I think in many minds out there in the general public, the prefix “pseudoâ€? is taken to mean “sort of”.

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?

“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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

No it is unpossible or at least inlikely that people will accept that expression.

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.

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.

“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

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.

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.

However, all of this verbosity over which is more “correct” is an argument of semantics. We are all showing are geeky colors.

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 ?