2. Supported mainly by belief or problematic, weak or nonexistent evidence instead of sound, accepted research that would be convincing to mainstream scientists;
3. Lacking coherent, progressive, explanatory theories, or structured to be irrefutable or unfalsifiable;
4. Lacking internal critique or organized skepticism; questioning is unwelcome;
5. Proponents exhibit paranoia and feel a sense of persecution from mainstream science. They embrace unorthodox ideas and considering certain leaders as mavericks, even to the point of comparing themselves to Galileo;
6. Lacking interaction and overlap of research with other cognitive fields. No cumulative results are published and no real progress can be noted;
7. Proposal of unreal or not certifiably real entities and processes that are not logical.
In terms of methods that would be considered criteria for labeling a field or a claim as “pseudoscientific,” the following characteristics are indicative:
1. Lax rules for data collection and experiments;
2. Lack of adequate environmental or experimental controls in positive studies;
3. Methods of research or evidence collection are haphazard, conceptually unsound or flawed; or, no research or active inquiry is being conducted to support the theory;
4. Heavy emphasis on soft data such as anecdotes and subjective feelings; use of unconventional, defective, or baseless procedures;
5. Use of special pleading to explain validity of results or shifting of the burden of proof. (Example: Skepticism creates negative energy and thus prohibits good results.
Any of these characteristics signal something is amiss within the field or methods. I hope I’ve made clear the good reasons why science rules are strict and difficult to attain. Therefore, when a field does not attain those standards, the results are not as reliable. If a field or idea strays too far “from the epistemic desiderata of science by a sufficiently wide margin while being touted as scientific by its advocates, it is justifiably branded as pseudoscience” (Pigliucci & Boudry 2013). Proclaiming something is pseudoscience creates an immediate contrast with science. When addressing claims about nature, however, a more general consideration might be simply to know if and why certain claims are more acceptable than others in terms of reliable knowledge. Unlike science, pseudoscience lacks a unity of practice and integration with other fields. It just doesn’t make sense based on what we have established about the world.
For decades, the academic field of parapsychology has been fending off attacks from those who label it pseudoscience. Edzel Cardeña, a professor of psychology at Lund University in Sweden and director of the Centre for Research on Consciousness and Anomalous Psychology, insists that it is not. In the 2015 book Parapsychology in the 21st Century, he asserts that parapsychology is scientific and the rest of the 400+ page collection of articles are cited to support this. Cardeña, though, admits that amateurs currently using some parapsychological concepts (ARIGs) are far removed from the state of professional parapsychology (Cardeña 2015a). Parapsychology, however, suffers a lack of investment in the ethos of science in that researchers wish to claim special conditions, allow softer data when the laboratory experiments can’t be replicated, and claim effects from “implicit psi” which means the experimenter or any participant is unknowingly affecting the results. There is no known way to shield an experiment from consciousness, especially if psi works retroactively (backwards in time) making some claims possibly untestable. More concerning is the attitude of modern parapsychology leaders to eschew materialism. Science is necessarily void of spiritual meaning, relying on a foundation that all things are made of matter and are to be explained only in that framework. Thus, the inclusion of non-materialistic and non-naturalistic ideas into the realm of science will not be tolerated within the boundary.
Is What ARIGs Do Pseudoscience?
Like science, “pseudoscience” is used to describe both a process and a body of knowledge. Can we also apply it to a community? Are ARIGs part of that community? Looking at the fields of study and methods used by ARIGs, we can point out the presence of many characteristics of pseudoscience. Within ghost “science,” cryptozoology, or ufology, we immediately notice a science-like framing without any standard framework for evaluating the many explanatory ideas and speculation put forward or any formal process for considering them. Those who claim their ideas are scientific are not required to put those ideas to an organized community for testing; therefore, there is no formal system of error correction (Pigliucci & Boudry 2013) and no cohesive process to obtaining knowledge. Ideas are propagated even in the face of critical dismantling by others and production of contradictory evidence.
Since most ARIG members are not trained in science, poor scientific methodology is not surprising. Even credentialed scientists can fall into pseudoscientific practices if not careful. When the impetus behind propping up an idea is the strong preference for something to be true, even PhDs will find themselves accused of pseudoscientific practices to justify Bigfoot, life after death, etc.
Media Influence
Two factors that allow for pseudoscience to be smoothly sold to the public as legitimate are: (1) a spokesperson who displays some real or faux scientific credentials (thus, gaining social authority), and (2) a receiving audience with lack of understanding about what makes something suitably “scientific” and reliable. The media enhances factor #1 by covering questionable work as if it was science, often in a misplaced attempt to journalistically balance opposing viewpoints. For example, a global warming denier may be a meteorologist (weather forecaster) which suggests valid credentials for their position. But, only a very small number of scientists of all kinds, but especially climate scientists (different discipline than meteorology), subscribe to that idea. The depiction of one opposing view and one non-opposing view when there are, in fact, dozens of non-opposing views, is not an accurate representation. Evidence for climate change, or evolution, or the age and shape of the earth, or any well-supported scientific tenet, is substantial but deniers will always exist. Viewpoints disputing those tenets allowed equal representation skew the audience (factor #2) who do not have enough background to discern the problem with that. We know that significant percentages of Americans believe that material widely considered to be pseudoscience is factual and that they get much of their information from media sources throughout their lives. So we regularly have the two factors at play. Yet, it remains unclear how the media’s promotion of pseudoscientific ideas (as being on par with legitimate scientific ideas) influences the public and their views about the scientific process. Some studies exist regarding the effectiveness of pseudoscientific methods in marketing (Haard et al. 2004; Pitrelli et al. 2006). Survey research can also somewhat reliably tell us public opinion about how “scientific” they consider certain ideas. A regular survey done since 1979 by the National Science Foundation indicates American understanding of science and technology concepts and processes and also includes results about attitudes towards pseudoscientific concepts like astrology and creationism. 42% of Americans think astrology is sort of or very scientific1 and 13% of biology teachers tell their students Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory.2
It also remains unclear exactly how pseudoscience in the media influences the way the public perceives science in general. In other words, do people see ghost hunters on TV as doing respectable science? Do kids watch shows about monster hunters and hope to grow up to be a monster scientist? In the example of UFOs, author Daniel Thurs argued that public discussion about UFOs in the 1950s shaped valid science-related discourse in the public sphere. The topic was so popular that it prompted serious discussion about space travel and life in other planetary systems (Thurs 2007). In that case, a pseudoscientific subject may have had an unanticipated positive effect. Another example of a positive effect is the commitment many Bigfoot hunters have to wildlife and habitat conservation or that they learn how to collect DNA samples and have
them analyzed.
The Pennsylvania Bigfoot Camping Adventure, May 2016. Brian D. Parsons is the speaker. Photograph by Kenny Biddle.
The Fringe
When scientists delve into inquiry outside the realm of the orthodox subject areas (sometimes referred to as “the fringe”), they run the risk of being ostracized by their scientific peers who see that as a useless, perhaps ridiculous, waste of time. Those that head into this unknown abyss may feel the risk is worth it because the payoff may be so large—a truly groundbreaking discovery such as ESP, or a giant unknown hominin living in populated areas. They may take the gamble and reject their peers.
Two loose labels for scientific study can categorized these fringe areas. “Deviant science” (Dolby 1979) is work in fringe areas rejected by orthodox scientists, such as ufology. Followers of deviant science accept the claims of self-appointed experts instead of considering the evidence and applying skepticism. “Anomalistics” (Truzzi 1998) is an interdisciplinary study of scientific anomalies or extraordinary events that do not fit with current orthodox theory, including pursuit of research in parapsychology, the paranormal, ufology, and cryptozoology.
Practitioners of both “deviant science” and “anomalistics” typically have scientific training and attempt to operate within the institutional rules of science. Therefore, the subject matter, not the process, is outside of conventional realms of research with one exception—the peers available for peer review are fewer, making the social aspect of this area of science insular. A closed community forms and evolves in isolation. Some researchers have examined deviant science from a sociological aspect (Dolby 1979; Goode 2000; Northcote 2007).
Why do certain scientists feel compelled to take this lesser-worn path? Complicated political, psychological, and cultural issues are at play. It is romantic, challenging, and exciting, and is good for getting attention (but not grant money). These aspects likely draw ARIGs to the same topics. People find it fascinating and the media gives these fringe subjects plenty of attention because of their oddness. We find scientists and everyday people given the title of “expert” within a small niche, becoming a big fish in a small pond, which has its benefits.
The Cranks
The dark corners of the fringe are inhabited by lone thinkers (almost always men) who are not just passionate but obsessed with one or more unusual and implausible ideas. The cranks. Anyone with an online presence who writes regularly about paranormal topics will have been approached by these self-styled pioneers and mavericks who proclaim they have made a breakthrough with an implausible idea about how things work (Collins 2006; Goode 2000). The cranks’ tendency is to regard themselves as progressive or cutting-edge. And, they tell you so. Repeatedly. An exaggerated sense of self-importance about their work can be a hallmark quality of the pseudoscientist (Bunge 1984). Cranks can be self-educated, self-styled independent experts like Immanuel Velikovsky, previously discussed as the author who in 1950 interpreted ancient myths in terms of celestial cataclysms roundly rejected by scientists. Or, cranks can be PhDs that who have strayed away from the acceptable path, like John E. Mack (1929–2004), the Harvard psychiatrist who subscribed to and lent credibility to the idea of alien abduction of humans.3 Cranks can clash with their academic institution over their work and its deviance from the orthodox mainstream. Mack was investigated, raising serious issues about academic freedom but ultimately prevailed.4 In the case of Velikovsky, his work was published by a scientific textbook publisher, which outraged academics. The Velikovsky affair had ramifications still discussed to this day (Gordin 2012). Even negative attention paid to cranks will elevate them in the eyes of the public, giving them more readers and spreading their views.
New ideas that arrive from the fringes are rarely embraced by science (in what is called a “paradigm shift” where there is a wholly dramatic change in thinking), or the original wild idea may morph into something less wild and be subsumed into existing knowledge—consider the evolution of acceptance of heliocentrism, germ theory, plate tectonics, and quantum physics. But most often, ideas by self-styled modern Galileos are rejected due in no small part to cranks isolating themselves from reliable knowledge and critical thinking. Martin Gardner (1957) pointed out that cranks tend to create their own organizations, and self-publish their own journals and books—a substitution for the scientific community framework that rejects them—forming an isolated community defined by a specific worldview incompatible with mainstream scientific thinking. But individually or in fringe groups, truth cannot be judged by personal conviction. It must be supported by strong, unequivocal evidence, and a robust, predictive theory. The test of quality comes from the acceptance of conclusions by the scientific community and integration into knowledge over the long term.
Supernatural Creep and Conspiratorial Thinking
Naturalism, a scientific principle, states that natural laws and forces operate in the world, not supernatural forces. That is, explanations must be based on scientific laws, not invoked entities like demons or invisible spirits or forces that can not be tested or falsified (Pigliucci 2010). Use of religious or occult paraphernalia, divination devices, psychic powers, intuitives, spirit guides, or demonologists immediately signals that the investigators have moved outside the bounds of a naturalistic, scientific framework. While there are various reasons why these methods are utilized, a main reason seems to be to preserve and feed the belief. I call this tactic supernatural creep.5 When normal processes and causes fail to satisfactorily explain strange events or answer questions, then reasoning slips by tiny steps to include excuses beyond nature, into super-nature, beyond the testable claims of science. It’s a way to rescue a belief that the believer holds deeply. If you must choose between the belief or a rational explanation, the rational explanation may be that which gets rejected. When invoking supernatural reasoning at the same time as claiming you are using scientific methods, this is a clear warning that something is wrong with the methodology of investigation and is a signal of pseudoscience. This creep, which may also be viewed as a metaphorical “slippery slope,” is apparent in all the ARIG subject areas. Bigfoot proponents exhibit this when straddling the line between natural and supernatural: there are those who search for a real animal that functions as nature intended and those who entertain the option that the entity is not natural (Gordon 2015). Those that embrace the supernatural explanation do it to explain why the creature has an uncanny ability to escape detection by eluding our cameras and leaving only tenuous, dubious traces of its existence. Perhaps it can run outrageously fast and may be able to see infrared light from night vision cameras or have other unusually developed senses. Some people resort to thinking of Bigfoot as a psychic phenomenon or related to UFO visitations because some witnesses state fantastic details such as the thing being immune to bullets, or suddenly disappearing. It’s seen everywhere but found nowhere. How can we resolve this dilemma? The explanation for Bigfoot morphs beyond natural—it’s not a flesh and blood animal, it’s a shape-shifter, it can bend time, paralyze you, or disappear into a multidimensional portal. To explain the lack of fossil record for Bigfoot, a few even make the claim that the creatures derived from the Nephilim, the giant angels of the Bible.6 Other cryptids have also been linked to occult explanations as demons, evil spirits, or mind manifestations. Cryptids are also linked to UFOs in several cases. UFO stories are commonly connected to supernatural concepts in their own right—time travel or distortion, dimensional travel, telepathic powers, and anomalous cognition.
After a long-standing emphasis on gadgetry and a sciencey focus, ghost investigations increasing conclude with religious or occult explanations—demons, angels, curses. One interpretation of this trend may be that science is failing them by not delivering the rock-solid explanation they desire. In order to maintain the belief, the natural explanations are no longer suitable. Parts of the cryptozoological community are moving down a similar path at the behest of authors like Nick Redfern who contend that the field should expand
to include “zooform” phenomena. These are entities, not actual animals, that appear in animal form and have supernatural qualities. This would constitute a shift from scientific inquiry to a completely experienced-based view. Parapsychologists have even advocated changing the rules of science to move beyond naturalism to allow for looser explanations. This loosening is desired because, for decades, parapsychology has failed to be accepted under the stringent boundaries of scientific consensus. See Cardeña et al. (2015) for examples of this.
Certain locations may develop a reputation for having a plethora of spooky events including hauntings, poltergeist activities, sightings of strange creatures, UFO reports, and various other anomalous phenomena. ARIGs and paranormalists imbue these sites with special meaning, a supernatural aura, and describe them as areas of “high strangeness.”
In a scientific sense, supernatural explanations aren’t explanations at all (Pigliucci 2010). These ideas can’t be supported; they invoke concepts outside the realm of natural law and thus outside scientific inquiry. One mystery is replaced by another. There is no net gain but the story becomes even more sensational, interesting, and marketable. As centuries of interest into these various mysteries yield no satisfying answers, fringe fields of cryptozoology, ufology and paranormal research continue to slide down the supernatural slippery slope.
A related corollary to supernatural creep is conspiratorial thinking. The answer to “Why haven’t scientists taken cryptids seriously?” is thought by some to be “It’s a cover-up, these weird animals are experiments gone wrong, the government doesn’t want people to know.” There are tales of the military doing experiments in psi operations or time-travel that resulted in catastrophes. The entire field of UFO research banks on the premise that the government is keeping things from us since 1947. The truth is some conspiracies are real, and there are some secrets that need to be kept for security purposes, leaving ARIGs without a means to get the information they feel they need.
Scientifical Americans Page 26