Bogus science is prevalent and often involves claims pitched to the media, suppression claims, anecdotal evidence, and measurements at the edge of detection. Claims that have lasted for centuries or require new physical laws are also red flags. Real science is based on experimentation and careful theorizing.
Bogus science can be found in large quantities anywhere you want to look. For example, homeopathic medicine is extremely popular in many parts of the world, but it consists only of water. In 1989, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, electrochemists at the University of Utah, caused a worldwide sensation by announcing that they had developed cold fusion, the fusion of atomic nuclei at room temperature using a low-energy process. However, subsequent attempts at a replication proved this to be false. New bogus scientific claims are being made every day, and it takes a careful skeptic to cut the hype down to nonsense.
The first and foremost sign of bogus science is when a scientific claim is pitched directly to the media, rather than reported in peer-reviewed journals. Irish free energy company Steorn, which ran a full-page ad in the Economist magazine, is a recent example. Another sign is suppression claims.
Suppression claims among purveyors of bogus science are so common that such claims are pretty much an immediate indicator that the claim is flawed. While anyone may find it difficult to publish their experimental results in more mainstream scientific journals, if the effect they claim is substantial and real then it is inevitable that they will soon gain the fame they deserve. If they don’t, it’s usually because their methods are sloppy or they’re making the data up.
Bogus scientific claims often involve measurements at the edge of detection. This includes the “energy fields” touted by many New Age mystics, or Ron Hubbard’s Scientology e-meter. The measurements are very noisy and barely correlate with anything in the real world, and this condition remains even through improvements in instrumentation. This strongly suggests the presence of a confirmation bias: no improvement in instrumentation will ever reveal the effect more clearly, because the effect is only in the minds of the researchers and they expect to keep seeing it, so they do.
Often, bogus scientific claims are based on anecdotal evidence, presented as an advertisement rather than a serious scientific investigation. The anecdotes carry an emotional valence that the experimental results lack in some, bringing “personality” to the story, but also introducing a tremendous loophole for social error and delusion. Many anti-aging therapies fall into this category, with numerous anecdotes suggesting they work. Careful monitoring of those who consume these “medicines”, however, shows that they age at the same rate as anyone else.
A sure sign of bogus science is when pretenders claim their theory or its effects have lasted for centuries. If science has shown us anything, it’s that popular theories about how the world works are almost always wrong or incomplete, which is why extensive experimentation and careful theorizing is needed to build a better model of the world. It is likewise claimed that the discoverer worked in isolation, or that new physical laws are needed to explain the effect. These are all attempts to avoid the prying eyes of serious scientists and skeptics.
We will probably never be able to stop the worldwide spread of bogus science, but we can stop it when it knocks on our door. Real scientists love science because it works, while bogus science derived from wishful thinking only works as a sad placebo.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
