Pseudoscience: A Very Short Introduction

Very Short Introductions #732

by Michael D. Gordin

Everyone has heard of the term "pseudoscience," typically used to describe something that looks like science, but is somehow false, misleading, or unproven. Many would be able to agree on a list of things that fall under its umbrella - astrology, phrenology, UFOlogy, creationism, and eugenics might come to mind. But defining what makes these fields “pseudo” is a far more complex issue. It has proved impossible to come up with a simple criterion that enables us to differentiate pseudoscience from genuine science. Given the virulence of contemporary disputes over the denial of climate change and anti-vaccination movements - both of which display allegations of “pseudoscience” on all sides - there is a clear need to better understand issues of scientific demarcation.

A Very Short Introduction explores the philosophical and historical attempts to address this problem of demarcation. This book argues that by understanding doctrines that are often seen as antithetical to science, we can learn a great deal about how science operated in the past and does today. This exploration raises several How does a doctrine become demonized as pseudoscientific? Who has the authority to make these pronouncements? How is the status of science shaped by political or cultural contexts? How does pseudoscience differ from scientific fraud?

Michael D. Gordin both answers these questions and guides readers along a bewildering array of marginalized doctrines, looking at parapsychology (ESP), Lysenkoism, scientific racism, and alchemy, among others, to better understand the struggle to define what science is and is not, and how the controversies have shifted over the centuries. A Very Short Introduction provides a historical tour through many of these fringe fields in order to provide tools to think deeply about scientific controversies both in the past and in our present.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Philosophy

144 pages, Paperback

Published April 27, 2023

About the author

Michael Gordin is Rosengarten Professor of Modern and Contemporary History at Princeton University, where he specializes in the history of modern science. In 2013-4 he served as the inaugural director of the Fung Global Fellows Program. He came to Princeton in 2003 after earning his A.B. (1996) and his Ph.D. (2001) from Harvard University, and serving a term at the Harvard Society of Fellows. In 2011 he was awarded a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship and was named a Guggenheim Fellow. He has published on the history of science, Russian history, and the history of nuclear weapons.

Reviews

[Dave Stone · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fun little read (or listen on audio)
Informative with a lot of little surprises. Don't go into this with an axe to grind hoping he'll call out your pet peeve. This guy takes a relaxed attitude, while keeping things academic.
The big problem here is one of definitions, What is pseudoscience?
...well, that's a matter of interpretation. This guy lays out several different criteria.
By different criteria string theory or psychiatry would be defined as pseudoscience.
Two fun parts for me where: the things that used to be called pseudoscience that later were proven true. And the bit about industry creating fake 'science' to manufacture doubt about the harmfulness of their products.
This book is quick, painless, and has a laid back not too judgemental vibe.

[Ocean · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very important book to read in the current political climate. I appreciate the dive into the complexity of defining just what pseudoscience actually is in the first place. The attempts to define it have been messy. With the wiggly nature of the term in mind, it describes various instances of pseudoscience in history. Of particular interest to me was the section on mediums, and I appreciated the mention of James Randi. Always love books from this series and I look forward to reading more of them.

[Spencer Ponsolle · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is my first in the Oxford “A Very Short Introduction” series. I was assigned this for my upper level philosophy course this semester, but only just now got around to finishing it.

I enjoyed the perspective this book offered, as it turns out, most pseudosciences are harmless; they are mostly just semi-scientific practices that fail to meet the rigorous demands of mainstream science. That being said, one of the greatest faults of pseudoscience is that its theories get ahead of its evidence. For example, in alchemy, the idea of the “Philosopher’s Stone” has eluded practitioners for centuries, (being wholly nonexistent) and a figure of someone’s imagination, it turns out that all of the efforts towards creating it don’t create it. Some other cases, like UFOlogy can consist of fun social groups, but seem to impose by suggesting too much strength on their evidential claims. Aliens may in fact exist, but it does not at all seem likely that we have encountered them.

One fascinating angle of pseudoscience that this book explores is the idea that early pseudoscientific fields such as alchemy and astrology can be considered “vestigial sciences”, in that the core, empirical aspects of them are passed down in the form of chemistry and astronomy, respectively.

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good. Science becomes pseudoscience at the same time that a piece of art becomes beautiful - which is to say that whether it is or is not, it is observed to be so and so it is. UFO’s and aliens, creationism, chiropractors, vaccinations, ghost hunting, space travel, and so forth are either established science or purely pseudoscience depending on who you ask. Does this mean that we don’t truly know when something is truly pseudoscientific? As Gordin points out here, we can know, and there are foundational truths of science- it is not just our individual opinions that make something real or fake. This one was a bit all over the place too, so be prepared for a wide array of topics.

[Mahmoud · Rating 3 out of 5]

ما الذي يجعلنا موقنين أن حياتنا لم تضع هباءً وراء معرفة وهمية؟ وما المعيار اللازم لتقييم مصادر المعرفة؟


كيف نميِّز بين العلوم الحقيقية والزائفة؟ وهل هناك معيار يمكن الاعتماد عليه للتفرقة بينهما؟


يحاول الكتاب الإحاطة يبعض جوانب المشكلة، ثم إيجاد حلول لها.


ورغم أنها تبدو عصيّة على الحل، هناك تاريخ طويل مع الفرضيات والاتجاهات التي قدمت نفسها كمصادر موثوقة للمعرفة:


منها الاتجاه التجريبي الذي وضع الحواس كمصدر للمعرفة ونفي وجود المعرفة الفطرية- من روادها (ديفيد هيوم) و(جون لوك) الذي رأى أن الإنسان يولد صفحة بيضاء تملؤها التجربة الحسيَّة.


والاتجاه العقلي الذي افترض وجود معارف فطرية، كالقدرة علي التعلم والجمع والطرح.


ومن نفى المعرفة كليًّا ورآها كأمر كاذب، كالفيلسوف اليوناني (بيرو).


ومنها الفلسفة الإسلامية أو الدينية بالعموم، التي تتحدث عن "العلم اللدنِّي"، فتضع الله كمصدر للمعرفة، ثم من ينوب عنه من أنبياء أو رسل.



تاريخ طويل من تداخل العلوم مع السياسة والاقتصاد والأهواء الشخصية يضيق السياق بذكرها. أكتفي منها ببعض الملحوظات المهمة:


١- جزء من تعلق الأنظمة السياسية بمروجي العلوم الزائفة- خصوصا الأنظمة القمعية في الفترة التي تلي انقلابا ما- هو حاجة تلك النظم إلى انجاز سريع وساحر، يهدئ الجمهور المترقب، ويعطي للنظام الجديد شرعية يحتاجها. وهو ما يعد به أصحاب العلوم الزائفة:


إنجازات سريعة شبه سحرية، حتي ولو لم يكن قادة تلك الأنظمة علي قناعة كاملة بها. 


الجزء الثاني يتعلق بجهل القائمين على القرار العسكري بالمنهج العلمي وسهولة تضليلهم.



٢- بُدائية العلوم زمان كانت تسمح بأن يوازي مجهود الفرد مجهود مجموعة أو مؤسسة (مثال جاليليو وغيره) أما الآن فالعلوم، رعايتها وتطويرها، يحتاج إلى مؤسسات وتمويل ضخم ومجهود جماعي وتقسيم مهام.. إلى آخره.


٣- كثير من ظواهر العلم الزائف مبنية على رفض الإنسان الإقرار بمحدودية قدراته. أو محاولة إيجاد وجود أو معنى أعمق مما يبدو من المادة الظاهرة، وهي محاولات إن لم تكن تثير الاستياء فهي تثير الشفقة.


لاحظ كيف تشترك كثير من هذه الظواهر في بحثها عن دعم للإنسان المنهك، محدود القدرات، سواء بشكل شخصي: في ظاهرة مثل الاستبصار والإدراك الفائق للحواس. أو بشكل جمعي عام: في ظاهرة مثل الإيمان الديني.

[K!NAN · Rating 3 out of 5]

Today, I read this book for a class. I think it's my fault I didn't enjoy it as much as I could've. I went in with expectations that Gordin might solve the Problem of Demarcation and help define what classifies pseudoscience and what doesn't. That, I have realized, is too lofty a goal for a book whose subtitle is "A Very Short Introduction." This is my first read of Oxford's series, notedly. Anywho, this book feels to me more as a history of pseudoscience rather than the metaphysics of pseudoscience, although I believe Chapter 6 touches on the qualities of pseudoscience again. If you're looking for an introduction, this book is solid.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nice discussion about pseudoscience, with historical context, some philosophical discussion, and many examples of pseudoscience over the last 300 years or so. Also a useful delineation of different flavors of pseudoscience and why they’re distinct from each other.

What was missing: a clear definition of science! That’s not an easy task and I can understand wanting to avoid it especially in such a short book — but it seems like a real omission, it doesn’t seem like you can fully capture what pseudoscience is until you’ve nailed down what science is.

But still a good book. I listened to the audio version, the narrator was fine but there were some odd mispronunciations, I thought.

[Desollado · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was pleasantly surprised by the author's neutral approach, which distances itself from the sensationalism of others, like Michael Shermer. I found the way he broadens the concept, exploring its philosophical, political, and historical implications, to be very appropriate, along with the mention of parallel categories like 'fringe science' or 'vestigial sciences

[Flora · Rating 5 out of 5]

I enjoyed this a lot. I expected a pretty straightforward listing of claims commonly considered to be pseudoscientific, and was pleasantly surprised to find a lot of thought-provoking discussion on how pseudoscience may be defined and where ot sits in history, society, and the field of science. Really glad I give this a listen.

[Kent · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nicely acknowledges that what’s pseudoscience to you is legit to me and vice versa. Good run-through of Karl Popper’s demarcation problem— ie, what counts as science? Succinctly covers all the greatest hits— astrology, flat earth, denialism of sundry stripes, alchemy, etc. Good bibliography.

[chelsbe · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 if that was an option- interesting and love the ‘very short intro’ concept. Had to do a decent amount of cross referencing to understand several theories

[Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

62/100
Pseudoscience by Micheal Gordin starts with an entertaining way to explain Pseudoscience.
The issue is where to draw the line of what pseudo science is and what exactly are the criteria which could be a bit tricky knowing already what we consider as pseudo science and what not , and there are some contradictions to it.
Also, both scenarios occurred, Theories which were considered as proper science were dismissed later and accepted theories being disputed.

[Zac Dragan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some great points, but annoyingly obscured with a very verbose flex from the author