not, that is precisely what science does not do, and is the antithesis of science.
They’re antiscientists, and what they do is antiscience.
That’s the term I’ve started using for these people. I like it. I long ago decided to walk the path of skepticism, but there are a lot of ways to walk it. Some are confrontational, some are argumentative, some are quiet, some are polite. I prefer to be polite. I enforce that rule on my discussion forum, and I practice it when I give lectures in public. It’s not for everyone, but it is for me.
I’ll note that it’s rare for me to use words that are aggressive when dealing with crank science. I usually use silly words, calling my opponents “twinkies” or “goofs”, instead of what someone like, say, Penn Jilette might call them (and in many if not most cases, he’s right on the money with his call).
So I like the word “antiscience”. I like the way it feels when I say it. It’s barbed, and to-the-point. I want it to sting a bit, but I don’t want it to be just name-calling like the examples above.
And to a skeptic like me, it has the ring of truth to it. Have no doubt: what these people are doing is, in fact, antiscience. And I call ‘em like I see ‘em.
I have to. I’m a pro scientist.
If Stephen Hawking was right, if an anti-scientist shakes the hand of a pro-scientist, they would instantly blow up.
Well, once upon a time, “proto-scientists� worked on both areas. Ancient astrologers and astrologists were basically the same people. But if the term anti-science would include anyone who actively soughs to undermine the validity of the scientific method, it would be broader, but not inaccurate. Pseudo-science sounds a more descriptive term to someone who makes a claim inside the realm of observable science that is not supported by evidence. Both seem to work. Not sure of what pro-science means in this context, but I do hope that people who don’t subscribe to the worldview of what is currently understood as skepticism are thrown in the realm of anti-science for this reason alone. Charlatanism should be denounced as such on every area of human realm, science being but one of them.
G. Lakoff?
When you are talking about “Anti-Scientists”, you mean the people that knowingly distort the truth to further a certain “agenda”. Or do you also include the people that are doing what Feynman would call “Cargo Cult Science”? I think the former group certainly deserves the title more than the later group, but I am undecided whether there is a benefit in making the distinction.
It’s funny that the ad that was served to me by “Google Ads” was referring me to an antiscience web site….. It was some web site saying that all UFOs and Aliens come from Venus and Mars. As the web site authors says, they are allways around us, and the reason we do not see them, is that they are etheral, not physical… I guess we need to send some probes with different photo equipment, then…..
I took a snapshot of the ad, if you want to see it…
Nice article. I may mention it on my blog and am seriously considering taking your advice and starting to refer to pseudoscientists as “antiscientists” as you suggest.
I dig your blog…I’ll have to add it to my list.
Haha! I love it! I’m going to have to start using that one myself. You really hit the nail on the head this time, Phil! Thanks!
Hi BA,
although I am all for making oneself as clear as possible (”framing more aggressively”), I think “antiscientist” is not the better word to replace “pseudoscientist”. I totally agree with you that creationists, PlanetXers, Moon Hoaxers, Astrologists etc essentially hate science because it shows they are wrong, but there is a subtle difference in the meaning of the two words which I think should be respected:
Someone who is anti-science simply thinks the scientific method has nothing to give us because it is basically an invalid tool to help us make important choices (never minding that the computers on which they write their rants are are based on just that science) - they do not pretend to be the “better” scientists and they do not flaunt “scientific” language. They just say science is junk and we should all do away with it (the word “Western” science often turns up in pejorative context here).
On the other hand a pseudo-scientist, does just that: Pretend to be the better scientist; pretend to respect and use science while not doing so at all. Of course he or she may be at heart an anti-scientist but that is beside the point - the fact that they parade a language and methods that may be mistaken for science by the badly informerd is the point, and that is why I think pseudo-scientist is the better word for them: “pseudein” is Greek for “to lie”, “to cheat” and “to falsely appear” and after all, that is what they are doing, innit?
It certainly doesn’t help that your usual badly-informed Joe Public thinks of the word as meaning “someone-kinda-like-a-scientist”, but hey - isn’t your job (or shall we call it a vocation?) about setting the facts straight
?
Many thanks, BTW, for your absolutely fabulous site, blog and bulletin board, all of which I read regularly!
I agree with the above. Nice pun on “pro scientist” by the way (pro as in “in favour of” and as in “professional”).
Since about half of all UFOs *are* Venus, I guess it makes sense that half of them come from Venus … sort of … Erm …
I like this change in prefix. We use the prefix term “pseudo” at work in its sense of “apparently similar to…” for a development and test machine that is actually on the production network but isn’t used in a production capacity. We call it, perhaps obviously, pseudo-production.
So calling the charlatans “anti-scientists” is good. Besides science has been called anti-Christian, not pseudo-Christian, for quite a while - the precedent has already been set.
jbs
very nice!
in some cases, a more accurate term may be “non-scientists”, and what they do is “non-science”.
to take it a step further, we could call them “nonsensists”, and what they do “nonsense”.
Michael Shermer in “Borderlands of Science” makes a taxonomy that includes: science, borderland science, pseudoscience, non-science and nonsense, the latter three, if meant to actually undermine existing science, can be called anti-science. I totally agree with your framing attempt here.
I would favour sticking with the old term. A pseudoscientist is someone who pretends to be a scientist, but isn’t, an antiscientist is someone who is , in one way or another, openly against science.
Of course I see that creationists, Apollo Hoax Proponents, Planet Xers etc. may at their hearts hate science and the scientific method (after all, it shows them wrong in so many ways), but there is a difference between condemning science openly (anti-science) and trying to undermine it by imitation (pseudo-science) in order to trick the badly informed. After all “pseudo-” comes from the Greek “pseudein” which means “to lie”, to cheat”, “to falsely appear”.
All right, the difference may be subtle, and misunderstanding the word “pseudo-scientist” as “kinda-lika-a-scientist” may be difficult for many people- but hey, isn’t your vocation about setting the facts straight :-)?
Hmmmmm, does this mean we can switch over to calling someone anti-science instead of a pseudoscientist on BABB?
I agree with BA, in choosing to call them antiscientists. In fact, I’ve been using that term for two years
However, all of this verbosity over which is more “correct” is an argument of semantics. We are all showing are geeky colors.
I just TOTALLY agree with jpbork about differences in “contra” and “pretend”…
Congrats either way!!
I agree that most Americans seem to have trouble with modifiers. Notice the devious way in which advertisers use the word “virtually”: “Our cleanser leaves your dishes VIRTUALLY spot-free!” or “Our pills leave you
VIRTUALLY pain-free!” Most people take that to me “REALLY spot-free” or
“REALLY pain-free”, rather than “well, PRETTY MUCH spot free” or “FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES pain-free.
I don’t know. Anti-science lacks “punch”. What about shamcience, shamtific, shamstist, or something like that. At least it doesn’t have “science” on it.
Since “pseudoscience” is just a fancy word meaning “fake science”, I suppose just saying “fake science” would do the trick.
I think y’all might be missing an important point I am trying to make: it’s not just that these guys are faking it; they are actively hurting science by promoting an uncritical thought process. That’s why I want to use the term “anti-science”. It conveys the idea that these guys are eroding away at the ability of people to understand the real world.
Point and game to Dr. Plait.
This may seem a bit silly, but I had always assumed that pseudo did in fact mean “sort of like”. I didn’t know it meant “false”:).
Mike Worth Says:
“in some cases, a more accurate term may be “non-scientistsâ€?, and what they do is “non-scienceâ€?.
to take it a step further, we could call them “nonsensistsâ€?, and what they do “nonsenseâ€?. ”
ahahahaha! I love this:). Nonsensists:). Great idea.
Hmmm…
“Science uses evidence, is testable, and if it fails the test, the idea is modified or dropped. When an antiscientist talks about their idea, they fabricate evidence, or wildly distort real evidence, or wildly misinterpret real evidence. When confronted with truth, they ignore it, or claim it to be false, or cast aspersions on the person who said it and then ignore it.”
So when Luis Alvarez proposed that an asteroid was responsible for the K-T extinction occurred, and the scientific community dismissed his theory out of hand, who were the antiscientists?
I’m sure the Catholic church would have called Galileo a “pseudoscientist” back in the day. Does labeling him invalidate his theories?
The problem with trying to come up with a term to distance “us” from “them” is that using that word hobbles your argument. As soon as you use the term “pseudoscientist,” those you are trying to debate stop listening, and the people nodding don’t need convincing.
How about referring to them as, say, “People” and their ideas as “theories that are demonstrably false”?
I respectfully suggest that true scientists would stick to the facts and rely a little less on name-calling.
Philo
Philo, you do raise several interesting points.
Remember, though, that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Once the crater of the K-T impact was found, the scientific community at large very rapidly accepted the idea. The problem had been that, although the idea was sound and there was all this iridium enrichment turning up at the K-T boundary, there was no impactor. The crater was the clinching piece of evidence that turned things around.
Also, as I understand it, the term “scientist” did not exist in the seventeenth century. I believe it was coined some time around the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century. So they wouldn’t have called Galileo a pseudoscientist.
I think you’ve missed the fact that most scientists are sticklers for detail, and feel the need to distinguish themselves from those people who simply use lots of sciency-sounding jargon. To the layperson, there is no immediately-apparent difference, so scientists have labelled and categorised those who talk nonsense to separate them from those who deal in verified or verifiable theories and ideas. That’s my opinion, and all it can ever be is an opinion, as the experiment required to verify this idea is unethical.
I had a discussion with a friend about your article this weekend. The problem with calling them “anti-science” is that they will, of course, deny it without a second thought. They go out of their way to pretend that they are doing science. They use the respectability of science to confer fake legitimacy on their own pet projects.
The reason you won’t be able to describe them as anti-science is because the prefix “anti” is ambiguous. It can mean either “the opposite of” or “opposed to”. You mean to label them as the former: they do the opposite of science. But people will think you mean “opposed to science”, which they aren’t, at least not consciously. Your average hardcore anti-scientist really that they are doing science, and will argue loudly that they can’t possibly be doing something anti-scientific when they are all for science.
I’d like to propose an alternative word for you considering: UNscience. The people who do it are unscientists. This has all the advantages of the original word without the ambiguity, since “un” clearly means “opposite”. People will understand what you mean without any explanation required. It also sounds kind of cool, like it’s a word and not a word at the same time.
“Unscience” (my spellchecker suggest that I might mean “ensconceâ€?:-) will put us all on the spaceship called bad grammar and the Bad Astronomer will be known as the Bad Grammar Guy.
No it is unpossible or at least inlikely that people will accept that expression.
I wanted to address this:
“An example: not to be contentious, but take abortion. People who are for it are “pro-choiceâ€?. People who are against it are “pro-lifeâ€?. Where is the word “abortionâ€?? Nowhere. Are people who are not “pro-lifeâ€? then “anti-lifeâ€?? Not necessarily, but the words certainly imply it. Are people who are not “pro-choiceâ€? then “anti-choiceâ€?? Again, not necessarily, but it sure sounds like it.”
Yes, “pro-life” is a political term. The insinuation is that anyone not pro-life is pro-death. Pro-choice is a correct term because the issue isn’t only about abortion. It’s about a woman’s right to control what happens to her body and her reproduction. It’s about choosing when to bear children as much as it is her right to choose an abortion if she thinks that’s necessary. It’s also about a woman’s right to use birth control, which is a big issue now with pharmacists and their “conscience clauses” - they refuse to fill birth control prescriptions because it’s against their moral beliefs. “Pro-abortion” would be a very limited view of what being pro-choice is really all about.
I like the idea of using “antiscientist” or “non-scientist”. Those terms get the point across very well. I know that pseudoscientist in a nutshell means “quack”, but I agree that some in the general public might think they are “sort of” scientists. They are nothing of the kind.
Trish Wilson, you have just aptly demonstrated the Bad Astronomer’s point about the terminology used. Pro-Choice is a framing word - it frames the issue to reflect a particular perspective, namely that a woman’s right to choose in reproductive issues is more important than any individual decision. But Pro-Life is every bit a framing issue, and every bit as legitimate. The argument there is about the definition of the beginning of life. Very few Pro-Choice supporters would extend that choice to post-birth abortions (i.e. infanticide). That would be murder. Well, to the Pro-Life crowd, abortion is murder, too. Thus it is every bit as valid to argue that women don’t have the right to murder their babies before they’re born any more than after they are born.
Note that I am not defending either argument here. I am explaining both. Whether or not you agree with either premise, it does no good to dismiss either as merely a “political term”. Yes they are political terms - framing terms. And as long as both sides spend their capital worrying about their own framing but ignoring the other, there will never be a consensus reached or a lessening of tensions. Both sides are talking at cross purposes, neither addressing the foundation of the other’s arguments.
And this isn’t the forum to argue those foundations.
Philo, you are correct that sometimes mainstream scientists are every bit as dismissive of real science arguments and theories as of anti-/pseudo-/fake-science. Sometimes they go so far as accusing the new ideas of being pseudoscience.
It is the challenge of scientists (and science educators) to emphasize the difference between fringe science (and new ideas, revolutionary discoveries, etc) and pseudoscience (non-scientific claims masked in scientific terms).
The BA has a valid point, but I don’t know that I fully agree. As with any terminology, the onus is on the listener/reader to ask for clarity if the term is not explicit. However, the onus is on the presenter to explain terms they use that might be confusing or ambiguous. With the term pseudoscience, the audience may hear “sort of like science” rather than “the opposite of science”. However, the fact that there is a distinction being made (using a different term) sets pseudoscience off from science, at least enough to convey to the audience that the word means “not science”.
But yes, pseudoscience is detrimental because it erodes critical thought processes. And it is very important that the skeptics and pro-science crowd emphasize this as why we are so opposed to the fake stuff. We’re not just being grumpy and obstinate.
Irishman, there are some additional things that you may find interesting:
The kind of words that people use to convey ideas have a huge impact on the way others view those ideas. Most opinion polls are able to return whatever result the sponsor desires, because they set up a context with a series of questions prior to the critical ones that return the data that will be reported. For instance, if you wanted peoples’ opinions on the place of science in society, you could start with questions about issues that portrayed science in a negative light (e.g. in the UK this could be about GM crops for food) or a positive one (e.g. the contributions of medical science to the wellbeing of the popultaion at large). Since most people wish to appear to be rational, reasonable and moral, the answers they give to the “scene-setting” questions will influence the answers they give to the questions where you will actually report the answers.
So, the issue of framing can be a very important one in terms of the kind of feelings that people will develop towards an issue.
Having said all that, BA, you may have missed a point that could be relevant. The term “antiscientist”, while fully expressing the way many of us probably feel about the perpetuators of lax thinking, sounds quite negative. If you are perceived to be using such a negative term to refer to the other side of a debate, that could backfire: the audience may react against you for your use of negative terms when referring to the person rather than the point they make.
I think.
Russell Glasser
“They use the respectability of science to confer fake legitimacy on their own pet projects.”
This looks a very good description actually. An attempt to give the legitimacy of science to unscientific claims is, on itself, unscientific.
For example, the debate about the design (and, perhaps most importantly, purpose) of nature or lack thereof is way outside the realm of science and belongs to philosophy. As such, to claim to have scientific proofs about this matter is an unscientific claim.
There’s no objective standard to know how a designed or random universe should look like, or to investigate if it has a purpose. Individuals will tend to tailor standards to fit their predispositions, as usual.
It seems to me that anti-science is broad term that includes the pseudo-scientists in questions as well as other groups. I’m not even sure of what anti-science would even mean in the light of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
If, say, Copernicus had no scientific credibility given what was known at that time, were his contemporaries correct to dismiss his heliocentric ideas? If he couldn’t prove with the means available, but was right in the end, was either side anti-science?
I think you hit the nail on the head, especialy with this insight: “But I suspect that to the public, this sounds more like “someone-who-is-sorta-like-a-scientistâ€?. To them, “pseudoâ€? might mean “quasiâ€?, and not “falseâ€?, as it should.”
I think in many minds out there in the general public, the prefix “pseudoâ€? is taken to mean “sort of”.
Ponder this term
PsuedoAntiScientific = People trying to be antiscientific but just can’t seem to suceed. Not quite an antiscientist, an antiscientific-apprentice. Ok, I think I had too much sugar, I’ll shut up now…
I like “contrascience” because “anti-science” just begs the one so called to start up about how passionately they love science, the search for truth, etc. “Contrascience” is aggressive without being accusatory. Plus, it gives you an opportunity to discuss how your opponents methods and reasoning are contrary to the scientific method.
Fraud? Liar? Ignorant? Antiscientist doesn’t say enough.