Detecting_Real_Science
Detecting Real Science:
How to Avoid Jumping From the Pseudoscience Frying Pan into the Fire
To avoid falling for pseudosciences, it may be useful to first read all the sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 on this website. There, drawing from Stanovich’s book, it is explained briefly how to distinguish science from pseudoscience. In addition, below I have quoted another guide by Lilienfeld, Lohr, and Lynn to contrast with sections 2, 3, 4, 5. But first let’s discuss a little about pseudoscience and primal therapy.
People who have believed in primal theory are evidently vulnerable to jump from one pseudoscience right into another one. This could happen before or after becoming disillusioned with primal. This is because the same method of evaluating a treatment or therapy may be just transferred to the next appealing diet, therapy or even religion that comes along. We are all vulnerable to this, and sometimes it is not easy to distinguish.
Because the primal community can be a hotbed of pseudo-scientific misinformation regarding nutrition, health-care and psychotherapy, I thought a guide, like the one given below from the book Pseudoscience and Science in Clinical Psychology, would really be of benefit.
The main error is often relying on case study or testimonial evidence and putting too much stock in articles which actually are opinion pieces with no meaningful or significant data. Sometimes it is just what we want to believe, rather than what the evidence tells us is true. But there are other biases too. The only real protection I believe is to learn about pseudoscience, science, and social psychological biases.
Specifically, let’s take nutrition as an example: it may be worth to first learn the basics of the life sciences and real nutritional science before evaluating the alternatives. Some of the fad diets can actually have anti-nutritional effects, and you can immunize yourself from such danger by looking at the base evidence from nutritional science. Evidence is often overridden by pseudo-scientific diets by forceful assertion, argument and explanation. These pseudoscientific diets often start from an ideological premise, then look for confirming evidence only - and often base there knowledge on assumptions that come right out of the ideology.
For some reason I found the “naturalistic fallacy” to be a problem in the primal therapy community. Perhaps this is because Janov commits this error himself in his writings. The naturalistic fallacy is a problem in both alternative medicine and alternative psychotherapy; that is: whatever is deemed to be natural, or something our ancient ancestors did, it must be right or good. This is not always the case, for example ancient humans often died young and sometimes with early onset arthritis (see peer reviewed research on Homo Neanderthalis remains for an example, but there is much more). So it is worth also looking at modern science too to guide you.
Similarly, with alternative approaches to child development or child birth, look at the data, and ask questions:
Why does the mainstream do it that way, what evidence do they base it on?
Are the alternatives merely assertion and beautiful explanation that feels like it should be right?
Do they have evidence for effectiveness?
Loving (trauma prevention) approaches to child rearing and natural birthing may, like alternative nutrition, provide valuable information. In some cases they may illuminate the moral and ethical side of the argument, which is an important consideration. However, be careful not to ignore glaringly obvious evidence; for example, the correlation of developmental problems to socio-economic factors, or the improvement in infant mortality rates in medically advanced nations.
What I am trying to advocate for is a looking at the whole breadth of peer reviewed evidence - without an ideology. Some authors of alternative approaches can really abuse their readers unknowingly. By taking an ideological stance, and then making axioms from that position, the authors end up asserting things that contradict pretty solid research. The readers health can then suffer as a result. They often try undermine the public trust in mainstream research programs, or the “establishment.” People become sucked into conspiracy theories about science - which is sad because scientists are not part of an authoritarian or unfeeling establishment at all.
Excerpts from the book:
Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology
by Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, and Jeffrey M. Lohr.
The full text in PDF format of this section can be found at http://www.guilford.com/excerpts/lilienfeld.pdf . Here are excerpts that cover the indicators of pseudoscience:
“A number of philosophers of science (e.g., Bunge, 1984) and psychologists e.g., Ruscio, 2001) have outlined some of the most frequent features of pseudoscience. Among these features are the following (for further discussions, see Herbert et al., 2000; Hines, 1988; Lilienfeld, 1998):
1. An overuse of ad hoc hypotheses designed to immunize claims from falsification.
…
The repeated invocation of ad hoc hypotheses to explain away negative
findings is a common tactic among proponents of pseudoscientific claims.
Moreover, in most pseudosciences, ad hoc hypotheses are simply “pasted
on” to plug holes in the theory in question. When taken to an extreme,
ad hochypotheses can provide an impenetrable barrier against potential
refutation…
2. Absence of self-correction.
Scientific research programs are not necessarily distinguished from pseudoscientificresearch programs in the verisimilitude of their claims, because proponents of both programs frequently advance incorrect assertions. Nevertheless, in the long run most scientific research programs tend to eliminate these errors, whereas most pseudoscientificresearch programs do not. Consequently, intellectual stagnation is a hallmark of most pseudoscientific research programs (Ruscio, 2001). …
3. Evasion of peer review.
On a related note, many proponents of pseudoscience avoid subjecting their work to the often ego-bruising process of peer review (Ruscio, 2001; see also Gardner, 1957, for illustrations). In some cases, they may do so on the grounds that the peer review process is inherently biased against findings or claims that contradict well established paradigms (e.g., see Callahan, 2001a, for an illustration involving Thought Field Therapy; see also Chapter 9). In other cases, they may avoid the peer review process on the grounds that their assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. Although the peer review process is far from flawless (see Peters & Ceci, 1982, for a striking example), it remains the best mechanism for self-correction in science, and assists investigators in identifying errors in their reasoning, methodology, and analyses. By remaining largely insulated from the peer review process, some proponents of pseudoscience forfeit an invaluable opportunity to obtain corrective feedback from informed colleagues.
4. Emphasis on confirmation rather refutation.
The brilliant physicist Richard Feynman (1985) maintained that the essence of science is a bending over backwards to prove oneself wrong. Bartley (1962) similarly maintained that science at its best involves the maximization of constructive criticism. Ideally, scientists subject their cherished claims to grave risk of refutation (Meehl, 1978; see also Ruscio, 2001). In contrast, pseudoscientists tend to seek only confirming evidence for their claims. Because a determined advocate can find at least some supportive evidence for virtually any claim (Popper, 1959), this confirmatory hypothesis-testing strategy is not an efficient means of rooting out error in one’s web of beliefs. Moreover, as Bunge(1967) observed, most pseudosciences manage to reinterpret negative or anomalous findings as corroborations of their
claims (see Herbert et al., 2000). …
5. Reversed burden of proof.
As noted earlier, the burden of proof in science rests invariably on the individual making a claim, not on the critic. Proponents of pseudoscience frequently neglect this principle and instead
demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim
(e.g., an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is
false. This error is similar to the logician’s ad ignorantium fallacy (i.e., the
argument from ignorance), the mistake of assuming that a claim is likely to
be correct merely because there is no compelling evidence against it
(Shermer, 1997)…. But because it is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.
6. Absence of connectivity.
In contrast to most scientific research programs, pseudoscientificresearch programs tend to lack “connectivity” with other scientific disciplines (Bunge, 1983; Stanovich, 2001). In other words, pseudosciences often purport to create entirely new paradigms out of whole cloth rather than to build on extant paradigms. In so doing, they often neglect well-established scientific principles or hard-won scientific knowledge…. Although scientists should always remain open to the possibility that an entirely novel paradigm has successfully overturned all preexisting paradigms, they must insist on very high standards of evidence before drawing such a conclusion.
7. Over reliance on testimonial and anecdotal evidence.
Testimonialand anecdotal evidence can be quite useful in the early stages of scientific investigation. Nevertheless, such evidence is typically much more helpful in the context of discovery (i.e., hypothesis generation) than in the context of justification (i.e., hypothesis testing; see Reichenbach, 1938). Proponents of pseudoscientific claims frequently invoke reports from selected cases (e.g., “This treatment clearly worked for Person X, because Person X improved markedly following the treatment”) as a means of furnishing dispositive evidence for these claims. …As Gilovich (1991) observed, however, case reports almost never provide sufficient evidence for a claim, although they often provide necessary evidence for this claim. For example, if a new form of psychotherapy is efficacious, one should certainly expect at least some positive case reports of improvement. But such case reports do not provide adequate evidence that the improvement was attributable to the psychotherapy, because this improvement could have been produced by a host of other influences (e.g., placebo effects, regression to the mean, spontaneous remission, maturation; see Cook & Campbell, 1979).
8. Use of obscurantist language.
Many proponents of pseudoscience use impressive sounding or highly technicaljargon in an effort to provide their disciplines withthe superficial trappings of science (see van Rillaer, 1991, for a discussion of “strategies of dissimulation” in pseudoscience).
Such language may be convincing to individuals unfamiliar with the scientific
underpinnings of the claims in question, and may therefore lend these
claims an unwarranted imprimatur of scientific legitimacy. …
9. Absence of boundary conditions.
Most well-supported scientific theories possess boundary conditions, that is, well-articulated limits under which predicted phenomena do and do not apply. In contrast, many or most pseudoscientificphenomena are purported to operate across an exceedingly wide range of conditions. As Hines (1988, 2001) noted, one frequent characteristic of fringe psychotherapies is that they are ostensibly efficacious for almost all disorders regardless of their etiology. For example, some proponents of Thought Field Therapy (see Chapter 9) have proposed that this treatment is beneficialfor virtually all mental disorders. Moreover, the developer of this treatment has posited that it is efficacious not only for adults but for “horses, dogs, cats, infants, and very young children” (Callahan, 2001b, p. 1255).
10. The mantra of holism.
Proponents of pseudoscientificclaims, especially in organic medicine and mentalhealth, often resort to the “mantra of holism” (Ruscio, 2001) to explain away negative findings. When invoking this mantra, they typically maintain that scientific claims can be evaluated only within the context of broader claims and therefore cannot be judged in isolation….
This “heads I win, tails you lose” reasoning places the claims of these proponents largely outside of the boundaries of science….
Scientists, even those who are well trained, are not immune from such practices. In scientific research programs, however, such practices tend to be weeded out eventually through the slow but steady process of self-correction. In contrast to sciences, in which erroneous claims tend to be gradually ferreted out by a process akin to natural selection (e.g., see Campbell’s [1974] discussion of evolutionary epistemology), pseudosciences tend to remain stagnant in the face of contradictory evidence.”
Excerpts from the online article: http://www.guilford.com/excerpts/lilienfeld.pdf , from the book Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology(p5-), edited by Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, and Jeffrey M. Lohr. Guilford Press
More Recommended Web Links:
Here is a wonderful website stating the dangers of a certain chemical. I don’t want to spoil the surprize, but I can say it is very enlightening on the subject of science vs pseudoscience: http://www.dhmo.org/
Here is another interesting website, showing that the concept of pseudoscience is common to not just psychology, but also chemistry. I include it here because it is neutral when it comes to psychology. There are lots of great links on pseudoscience at the bottom of this webpage also:
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html
The following is a link to a comprehensive article on identifying pseudoscience, I found it quite engaging, and it is in adobe PDF format. It lists primal therapy as “never provided a scientifically acceptable rationale or evidence to support their therapeutic claims” (p. 19) and it lists primal therapy under “Unproven Psychological Theories and Treatments” (p. 22). The article is “Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience”, by Barry Beyerstein, Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University (Canada) 1996: http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/revsalud/beyerstein_cience_vs_pseudoscience.pdf
The James Randi Educational Foundation: http://www.randi.org/
Skeptic: The Skeptic Society & Skeptic Magazine: www.skeptic.com/
The Skeptics Dictionary: http://skepdic.com/
Martin Gardiner’s books and articles on pseudoscience are recommended. Check out the insightful observations of pseudoscientists on the webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fads_and_Fallacies_in_the_Name_of_Science
Check out the following link to the article “How to Sell a Pseudoscience,” it is brilliant:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/pratkanis.htm
The following link is a high quality article on the scientific method, include here for two reasons (1) it is neutral regarding psychotherapy and (2) it shows how the scientific method can be used in disciplines not traditionally thought of as hard sciences: http://linguistics.byu.edu/faculty/eddingtond/lingsci.pdf
Recommended Books:
All these are available at amazon.com
How to Think Straight About Psychology, 6thor later editions, 2001, Keith E. Stanovich
The Social Animal, 9th ed, 2004, Elliot Aronson
Social Psychology: An Introduction, 2002, Aronson, Wilson, Akert
Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, Lilienfeld, Linn, Lohr. (for a review of this book by Professor Colin Feltham, see the The Counselling Center website)
.
