Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The origins of pseudosciences, their distinction from real sciences, and provides examples and criteria for identifying pseudosciences. It also discusses the self-correcting aspect of sciences, the difference between belief and research fields, and the role of evidence in each. various physical anomalies, unproven medical procedures, and unproven psychological theories considered doubtful by scientists.
Typology: Lecture notes
1 / 50
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Barry L. Beyerstein
Department of Psychology Simon Fraser University
Prepared for
The Centre for Curriculum and Professional Development
Victoria, B.C., Canada
July, 1995 Revised, October, 1996
Knowledge consists in understanding the evidence that establishes the fact, not in the belief that it is a fact.
Charles T. Spraling
The prestige and influence of science in this century is so great that very few fields outside of religion or the arts wish to be seen as overtly unscientific. As a result, many endeavors that lack the essential characteristics of a science have begun to masquerade as one in order to enhance their economic, social, and political status. While these pseudosciences are at pains to resemble genuine sciences on the surface, closer examination of their contents, methods, and attitudes reveals them to be mere parodies. The roots of most pseudosciences are traceable to ancient magical beliefs, but their devotees typically play this down as they adopt the outward appearance of scientific rigor. Analysis of the perspectives and practices of these scientific poseurs is likely to expose a mystical worldview that has merely been restated in scientific- sounding jargon. Pseudosciences are characterized by non-reproducible findings that are allegedly mediated by forces unmeasurable by conventional scientific methods. Critics’ failures to validate these claims are frequently dismissed with the self-serving assertion that the results are obtainable only by those who share the pseudoscientist’s beliefs and arcane skills. Before considering some examples and criteria for distinguishing pseudosciences from real sciences, a few definitions are in order.
Science is systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation. Thus, it deals only with phenomena that can be examined empirically. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not a grab-bag of immutable facts, but rather a way of asking questions and evaluating various possible answers. The objective is to describe the makeup of the physical universe and the underlying principles that govern activities therein. In the process, scientists attempt to agree upon a limited number of constituents that combine to produce the complexity the natural domain and to derive a set of laws that describe the interactions among those components.
Scientific observations are carried out under controlled conditions in order to minimize the impact of researchers’ biases and expectations as well as random influences from the environment. Public accessibility of methods and findings, and skeptical evaluation of results, are paramount requirements in the scientific community. Single experiments practically never settle an important scientific debate—it is the preponderance of evidence among researchers in
BOX 1. KINDS OF SCIENTIFIC LAWS, EMPIRICAL DATA, AND WELL-ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES VIOLATED BY PARANORMAL OR PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC CLAIMS:
Many detractors who claim to dislike science turn out, upon closer examination, to be opposed instead (and often quite reasonably) to uses of particular technologies that are harmful to people or the environment. While scientists cannot always foresee or control the potential applications of the knowledge they produce, neither have they always been as vigilant or vocal as they ought to have been in opposing certain harmful or exploitative applications of their fundamental insights.
Quite a few pseudosciences are really pseudotechnologies; i.e., commercial ventures promoted by hucksters who mislead consumers into thinking that their products are sound applications of scientific knowledge. Often the research these promoters cite is valid in itself,
(^1) These three laws, which, among other things, rule out perpetual motion machines and reverse causality (which would have the case if precognition were true, for instance), were once humorously summarized by an anonymous wag as:
but its relevance to the hawker’s wares is misrepresented in order to overcome buyer resistance. Generally speaking, any supporting “research” done by these distributors or their associates will be found to be seriously flawed. Mountebanks are especially fond of claiming that their products are derived from whatever ranks as the most prestigious scientific field of the day. The hope, of course, is that this unearned affiliation will allay the customer’s skepticism. This kind of soothing is often necessary because the sales patter is likely to contain extravagant promises which no ethical expert would make—claims that one would hope would arouse suspicion in any reasonably well-educated person. Even if the promised results are well beyond the state of the art in the legitimate fields whose data these pitchmen misappropriate, the prospect is so enticing that wishful thinking can easily overpower common sense.
Pseudoscientists commonly use a number of rhetorical ploys to advance their cause. These sales gambits are well-known to social psychologists who specialize in persuasion techniques. The manipulative ways in which pseudoscientists apply them were recently dissected in an informative article by Anthony Pratkanis (“How to sell a pseudoscience,” The Skeptical Inquirer , Vol. 19[4], 1995; pp. 19-25).
Bogus science prospers in the market place by selling false hope, usually by pandering to the naive belief that someone, somewhere has figured out how to get something for nothing (see Box 4). Artful manipulators thrive on the comforting but doubtful assertion that all physical constraints and limitations on human achievement are mere conventions, applicable only to those so unimaginative as to believe in them. Wild claims of this sort are likely to surface wherever proven empirical techniques offer no quick and easy route to a highly desirable end. Potential consumers are well advised to keep in mind that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
This section introduces a representative sample of pseudoscience. Included are examples of state-sponsored, ideologically-driven pseudoscience as well as cases where competent, conventional scientists have strayed temporarily into pseudoscientific pursuits without recogniz- ing, initially anyway, the error of their ways. And then there are the more common varieties of pseudoscience epitomized by self-styled “researchers” with minimal qualifications working on the periphery of established fields. These practitioners are easily recognized by their penchant for making brash claims about how their pending “discoveries” will revolutionize the fields they expect to enlighten.
As the reader will see, there are some pursuits that are pseudoscientific by any reasonable definition and others that, although they may be wrong-headed or overblown in some of their claims, are clearly not pseudoscientific in their entirety. In other words, there is a large gray area. In some instances in this disputed region, the practices, data, and theories in question may be unorthodox and overly speculative, but not demonstrably absurd. Claims of this sort should merely be considered “unproven at present.” The history of fringe science leads one to expect
Despite their exotic sources, seeming implausibility, or errors in the way they were presented, Honig hoped a few submissions would prove to be diamonds in the rough. After five years of offering the world’s scientific oddballs the fair hearing they had supposedly been denied, Honig was disappointed to have to conclude that there had been valid reasons for ignoring these self- styled visionaries. In an article titled “Science’s Miss Lonelyhearts” ( The Sciences , May-June, 1984, pp. 24-27), Honig described why he finally abandoned his optimistic new venture. Despite diligent searching, and monumental patience, he had found none of the proverbial “back- yard geniuses” who had been suppressed by an envious, hidebound in-group. Instead, he found only a steady stream of cranks, near-paranoids, and malcontents, sprinkled with the occasional individual with a possibly interesting idea but who was incapable of developing it or communi- cating it to others. Honig concluded that the truly innovative thinker, though he or she might have a harder time than those who stay closer to the received wisdom of the time, will eventually receive a hearing through the normal scientific channels. More recently, the advent of the Internet has been a boon to all who wish to swim against the tide of orthodoxy. The good news is that never before have outsiders had as much opportunity to disseminate their thoughts. The bad news is that the sheer volume of speculation has made it harder than ever to discover the pearls among the dung. With this in mind, let us now turn to some concrete examples of pseudosciences.
Political and religious beliefs periodically lead to distortions of objective scientific data and sometimes spawn full-blown pseudosciences. Two illustrative examples of such corruptions of biological science in this century are “Lysenkoism” and “Scientific Creationism.”
In Stalin’s USSR, the demonstrably false ideas of Trofim Lysenko were declared true principles of genetics by the state. Lysenko was favoured because his bogus support for the Lamarckian notion that acquired characteristics could be inherited fit well with the Marxist ideology of the political hierarchy. The result was to stifle legitimate genetic research in the Soviet Union for decades. Serious practical consequences followed, such as lost agricultural productivity, environmental degradation, and shortages of trained personnel ready to help the country prosper in the dawning era of biotechnology. Sad to say, many of Soviet science’s best and brightest were sent to the Gulag for daring to question Lysenko’s folly (see Valery N. Soyfer: Lysenko and the Tragedy of Soviet Science , Rutgers University Press, 1994).
More recently, and closer to home, so-called “Scientific Creationists” have begun to assert that a literal interpretation of the story of divine creation in the Biblical Book of Genesis is a reasonable alternative to the theory of evolution by natural selection. Proponents argue that creationism is a legitimate science that should be taught in the standard biology curriculum. There are, of course, no biologists, paleontologists, or geologists of any standing who support this crude attempt to disguise religion as science. Indeed, most thoughtful Christians find the idea of a 6000-year-old universe ludicrous as well. There are also some biologists, it should be
noted, who are practicing Christians but see no need for conflict between religion and science in this arena. They accept evolution as the mechanism by which the Creator chose to have life on earth unfold. Indeed, Pope John Paul II recently promulgated this position as the official doctrine of the Catholic Church. Although most biologists probably see no need to postulate a personal agent who willed the laws of nature into existence, there is no logical contradiction in this view, because science deals only with proximal mechanisms. It cannot deal with questions of ultimate causation which are the realm of metaphysics and religion.
Lysenkoism and Creationism both provide sad but fascinating examples of how some people with advanced degrees and accomplishments in relevant scientific fields can distort and ignore what they have learned in service of their religious or political convictions. The racial pseudoscience of the Nazi regime is a more repugnant example of how state sponsorship of biological nonsense can lead to tragedies of immense proportions. Fortunately, such extreme cases are rare but they stand as a sobering reminder of what can happen when the public is willing to make skepticism and the demand for solid evidence subservient to ideology.
Polywater : In the 1960’s, reports emerged from the laboratories of two respected Russian scientists, Fedyakin and Deryagin, that seemed to reveal a fourth state of water, i.e., in addition to its liquid, gaseous, and frozen forms. In the rush to confirm and possibly harness this new phenomenon, a number of scientists with good reputations let their hopes and beliefs cloud their objectivity. In so doing, several of them behaved in this particular instance much like pseudoscientists do as a matter of course (see Felix Franks, Polywater , MIT Press, 1982). They managed to confirm the existence and report various novel properties of this “new” substance. The system of peer review and replication eventually corrected these false starts, however. More careful analyses revealed that the “new” material was in fact a very subtle form of contamination introduced by parts of the laboratory apparatus. The initial “breakthrough” was an honest mistake, not crackpot science, but as egos and reputations became threatened in the ensuing debate, a few members of the scientific community initially failed to live up to the accepted canons of their profession. The polywater story is both a case of pathological science and a good example of how the system can work to correct such errors. Every generation seems to produce its own debacle of this sort. The story of “cold fusion,” to be discussed later, ranks as the current generation’s contribution to this literature.
Crackpot Additives and Nostrums : While the polywater fiasco shows that even respected scientists can occasionally behave like pseudoscientists, the majority of pseudoscience comes from outsiders who believe they have achieved striking discoveries that are being overlooked, if not outright suppressed, by the hidebound, self-serving “Establishment.” For instance, hardly a year goes by without another announcement of a unique additive that will double or quadruple thefuel efficiency of an internal combustion engine. The story is usually accompanied by allegations that the big oil companies are persecuting the discoverer in desperate attempts to
one or more of the nagging limitations imposed by the conventional laws of science. The infamous Newman Energy Machine is only the latest in a long line of “perpetual motion devices” which purportedly generate more energy than what is fed into them. Newman continues rail in the media about his mistreatment by physicists who maintain that such devices are precluded by the laws of thermodynamics and to fight the U.S. Patent Office for their refusal to grant him a patent on his device (see Marjorie Sun, Science , 11 July 1986, p. 154). In the same vein, every so often we see another claim to have developed an anti-gravity device that, if true, would violate several well-established laws of science.
Fantastic Energies. Also in the sphere that calls itself “paraphysics,” there are those who postulate heretofore unsuspected kinds of energy^4 to explain the supposed ability of “vortices” such as the Bermuda Triangle to swallow up disproportionate numbers of vessels without a trace. In fact, there is no good evidence that a higher proportion of ships or planes disappear in this region than on any other equally well-traveled route that is subject to comparable weather and tidal conditions (see Lawrence Kusche, The Bermuda Triangle Mystery-Solved , Warner Books, 1975). In the absence of a phenomenon in need of an explanation, it seems quite superfluous to be hypothesizing brand new energy forms that are neither required by nor predicted by the established branches of physics.
Mysticism and Quantum Mechanics. The New Age has spawned another popular cottage industry, this one devoted to showing that various ancient writers of Eastern philosophy were really cognizant of the underlying structure of the universe that has only recently been revealed by modern particle physics. The best-known of this genre is The Tao of Physics (Fontana, 1975). Its author, Fritjof Capra, claims to have discovered striking parallels in the two traditions, such as the notions that emptiness is form, reality is everything you can think of, and all existence is an unbroken wholeness. In his book Physics and Psychics (Prometheus, 1990) the physicist Victor Stenger, describes Capra’s attempts to marry mysticism and modern science as “random meanderings through Eastern literature to find a catchy quotation here and there that vaguely sounds like the new physics.” Another excellent reply to those who would mix mysticism and subatomic physics can be found in The God Particle by the Nobel Laureate, Leon Lederman.
Once again, we see that if one is allowed to interpret poetic metaphors freely, a match can easily be forced between “what the author obviously meant” in this or that allegorical passage and virtually any modern referent. This has been demonstrated time and again with the predictions of the 16th century astrologer and soothsayer, Nostradamus. Modern disciples of Nostradamus point out remarkable similarities between the descriptions contained in his flowery
(^4) Conventional science recognizes only electromagnetism, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces
as legitimate forms of energy.
images and events in their own lifetime. Unfortunately for these seekers, the same passages they see as obviously having foretold events in their own time have been just as convincingly attributed by people in earlier eras to monumental happenings in their own lifetimes (see James Randi’s The Mask of Nostradamus , Prometheus Books, 1992). To make matters worse, many of those allegedly stunning “hits” are mistranslations or outright fabrications inserted into the original writings after the events they were supposed to have predicted. For the modern romantics who see threads of quantum mechanics in ancient tomes of oriental mysticism, the resemblances are equally superficial and in the eye of the beholder. For a fascinating explanation of how our minds read personally-relevant specifics into the pronouncements of fortune-tellers and others, where there are really only vague generalities awaiting interpretation, see Ray Hyman’s 1977 article on “cold reading” listed in the bibliography.
Crop circularity. Another quaint example of pseudoscience is “cereology,” the study of supposedly mysterious circles (and, later, increasingly complex patterns, including Mandelbrot sets!) that show up unexpectedly from time to time in grain fields. Explanations from the cereologists have included fanciful new physical theories, akin to those favoured in Bermuda Triangle lore (though the trend of late has been to invoke extraterrestrial machinations). Why visitors from foreign worlds, who have mastered the daunting technological problems of space travel, would content themselves with making graffiti in grainfields, rather than, say, carving a new Mount Rushmore-type tableau in the Rockies to inform us of their obscure intentions, remains a mystery. And that such allegedly advanced beings should need the cover of darkness and choose only unobserved fields in which to play should strike the cereologists as a bit suspicious. Although numerous pranksters have come forward to claim credit for the nighttime appearance of these “signs,” most cereologists remain unconvinced. British skeptics in conjunc- tion with the BBC have created patterns in fields which the top figures in the cereology move- ment subsequently declared impossible to create by human means. Self-debunking by the very humans who made the patterns merely engendered a bit of back-pedaling and the assertion that there are too many of these mysterious happenings for them all to be hoaxes. One of the strongest indications that they are indeed all hoaxes was supplied by Joe Nickell and John Fischer in their 1992 investigative report which appeared in The Skeptical Inquirer ( Vol.16, No. 2, pp. 136-149). The authors showed that the geographical and chronological distributions of the circles, as well as their increasing complexity over time (a mere circle no longer attracts the network news cameras), followed a predictable pattern reminiscent of those of many hoaxing fads from the past. It has also been noted that the extra-terrestrials initially seemed to have had a distinct anti-Chinese bias. It was not until the earlier European reports began to be translated into Chinese and broadcast by the liberalized Chinese media that crop circles started to miraculously appear in the People’s Republic. True to form, the cereology movement has amassed its share of mystery mongers with no formal qualifications, but it has also attracted the usual smattering of maverick engineers, climatologists, and physicists, as well.
Free energy for all. We should not leave this section without a brief mention of the recent “Cold Fusion” controversy. Like the polywater story discussed above, it is a good example of the grey areas between science and pseudoscience. In 1989, two chemists at respected universities in the US and England, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishman, stunned the physics community with an
If there truly is nothing more scientific medicine can do for a patient, the comfort pseudoscientific practitioners can provide is not necessarily a bad thing (unless of course the widows and orphans are left destitute by the unconscionably high price of the treatment). But when quacks divert patients from genuinely curative treatments, the results can be tragic. A recent case of this sort occurred in the province of British Columbia where belief in quackery led to the unnecessary death of a 16-year-old girl. She was considered a good candidate for a life- saving liver transplant, but at the urging of her parents who were devotees of “alternative medicine,” she chose instead to fly to a clinic in Mexico whose main treatment was a bizarre vegetable diet coupled with frequent coffee enemas.
Homeopathy. A few quacks manage to come up with novel nonsense, but most merely present recycled versions of old, long since discredited nostrums. For instance, homeopathy was a serious contender among the competing philosophies of disease and treatment during the pre- scientific era of medicine. Although its remedies were pushed aside when scientific research showed its theory of pathology to be untenable, homeopathy has remained alive despite the inanity of its underlying rationale.
Homeopathy recommends treating diseases with agents that will actually exacerbate the symptoms, but which are administered in solutions so dilute that it is almost certain that none of the active ingredient survives in the watered-down concoction. The claim that such a vanishingly weak potion could still affect bodily processes is akin to saying that if I spit in Vancouver harbor, I will pollute Tokyo Bay. Homeopathy requires the dubious assumption that pure water can “remember” something that it once contained and thereby continue to produce the absent substance’s effect. To instill this “memory,” homeopaths engage in quaint preparation rituals that demand a huge but exact number of dilutions and a precise number and type of shakes of the vial between each dilution. These comical ceremonies, coupled with their far- fetched “explanations” for why their elixirs could possibly work (when, admittedly, no active ingredients remain), are just the kind of warning signals that should raise a discerning consumer’s suspicions that a pseudoscience is lurking in the wings.
The resurgent popularity of homeopathy in recent years is due to a combination of aggressive marketing by New Age entrepreneurs, the support of a small number of maverick scientists and physicians, and the patronage of a few high status clients such as some members of the British royal family. This revival was fueled by some apparently supportive research from the lab of the Paris immunologist, Jacques Benveniste. Largely on the strength of Benveniste’s reputation (justly achieved early in his career by successfully toppling an entrenched orthodoxy in his specialty), the counterintuitive results were published in the prestigious journal, Nature. A subsequent investigation by a team sent by the editor of Nature revealed several irregularities in the procedures followed by some of the collaborators who actually carried out the experiments in Benveniste’s lab. Incidentally, the original studies were funded by a large manufacturer of homeopathic remedies. A full chronicle of this episode can be found in the Spring 1988 issue of The Skeptical Inquirer.
Although these homeopathic effects could not be replicated by independent researchers, this has not dampened the enthusiasm of the healing cult’s devoted followers. My standing challenge to them is simple. My lawn is a biological system that is presumably immune to placebo effects (I am not currently aware of any claims for “grass consciousness,” but I might welcome the idea if it became an accepted reason to avoid mowing). It should be possible to produce a homeopathic fertilizer in the time-honoured way. We could then have a double-blind comparison of its efficacy vis-a-vis the product from my local garden shop. It would then be apparent to all if the grass is indeed greener on the other side of the metaphysical fence.
The foregoing account, and others in the following sections, demonstrate that intelli- gence, proper training, and high achievement in a scientific field are not automatic proof against being drawn into pseudoscientific blind alleys.
Quack Cancer and Arthritis Cures and Vitamin Fads. The field that refers to itself as “alterna- tive medicine” is awash with doubtful cancer and arthritis remedies and fad “dietary aids” that cannot withstand expert scrutiny. What passes for research in these areas provides numerous case studies of how pseudoscientists think and work. Laetrile, for instance, the most infamous of the “alternative” cancer remedies, has failed all reliable double-blind clinical trials, and is not approved for use in Canada or the US. Nonetheless, this has not stemmed the flow of desperate patients who flock to Laetrile clinics in other countries. Likewise, sales of copper bracelets and exotic elixirs that supposedly alleviate arthritis continue, despite the lack of empirical support and the revelation that many of the anti-arthritis potions contain toxic ingredients. Overblown claims for the therapeutic efficacy of Vitamin C provide additional instructive examples, as do those for “orthomolecular” or “megavitamin” cures for psychoses. The alleged anti-cancer properties of vitamin C are equally unsubstantiated.
Gray Areas. In most fields of medicine there are also controversial treatments that are neither generally accepted practice nor total quackery. The practice of chelation therapy is a case in point. It is the conventional treatment of choice for patients suffering from heavy metal poisoning, but recently it has been claimed to be effective in treating atherosclerosis (“hardening of the arteries”). Despite its poor showing in numerous research studies, its supporters (a small band of duly licensed physicians, many of whom are allied with fringe health food faddists) continue to advocate chelation therapy for cardiovascular problems. In this, they run counter to the advice of the vast majority of the research community and their respective medical associa- tions.
Chiropractic. Likewise, chiropractic falls into a gray area. Its ministrations can be beneficial in certain cases, but its underlying rationale is pure pseudoscience. Joint manipulation has a long history and seems to be therapeutic for a limited number of musculoskeletal disorders. Chiro-
hospitals of that era had to be vetted by political commissars (who usually had no biomedical training) before publication. Predictably, the results usually favoured the party line that TCM was superior. These tainted papers linger on in the literature, making it doubly hard to assess the true worth of TCM, which is not to say that there are no traditional practices that are scientifically defensible.
How much of acupuncture’s demonstrable clinical effect is due to a combination of placebo effect, distraction, or self-hypnosis and how much to its ability to cause the release of the body’s own natural pain-killers (the endorphins), remains an active subject of research and debate. One of the doubters, the Stanford oncologist Wallace Sampson, has pointed to an interesting relationship in the acupuncture literature, one often seen in fringe areas of science. When the entire corpus of research is surveyed, and the individual papers ranked for the adequacy of their methodology and experimental controls, there is a strong inverse relationship between the quality of the research procedures and the amount of therapeutic relief reported. The quality of research in the area is improving, however. The better researchers are making much more modest claims and have tightened their experimental procedures considerably. Several reputable laboratories are now attempting to document acupuncture’s mechanisms of action at the cellular and biochemical level. This group includes such well-known neurophysiologists as Professor Han Ji Sheng of Beijing Medical University, whose laboratory I have visited. These researchers restrict their study to acupuncture’s effects on pain, inflammatory processes, etc., where there are scientifically plausible mechanisms that might mediate its clinical effects. They reject, as did I when I was a visiting professor in China, the wilder claims some acupuncturists make, such as that acupuncture can cure maladies like cholera, deafness, and mandibular overbite. Unfortunately, many not-so-competent researchers continue to muddy the waters with poorly controlled clinical studies of acupuncture that make it difficult to sift the wheat from the chaff. Those interested in a comprehensive and hard-nosed critique of the acupuncture literature will find one in the chapter by Petr Skrabanek in the edited volume by Stalker and Glymour, listed in the readings at the end of this essay. Another good source is George Ulett’s Beyond Yin and Yang: How Acupuncture Really Works (Warren H. Green Inc., 1992). A more general overview of the philosophy, origins, and practices of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is contained in a two-part article by Barry Beyerstein and Wallace Samson that appeared in the July/August and the September/October issues of The Skeptical Inquirer.
Herbalism. Many mainstays of modern pharmacology have their origins in traditional folk
1954 until Mao's death. For Mao and his closest associates, Li had the latest in scientific treatments available at all times. At the same time, party officials extolled traditional medicine treatments for the masses. On a recent scientific exchange visit to China, I was able to ascertain from the traditional practitioners themselves that only about 15% of the medical care administered in China today is of the traditional variety.
remedies: e.g., aspirin (from the willow tree), digitalis (from foxglove), morphine (opium poppy), quinine (chinchona bark), curare ( Strychnos toxifera ), and vinblastine and vincristine (anti-tumour drugs derived from the Madagascar periwinkle), to name just a few. Traditional Chinese herbalism has already provided western physicians with valuable medications such as ephedrine (from the plant Chinese herbalists call Ma Huang). Undoubtedly, many other useful medicines remain to be isolated from the huge traditional pharmacopeia and a number of drug companies are actively supporting expeditions by ethnopharmacologists to places such as the Amazon rain forest in search of effective traditional remedies.
Unfortunately, as it stands, most traditional herbs have not yet been properly tested for safety or efficacy. Thus herbalism remains an inseparable mixture of some safe and effective remedies, some inert placebos, and some dangerous substances. It is difficult, if not impossible, in most instances, to tell which concoction belongs in which of these categories. The good news is that, particularly in China, attempts have begun to try to apply modern scientific methods to separate the effective herbal medications from the placebos and to isolate the active ingredients from those that actually work. Those traditional practitioners around the world who oppose such efforts and cling to their frankly magical explanations for the effects of their preparations can hardly be surprised if the scientifically-inclined continue to regard their practices as pseudo- scientific at best.
Also in the pseudoscience camp must be placed all traditional remedies made from rhinoceros horns, tiger penises, bear gall bladders and parts of other magnificent, endangered species. Lucrative poaching to harvest these animal parts is seriously threatening these species with extinction. And all this for useless treatments based solely on principles of sympathetic magic, the ancient belief that “like begets like”—these are symbolically potent parts of powerful beasts, so it is believed that the organs must therefore magically transfer to the people who take them the vitality and fortitude of their donors.
Psychological effects on disease. Finally, in the gray areas of health care, there is the much- debated idea that psychological factors make a large contribution to the onset and remission of diseases. Obviously, some of these claims are more controversial than others. People’s attitudes can certainly make them act in ways that are beneficial or detrimental to their health. It is also well-established that various kinds of stress can impede immune system functioning, for instance. This can raise susceptibility to infections and lower vigilance against certain cancerous cells. Similarly, via prolonged over-activation of the autonomic nervous system, psychological states can contribute to various stress-related problems such as stomach ulcers^6 and some cardiovascular illnesses.
Nonetheless, the percentage of variance in disease statistics that can be attributed to psychological factors alone is not nearly as large as many New Age healers and pseudoscientists
(^6) Even here the role of stress has been downplayed following the recent discovery by the Australian
physician, Barry Marshall, that the primary cause of ulceration is actually a bacterium, Helicobacter pylori. The contribution of stress is now seen as impeding immune responses, making it easier for the bacterium to proliferate.
palm readers, they offer their services in areas where people’s reputations, professional advance- ment, and livelihoods can be affected. One handwriting analysis firm actually has the audacity to offer courses for therapists on how to reveal repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse from nuances in the writing of the supposed victims. To cast aspersions on the competence or ethical standing of unsuspecting people (many people slandered in this fashion never even know their writing was shown to a graphologist) by means of this kind of pseudoscience is really no different from passing judgement on someone’s diligence, honesty, or suitability for a job by reference to his or her skin colour or presumed percentage of “Jewish genes.”
Subliminal self-help tapes. These days, we are constantly assailed by flamboyant sales pitches from promoters of the subliminal self-help industry. They are hoping to sell audiotapes that contain therapeutic suggestions too faint to be heard amidst the background of music, forest sounds, etc. Although the self-help messages are not audible, they allegedly go directly to the subconscious where they have an irresistible effect. According to the ads, such messages can produce everything from relaxation, a super memory, and enhanced social competence to cancer remission and breast enlargement. My personal favorite is a subliminal tape that offers to cure deafness! Of course, these products have been carefully tested and found to be worthless. Although respected psychologists such as Begg, Greenwald, Merikle, Moore, and Pratkanis have independently confirmed the inability of these products to deliver the promised benefits, the reader should no longer be surprised to hear that the subliminal self-help industry continues to thrive. The British Psychological Association has taken a strong stand against subliminal pseudoscience, but despite concerted efforts by Professor Timothy Moore of Toronto, the Canadian and American Psychological Associations have declined to do the same. It is perhaps significant that many dues-paying members of these associations continue to profit from the sale of these scientifically debunked self-help products.
Pop-Psychology. The human potential movement and the fringe areas of psychotherapy also harbor a number of other scientifically questionable panaceas. Among these are Scientology, Neurolinguistic Programming, Re-birthing, and Primal Scream Therapy which have never provided a scientifically acceptable rationale or evidence to support their therapeutic claims (see the accompanying bibliography for further readings on these topics).
These days, many pop-psychology products seek sorely needed credibility by claiming unearned affiliation with legitimate areas of brain research. Thus a spate of “brain-tuners” have hit the market, offering all manner of benefits by supposedly re-training brain waves. Again, evidence is lacking (see Barry Beyerstein, “Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age,” International Journal of Mental Health , Vol. 19(3), 1990). The health food industry and New Age marketers have cashed in on equally dubious “smart cocktails” that allegedly improve brain functioning by pre-loading the body with the amino acids used by the brain to manufacture various neurotransmitters. It should come as no surprise that the sales programs preceded the validation research which, as usual, disputes the claims.
Another current fad among gullible counselors is “eye-movement desensitization” therapy which claims that serious mental symptoms can be cured simply by asking clients to
track the therapist’s fingers as they waggle in the periphery of the client’s visual field. Like the brain tuners, this too is alleged to break up dysfunctional patterns of neural activity, scoring miraculous recoveries where conventional therapies have failed. Testimonials rather than hard data from placebo-controlled studies keep all such pop-psychology enterprises afloat.
False memory creation. A more pernicious example where parts of the therapeutic community have refused to heed the cautions of scientific researchers is the use of so-called “memory- enhancement” techniques. In their zeal to combat the real and all too prevalent problem of childhood sexual abuse, many therapists have espoused risky methods that supposedly revive in the adult long-repressed memories of childhood abuse. In fact, memory researchers have shown that these probing techniques are just as likely to create vividly believable pseudomemories of abuse as they are to trigger accurate recollections of real trauma (see E. Loftus and K. Ketcham: The Myth of Repressed Memory: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse , St. Martin’s Press, 1994). In addition to producing many tragically false allegations, it is sad that the growing public realization that some of the “memories” these patients fervently believe to be true are actually illusory has begun to engender a backlash which could potentially hamper the efforts of some bona fide victims to achieve the justice and the therapeutic relief they deserve.
The same risky methods of memory probing in distressed and suggestible people are also popular among therapists who encourage their patients’ delusional beliefs that they were abducted by the crews of UFOs for nefarious purposes. In these cases, similar “memory enhancement” techniques elicit highly emotional “recollections” of supposed kidnappings, and sexual or other types of maltreatment at the hands of space aliens. Having talked to many “abductees,” I am convinced that most are sincere in their convictions. That they can honestly feel they are recalling (as opposed to fantasizing) events that most people consider utterly improbable, strengthens the case of those researchers who argue that compelling pseudomem- ories of many kinds can be created without anyone’s intent to do so.
Parapsychology. Some critics dismiss psychical research, or parapsychology as it is now known, as unalloyed pseudoscience. Despite the long history of self-delusion, non-replicable findings, and fraud that has plagued the field, it must be conceded that there is, today, a core of honest and competent researchers who employ the conventional methods of psychological research in their quest for paranormal phenomena. As long as these investigators apply the appropriate experimental controls and statistical procedures, and allow critics to scrutinize their labs and their findings, they do not deserve to be associated with the psychic charlatans that titillate the tabloid journalists. Nonetheless, the vast majority of psychologists still believe that the tiny deviations from chance expectancy that parapsychologists find in their experiments are due to subtle, undetected artifacts, rather than truly supernatural phenomena. Until psychical researchers can meet the skeptics’ demands for a routinely replicable effect, one that doubters as well as believers can obtain, the field will continue to be regarded with suspicion by most mainstream scientists. In the meanwhile, parapsychologists who attempt to live up to the accepted rules of scientific research should not be branded as pseudoscientists. That should be reserved for those in their ranks who are demonstrably guilty of the kinds of misconduct outlined below. The bibliography at the end of this treatise contains extensive commentaries on the
