3 questions to ask yourself before you believe something - Siska De Baerdemaeker
In the late 1700s, a German doctor named
Samuel Hahnemann began publishing
articles about a new treatment
approach he called homeopathy.
Hahnemann’s theory had
two central hypotheses.
First, the treatment for an ailment
should be a dose of something
that might cause that ailment.
And second, diluted medicines are more
powerful than concentrated ones.
So, a homeopathic remedy for insomnia
might include an extremely diluted
solution of caffeine.
Over the following 300 years,
numerous physicians and patients
turned to homeopathy,
and entire hospitals were built
to focus on homeopathic treatments.
But despite all this, many studies have
shown that homeopathy
has no therapeutic effect,
and homeopathic treatments often
perform no better than placebos.
So why do so many practitioners
and institutions
still support this practice?
The answer is that homeopathy
is a pseudoscience—
a collection of theories, methods,
and assumptions
that appear scientific,
but aren’t.
In the worst cases, pseudoscience
practitioners encourage this confusion
to exploit people.
But even when they’re well-intentioned,
pseudoscience still prevents people
from getting the help they need.
So how are you supposed to tell what’s
science and what’s pseudoscience?
This question is known as
the demarcation problem,
and there's no easy answer.
Part of the issue is that defining
science is surprisingly tricky.
There's a common idea that all science
should, in some form or another,
be related to testing
against empirical evidence.
But some scientific activities
are primarily theoretical,
and different disciplines
approach empiricism
with varying goals, methodologies,
and standards.
20th century philosopher Karl Popper
tried to solve the demarcation problem
with a simple rule.
He argued that in order
for a theory to be scientific
it must be falsifiable,
or able to be proven wrong.
This requires a theory to make
specific predictions—
for example, if you’re theorizing
that the Earth revolves around the Sun,
you should be able to predict the path of
other celestial bodies in the night sky.
This could then be disproven
based on whether or not
your prediction corresponds
to your observations.
Popper’s falsification criterion
is a great way
to identify pseudoscientific fields
like astrology,
which makes overly broad predictions
that adapt to any observation.
However, falsification alone doesn't
completely solve the demarcation issue.
Many things we now consider science
were once untestable
due to a lack of knowledge or technology.
Fortunately, there are other factors
we can use to identify pseudoscience,
including how a field responds
to criticism.
Scientists should always be open
to the possibility
that new observations could change
what they previously thought,
and thoroughly disproven theories should
be rejected in favor of new explanations.
Conversely, pseudoscientific theories are
often continually modified
to explain away any contradictory results.
This kind of behavior shows a resistance
to what philosopher Helen Longino
calls transformative criticism.
Pseudoscientific fields don't seek
to address their internal biases
or meaningfully engage
in transparent peer review.
Another key marker of science
is overall consistency.
Science relies on a network
of shared information
that ongoing research
develops across disciplines.
But pseudoscience often ignores
or denies this shared pool of data.
For example, creationists claim
that animals didn’t evolve
from a common ancestor,
and that Earth is
less than 20,000 years old.
But these claims contradict
huge amounts of evidence
across multiple scientific disciplines,
including geology, paleontology,
and biology.
While the scientific method
is our most reliable tool
to analyze empirical evidence
from the world around us,
it certainly doesn't reveal everything
about the human condition.
Faith-based beliefs can play an important
role in our lives and cultural traditions.
But the reason it’s so important
to draw a line
is that people often dress up
belief systems as science
in efforts to manipulate others
or undermine legitimate
scientific discoveries.
And even in cases where this
might seem harmless,
legitimizing pseudoscience can impede
genuine scientific progress.
In a world where it's increasingly
difficult to tell fact from fiction,
it's essential to keep your critical
thinking skills sharp.
So the next time you hear
an amazing new claim,
ask yourself:
could we test this?
Are the individuals behind this theory
updating their claims with new findings?
Is this consistent with our broader
scientific understanding of the world?
Because looking scientific
and actually being scientific
are two very different things.
