skip to the content

We just spent a great amount of time and detail discussing what science is.  In contrast, we will now begin a discussion of what science isn’t.  Science cannot know everything.  Yet, there are many instances where people try to apply the scientific method where it is inappropriate to do so.  Let’s review our definition of Science, the Scientific Method, and a restatement of that sentence I asked you to repeat three times:

Science – a discipline that seeks to understand the physical universe and its natural phenomena through observation, measurement, and constant evaluation and reevaluation of logical interpretations.

Scientific Method – the framework of science that seeks to create accurate, unbiased explanations of the physical universe and its natural phenomena through accepted rules of reasoning and peer review.

Scientific Knowledge – ideas which explain the physical universe and its natural phenomena that have undergone rigorous evaluation, criticism, and acceptance by the scientific community.


ben“Pulling bad science apart is the best teaching gimmick I know for explaining how good science works” – B. Goldacre, November 4, 2011.

If you want to really understand what bad science is (and conversely what good science is, you may want to follow Dr. Ben Goldacre on Twitter.  Dr. Goldacre is medical doctor and academic who has written books about “Bad Science,” writes a weekly column in the Guardian about it, and even maintains a website with current criticisms about how science is portrayed in the media. 

Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is “fake science” masquerading as real science. Consider a street vendor in New York City selling fake Rolexes. The watches may look like a Rolex, but on the inside it is just a cheap watch. Pseudoscience is the same deal.
Pseudoscience is a set of ideas put forth as scientifically tested and approved when they are not scientific.  You will often hear products being sold as based on “science” or a “theory” when, in actuality, the ideas have not gone through the rigors of the scientific method. (Review the definition of a scientific theory on the previous page.) Pseudoscience is motivated by personal profit, religious beliefs, dogmatism, or personal gain. Pseudoscience may use certain aspects of the Scientific Method, but falls short of the Method is one or more of the following:

  • the phenomena is not a part of the physical universe;
  • data is not based on observable or measurable phenomena (rather it is based on philosophical interpretations or the data is anecdotal);
  • data collection techniques are dubious or flawed;
  • the length of the study was too short or the sample size too small;
  • experiments are not repeatable;
  • data does not support the conclusion (flawed reasoning);
  • results are ambiguous and can be interpreted in many ways;
  • the work has not undergone the peer-review process;
  • the idea was peer-reviewed but did not pass the peer-review process for publication in a respected scientific journal; and/or
  • the overall work was completed under bias or there is a strong appearance of bias.

Let’s look at a few examples:

babyeinsteinBaby Einstein. Who wants a smarter baby?  I do!  Well, it’s a good thing you do because there is just the product for you: Baby Einstein DVDs.  In the late 1990s through today, these videos were sold to a target audience of infants and toddlers (0-3 years old).  These were the first videos to be marketed specifically as educational, being able to stimulate young minds and help children to be better prepared for preschool.  These were widely popular with a reported one in three babies having seen a Baby Einstein video in the late 1990s. 

The problem?  Well, the claims that children who watched these videos became smarter than children who didn’t was never scientifically tested.  In 2006, a group of parents (and their lawyers) filed a complaint against the Disney Company (who owned The Baby Einstein Company) to the Federal Trade Commission for false advertising.  You see in the early years of the Baby Einstein craze, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released an official statement urging that parents not let children under the age of two watch television:  “pediatricians should urge parents to avoid television viewing for children under the age of two years.” 

The Baby Einstein claim was never supported by scientific information.  In fact, the opposite claim that television watching at a young age can be detrimental to child development is more scientifically accepted because (1) children learn better by interacting with parents or care-givers, (2) unstructured playtime is better at stimulating creativity, problem solving, reasoning, and motor skills – and how to entertain themselves –, and (3) children who watch too much media are at risk for delays in language development (AAP).  All-in-all, it was discovered that watching television and videos took time away from time spent with parents, playing, and interacting with their environment, which are the best ways that infants actually learn.

In response to parent outcry and threats of a class action lawsuit, the Disney Company and its holding The Baby Einstein Company changed the description of “educational” to more ambiguous language like “reinforces number recognition using simple patterns” or “introduces circles, ovals, triangles, squares and rectangles” and offered, up until March 2010, full refunds on up to four Baby Einstein videos which had the original marketing text (without the need for a receipt).
This example is pseudoscience because of these main shortfalls:

  • Data does not support the conclusion (flawed reasoning) – There was no data! There was data to the contrary.
  • The work has not undergone the peer-review process – The claim that the videos were educational was never tested through the scientific method!
  • The overall work was completed under bias or there is a strong appearance of bias – The claim was highly motivated by a desire to sell the videos and make money.

Now, I want you to go through and listen to the two audio stories listed in the Required Reading list.

As you go through these, take notes:  What was the claim or idea that is trying to be forwarded?  What scientific (or scientific-sounding language) is used to describe the claim?  Do you think that the claim has gone through the Scientific Method?  What shortfalls make these examples pseudoscience?

« Page: 10 of 13 »