The Turnstone: talking about vaccines #36

Science and pseudoscience (3 minute read)

Much of science education is focused on teaching facts. There’s less emphasis on the methods and on what makes science ‘scientific’. As a result, our education can leave us poorly equipped to evaluate statements which claim to be based on science. This is a particular challenge with medical claims, where remarkable benefits may be credited to certain products, or terrible harm blamed on treatments such as vaccines.

So, this month, I’ve got some resources to help with understanding what science actually is, and isn’t, and to help with evaluating scientific-sounding claims, especially those linked to medicine.

What is science?

Ask this question, and you’ll get a lot of different answers, some of them easier to follow than others. Of the answers I found, I like the one I’ve linked to below, because it tackles some of the more difficult aspects of science, such as the fact that it doesn’t give definitive answers and that it’s not entirely objective.

What is Science? | Marcellus Community Science (psu.edu) (4 minute read)

There are also some other useful articles on the same website, such as one about scientific uncertainty. But if you look only at one page, look at the one which explains the difference between correlation and causation. These concepts are particularly useful to understand when evaluating scientific-sounding claims.

Correlation vs. Causation | Marcellus Community Science (psu.edu) (2 minute read and two videos – I recommend the first one which is 5 minutes long)

The following article is particularly useful for understanding scientific claims which appear in the media. It goes into more depth on the difference between correlation and causation. However, if you aren’t familiar with these terms, it will help if you watch the first video on the website above.

What Do Scientific Studies Show? - The New York Times (nytimes.com) (7 minute read)

If you want to go into more depth on scientific and critical thinking, the following article by science educator Melanie Trecek-King, is long but well-worth the time.

A Life Preserver for Staying Afloat in a Sea of Misinformation | Skeptical Inquirer (21 minute read)

A thorny trap (image credit: Melanie Newfield)

What is pseudoscience?

While we’re talking about what science is, it’s also worth talking about what science isn’t. The term “pseudoscience” is commonly used to describe a concept which uses scientific words and may seem plausible, but is not based on reliable evidence. The two articles I’ve given below give good explanations, but they aren’t as clear as I’d like, so here are my summaries.

The first article explains that the line between science and pseudoscience is not a clear boundary. It gives as examples astrology and alchemy, which were both once considered to be sciences but are certainly not now.

One crucial point is that nobody considers themselves a pseudoscientist. Belittling people’s beliefs by calling them pseudoscientific is not helpful. It’s far more useful to try and demystify science, and to make the effort to understand why people are driven to pseudosciences in the first place. In the case of those who are opposed to vaccines or believe that they are dangerous, this may be because they’ve been let down by conventional medicine in some way, or because they feel as if doctors haven’t listened to them.

So, although I continue to use the term pseudoscience in this article, I do so with some discomfort.

4 categories of pseudoscience — and how to talk to people who believe in them - Big Think (8 minute read)

The second article analyses the claims on a particular website to show why the author considers the claims pseudoscientific. The article gives a good explanation of things to watch out for in health claims, such as many different diseases with a single cure and relying on testimonials as evidence.

Correactology® or How to Identify a Pseudoscience | Office for Science and Society - McGill University (7 minute read)

Finally, the website below gives a good summary of many of the points covered in the articles I’ve shared here, all in one easy-to-read chart.

A-Rough-Guide-to-Spotting-Bad-Science-2015.png (1754×2480) (wp.com)