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. However 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. However, 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 an effort 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.
Research the history and principles of homeopathy as introduced by Samuel Hahnemann. Create a presentation that explains the two central hypotheses of homeopathy and how it spread over the years. Include a section on the criticisms and studies that show its effectiveness compared to placebos. Present your findings to the class.
Divide into two groups. One group will argue that homeopathy is a valid scientific practice, while the other will argue that it is pseudoscience. Use Karl Popper’s falsification criterion and other factors discussed in the article to support your arguments. After the debate, discuss as a class what makes a theory scientific or pseudoscientific.
Analyze a case study where homeopathy was used as a treatment. Evaluate the case using the criteria for identifying pseudoscience, such as response to criticism and consistency with other scientific knowledge. Write a report summarizing your analysis and present your conclusions.
Design an experiment to test a homeopathic remedy. Outline how you would ensure the experiment is scientifically valid, including control groups, randomization, and methods for measuring outcomes. Discuss how you would interpret the results and what they would mean for the validity of homeopathy.
Participate in a workshop focused on developing critical thinking skills. Practice evaluating various claims by asking questions such as: Is this claim testable? Are the proponents of this theory updating their claims with new findings? Is this consistent with broader scientific understanding? Apply these questions to different scenarios, including homeopathy and other pseudoscientific claims.
homeopathy – a system of alternative medicine based on the principle that “like cures like,” where a substance that causes symptoms in healthy people is used to treat similar symptoms in sick people. – Homeopathy relies on the idea that highly diluted substances can stimulate the body’s natural healing abilities, for example, using a highly diluted form of coffee to treat insomnia.
pseudoscience – a belief or process that is presented as scientific but lacks the methodology, evidence, or consensus within the scientific community. – Many people consider astrology to be a pseudoscience since it lacks empirical evidence and is not widely accepted by the scientific community.
demarcation problem – the philosophical question of how to distinguish between science and nonscience or pseudoscience. – The demarcation problem has been debated for years, with various proposed criteria to determine what constitutes legitimate science.
Karl Popper – Austrian-British philosopher known for his work on the philosophy of science, particularly his idea of falsification as a criterion for distinguishing scientific theories from non-scientific ones. – Karl Popper’s ideas have had a significant impact on the philosophy of science, particularly his emphasis on the importance of falsifiability.
falsification criterion – a principle proposed by Karl Popper that states for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be possible to conceive of an observation or experiment that could potentially prove it wrong. – According to the falsification criterion, a scientific theory must be testable and potentially refutable through evidence or experimentation.
astrology – a belief system that suggests there is a connection between the positions of celestial bodies and human affairs, often used to make predictions or interpretations about an individual’s personality or future events. – Many people read their daily horoscopes for entertainment, but astrology is not considered a scientific discipline due to its lack of empirical evidence.
response to criticism – the way in which individuals, theories, or ideas react or address negative feedback or objections raised against them. – A strong response to criticism involves addressing the specific points raised and providing evidence or logical reasoning to support one’s position.
consistency – the quality of being logically or harmoniously coherent, without contradictions or discrepancies. – In scientific research, consistency is crucial to ensure that experimental results can be replicated and conclusions can be drawn with confidence.
distinguishing science from pseudoscience – the process of differentiating between scientific methods that rely on empirical evidence, testability, and peer review, and non-scientific approaches lacking these characteristics. – The demarcation problem aims to establish clear criteria for distinguishing science from pseudoscience, allowing for a better understanding of the boundaries between the two.
critical thinking skills – the ability to objectively analyze and evaluate information, arguments, or claims, using logical reasoning and evidence to form well-informed judgments. – Developing critical thinking skills is essential for distinguishing between reliable scientific research and unsubstantiated claims.
