Why can’t we clearly distinguish between science and pseudoscience?

This article aims to understand the difference between pseudoscience and science, and to explain the distinction between scientific theories and pseudoscience, focusing on Popper’s theory of disprovability. However, in modern philosophy of science, this distinction remains ambiguous, and Popper’s theory does not provide a clear solution.

 

In everyday life, the term “pseudoscience” is used to refer to something that at first glance resembles science but is not actually science, i.e., pseudoscience. For example, when someone believes in blood type or astrological personality theory, it is sometimes criticized as a “pseudoscience. However, pseudoscience is rarely used to refer to the theory of celestial motion, which disappeared with the advent of geodynamics. Thus, the distinction between science and pseudoscience is very fuzzy. Let’s take a look at Karl Raimund Popper’s and later researchers’ efforts to clarify this ambiguity.
To distinguish between pseudoscience and science, we first need to understand what pseudoscience is. Popper used the term “pseudoscience” and made a clear distinction between false scientific theories and pseudoscience. The difference between a false scientific theory and a pseudoscience is similar to the difference between a false statement and a meaningless statement. In general, false statements seem meaningless, but sometimes their negation can be true. Meaningless statements, on the other hand, are not false statements, but rather statements that have no meaning in and of themselves. The negation of such a meaningless statement is also meaningless, i.e., the negation of a hoax is still a hoax. A false scientific theory is proven false through disproof, but it is still considered science. Pseudoscience, or pseudoscience, on the other hand, is impossible to disprove and therefore cannot be included in the category of science because it is impossible to distinguish between true and false.
Popper proposed the “disprovability” of a theory as a criterion for evaluating its scientific status. Disprovability refers to whether a theory can be proven to be false, and a true test of a theory is an attempt to disprove it. A theory that cannot be disproved is not scientific, and this is considered the fatal flaw of a theory. Popper called this the “criterion of compartmentalization.
Using astrology, the history of Marxism, Freud’s psychoanalysis, and Adler’s transpersonal psychology as examples, Popper argued that these theories were pseudoscience because they lacked disprovability. Astrology avoided disprovability by making vague statements, and Marxism was initially predictable and verifiable, but later lost its disprovability by reinterpreting its theories to fit the evidence. Freud’s and Adler’s theories were structured from the outset to be irrefutable, making it difficult for them to have scientific status. Popper categorized pseudoscience as theories that are either impossible to disprove or deliberately avoid disproving.
Despite Popper’s efforts, it is still unclear how to clearly distinguish between science and pseudoscience. Popper’s criterion of disprovability is also not perfect, and later researchers have pointed out its limitations. For example, it has been argued that some propositions, such as probability propositions, are not disprovable. Therefore, it is not always appropriate to apply Popper’s theory to modern pseudoscience.
So how do we use the term “pseudoscience” in everyday life? As mentioned earlier, ‘pseudoscience’ is commonly used to refer to theories or claims that are not science. However, this is not strictly correct. This is because pseudoscience is a theory that cannot be proven true or false. Many things that most people call “pseudoscience” are actually scientifically proven falsehoods. For this reason, it is important to distinguish between pseudoscience and false science.
For example, Masaru Emoto’s book is called pseudoscience, but his claims are more like pseudoscience. His theory that water can discriminate between good and bad water lacks evidence, and the experimental results he presents are manipulated to suit his purposes. Therefore, his theory is not pseudoscience, but rather clearly false science.
Isaac Asimov once said, “All theories are either true or false, but the closest thing to the truth is an incomplete one.” I don’t think pseudoscience is a false science that misinforms, but rather an “incomplete theory”. Pseudoscience is not true or false, it is a theory that has both the potential to be true and false. They just don’t have a way to prove it. Consider astrology and Freudian psychoanalysis, which Popper categorized as pseudoscience: astrology is a theory that can be argued and disproven. However, astrologers refused to let it be proven false, and reorganized the theory to suit their own purposes. As a result, astrology became a pseudoscience, first scientific and then pseudo-scientific. Freud’s psychoanalysis, on the other hand, has yet to be disproved and remains open to debate. I consider these theories to be true pseudoscience.
The public criticizes theories that lack scientific evidence or are unreliable by calling them “pseudoscience”. However, most of the criticism is directed at pseudoscience, which is the manipulation of experimental results or the failure to provide adequate evidence. It is not appropriate to use the term pseudoscience to criticize such pseudoscience.