Pseudoscience means false science. Pseudoscience is any scheme of assertions, beliefs and methods, wrongly considered as scientific. It differs from antiscience in the nonattendance against real science and the scientific method.

As a rule, pseudoscientists rely on deceptive or fallacious arguments called sophisms (definition from Webster Dictionary; 1999).

Based on pseudoscience, many dishonest beliefs have derived, supposing that the reality relies on one's perception, not on the observation and experimentation matters.

For instance, as pseudoscientists are incompetent to conceive how Egyptians constructed the pyramids, the pseudoscientists cooked up the fallacy on the help of Aliens (Extraterrestrials) that were the constructors of the tombs. They think on extraterrestrial space-ships lifting gigantic rocks up with a light beam, which can transport those rocks by the air and join rock by rock on the suitably spot... it is so the pseudoscientific imagination of some people.

Another hoax is a feature of the insidious idea that the arrangement of the stars, perceived by humans as identifiable images (zodiac) thanks to our vast imagination and a normal mental trouble known as pareidolia, provokes a straight consequence in the life and fate of living beings on Earth (astrology), especially in humans’ life.

Frequently, pseudoscientists release odd claims, puzzling phrases and allegations for filling semantic holes, mistreating the term "science" to bestow confidence -one way or another- to their fantastic speculations, old myths and superstitions.

Pseudoscientists say, by means of their false standards, that paranormal experiences are out from the scope of scientists. Also, they qualify the "orthodox" science as a deficient way to search mystical matters. This is the preferred argument of pseudoscientists to block the analysis of science. They mislead the people by saying that the "traditional science is incompetent to disclose many events of the Cosmos by its current techniques of assessment."

By quoting to well-known scientists, ET's activists misinform people, who usually end believing that the Ufologists' fibs are facts based on science. For example:

"Intelligent creatures prosper in the cosmos and nearly all of them are much older than we are." (Supposedly, it was said by a Doctor of Harvard, whose name is unknown, sure). I am in awe on how that alleged Doctor talked about Aliens’ age with so much self-confidence.

The question here is why the real scientists must occupy themselves in worthless topics, like the absurd fraud on the existence of UFOs and Aliens from outer imagined planets. The test for scientists is how to inform people about the positive understanding onf the incorrect use of science on this species of crafty themes.

We would not do a little if UFO's promoters had not manipulated sneakily the name of science to justify their cock-and-bull stories. We must have a timid sensitivity to allow that this happened. Of course, there are pseudoscientists in our garden, suggestive creationists and popped-eyes Ufologists who named their devious occupations as the "Creation Science" and the "Space-Aliens Science", respectively. How could science stay there if both Creationism and UFOlogy are crude forgeries?

They say that their fabrications are truth because we cannot explain them, but that no one know how to verify a fantasy, does not mean that the idea be real. This is an unwise reflection, branded by theorists as "Neo-obscurantism". Let’s see two of their sophisms:

1. My neighbor and I think that dragons are real.
2. Science has no evidence about dragons.
3. Science cannot prove that dragons do not exist or that they do exist.
4. My neighbor, who is a receptive person, has seen a dragon in his backyard, although he has not plausible evidence on it, except his skill to remember what he has seen. I have never seen a dragon.
5. Then, dragons exist and scientists are conspirators who try to occult the existence of dragons to conquer the world.

Just place the word "dragon" instead "virgins" or "aliens", and you will decode the mystery.

Let's see another example of sophistry:

1. Could you show me a fairy? No, I could not.
2. Could you prove through scientific methods that fairies do not exist? No, I could not.
3. Could you demonstrate by scientific methods that fairies exist? No, I could not.
4. Are fairies in humans’ memories? Yes, they keep on our memories due to the fairytales that we listened or read during our childhood.
5. Deduction: Then, fairies do exist.

Pseudoscientists have filled the void! The following thing will be a search for tiny shoes, dwarf mummies, provincial stories, to make some tricked photos and write a book on "real" encounters with fairies. Afterward, you will witness videos and news on weird sounds and images from the "beyond world", and if you are tolerant, you will find TV-series on fairies where some pseudoscientists will assure that "the University "X" carried out such study in such lab for showing that the fairies really exist."



Despite evidence, many people (even some self-called scientists) think that evolution is a hypothesis. Still some persons think that it is just a changeable opinion (dogma).

This has propitiated the rising of some groups that are opposed to the teaching of Evolution in schools, and that the invention of pseudosciences, as Creationism, creation science and creative evolution, which have been founded on ideological roots, be integrated in the schools’ courses as options to Scientific theories.

Astronomy and Biology (particularly Evolution and Cosmology) are both the sciences that have smashed the bench of religious myths. This is the cause for the creationists have been marked these two specialties for ferocious attacks. However, the reason always prevails. We cannot force science to be in agreement with our personal beliefs. The facts are emphatically facts, and the false is purely false.

While scientists are dedicated to study the intricate mechanisms of evolution, creationists are not capable to prove intelligibly the existence of their "Creation Intelligence”. Moreover, they started their “hypothesis” on the "creation evolution" on ideas.

The ambiguity of the phrase "Intelligent Design" is obvious; Could they validate the existence of an “Intelligent Designer”? We do not ask a lot, just factual information on it. Is there any observable process that validates the “special process of an Intelligent Design”?

Creationism cannot explain dinosaurs, trilobites, massive extinctions, congenital deformities, mutations, pathogenesis, parasites, virus, venomous animals and plants, man-eaters animal, etc., if it do not resort to Evolution. Please, read our page on Creationism.



In general terms, we should follow a systematization to get a valid deduction about something. This systematization is summarized in the steps of the Scientific Method.

Steps of Scientific Method

I should say that this explanation is a general description of the scientific method. However, the Scientific method is an obligatory tool to know the reality from nature. Any assertion that cannot be submitted to the Scientific Method can be considered as a fictitious thought.

The first step in any investigation is OBSERVATION. Observation consists of setting our attention in a portion of the Universe. Through observation we are able to identify specific realities or events from the cosmos by means of our senses.

Once the observation is executed, the researcher elaborates one or more questions, generally ingenerated by the curiosity of the observer. These questions constitute a PROBLEM. The questions MUST MATCH with the remarked phenomenon and they must adhere to objectivity.

The investigator should always take into account that the questions that begin with a "why" are very difficult - if not impossible - to answer. The objective investigator prefers start with questions like "what", "how", "where", or "when". The question could be also "what is for".

Then, the observer, through INDUCTIVE REASONING, tries to give one or more logical answers to such question. Each answer is a tentative introduction that can serve like a guide for the remainder of the investigation. These preliminary solutions to a question are HYPOTHESES.

HYPOTHESIS is a statement that can be false or true and that should be submitted to experimentation.

After he has enunciated one or more hypothesis or proposed explanations, the researcher elaborates one or more PREDICTIONS, which must to be consistent with the observations and hypotheses. To do this, the researcher uses the DEDUCTIVE REASONING.

Each hypothesis should be submitted to an exhaustive test called EXPERIMENTATION. The results of experimentation will determine the final character (false or true) of the hypothesis.

The experimentation can be performed in diverse ways, but the controlled experimentation is a characteristic of the scientific method, of such way that other simpler systems are not viable for the purpose of science.

In controlled experimentation we should have two groups to test: a group called control group or witness group, and other called experimental group.

Both, the control group and the experimental group, are submitted to the same conditions, excluding the variable that has been chosen for the study. The control group is not submitted to the change, but the experimental group is submitted.

The results are observed and the differences between both groups are registered.

If the investigator notes a difference between both groups, then an answer can be deduced.

As the investigation advances, the false hypotheses are rejected one to one, until the plausible verification of the hypotheses that were presented intially.

If a hypothesis is proved, a final statement would be processed, which in science is called THEORY.

Theory is a partially or totally true statement, proved by means of experimentation or natural and observable evidences, only for one time and one place.

If the theory is verified reliable and appliable for all times and places, it would be considered a LAW.

A theory is subject to changes, a law is permanent and immutable. A law is comprobable at any time and place of the Cosmos. However, a theory is truth only for a certain place and a given time.

But, we should make clear that there are differences between the meanings of hypothesis, theory and law in sciences.

A HYPOTHESIS is a provisional solution for a question generated through the observation of an event. The hypothesis could be false or true, by this, every hypothesis must be tested through experimentation. For example, all reports on the origin of AIDS are hypotheses.

On the other hand, a scientific THEORY is a statement that must contain a setting of real evidence. A theory would be right only if it has been submitted to a rigorous testing, and it only will be true if it is in concordance with facts. A theory could be reworked, as new evidence be accumulated, but the background of truth of the theory will never be altered. Scientific theories are true only for a given time and space. It could not be true for other spots in the Universe. Evolution is a good example of a scientific theory.

A scientific LAW is a statement that is true and valid for all times and all places in the known Universe. A law is true and valid everywhere, for all times. For example, the Laws of Thermodynamics, Laws of Gravity and Axiom of Biogenesis are good examples of scientific laws. The last is one of three Biological Laws. Other Biological Laws are the Intransference of Life and the Irreversibility of Life.

I have seen a semantic problem in many non-scientific dissertations. It refers to a generalized mistreatment of the term "theory". Perhaps the confusion is attributable to the popular idea that the term "theory" applies to all non-verified perceptions, be scientific or not.

But for science, there is an enormous difference between hypothesis and theory. For the scientific community, a theory is a true statement applicable for one time and one place because it is based on evidence and it has been confirmed by testing.

Cell theory, for example, which says that all living beings are constituted by cells. Evolution is a theory because it applies for all known beings living on earth (for one place) and it applies for all current living beings (for one time). If Evolution were not kept up on observed facts, then we would say "hypothesis of Evolution" instead "theory of Evolution".


ACADEMIC PSEUDOSCIENCE (Click here for more Academic Pseudoscience)

Pseudoscience is relatively simple to detect in topics about creationism, astrology, divination, chiromancy, homeopathy, holistic medicine, UFOs, Aliens, etc., but we face a true problem when we deal with academic pseudoscience.

Currently there are many examples of academic pseudoscience which have nested in scientific academies, universities and societies like science by consensus. We know that the science is based on facts observed in nature, i.e. natural phenomena, so science by consensus is not clean science, but pseudoscience because it is constructed on unobservable ideas or on what we call irrefutable hypothesis.

Academic pseudoscience is evidenced through the behavior of the academic pseudoscientists. Regularly, they open chains of blogs in the Internet with the purpose of simulate an opposition to some well known public pseudoscientific ideas. Let’s take for example the science by consensus related to the anthropogenic climate change:

There are two parties in relation to the anthropogenic climate change; one of them is on the idea that human beings are responsible of the current climate change, while the another party is on the idea that the current climate change is quite natural and cyclical. I belong to the latter party; adhered to correct scientific concepts and to the scientific methodology, however.

Please, do not believe that one is pseudoscientific while the other is absolutely scientific. Sadly, both parties have been plagued by pseudoscience. For example, the anthropogenic climate change proponents say that the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities is the culprit of the climate change. This is not true because the carbon dioxide lacks of the thermal properties at its current density in the atmosphere as to cause any discernible change of the tropospheric temperature.

You can discover the pseudoscience by comparing what they say with what is being said in your science textbooks or in scientific reports based on observation and experimentation. For example, if you read a title in a blog saying “Heat Content in the Oceans”, you can be sure that you will find something of pseudoscientific nuance in the article. Why? Because the scientific concepts are being handled incorrectly with purpose; heat cannot be contained by any system because heat is a process function, not a state function.

However, the more painful way to realize that someone is using pseudoscience is when your scientific arguments cause that the pseudoscientists rush forth against you offending you, limiting your rights to freedom of speech and answering back, and, finally, ban all your participations on their blogs, or in the Media, or for publishing articles in scientific magazines. Many of us, truthful scientists, have been vetoed from blogs and the Media just by talking or teaching clean science.

Another case of academic pseudoscience is Panspermia hypothesis. It is untrue that "Panspermia ELUCIDATES THE ORIGIN OF LIFE" on earth, because it is just a good-looking tale about super-microbes riding on meteorites, bearing the severe conditions of the outer space during billions of years, to find the gone paradise at Earth. In addition, those microbes, how were originated on there where they supposedly were originated?  Sincerely, I cannot explain in simple terms how it that many brilliant minds have been dragged by this delusion.

A classical example of academic pseudoscience is the application of some scientific findings to prejudiced objectives. For example, when archeologists found that a different civilization, prior to the historically recognized culture of Egypt, had built the pyramids, immediately some archeologists sought for constructors with beard, when a small suggestion on bearded men was found, immediately was affirmed that those bearded men were Semites. Incidentally, someone suggested (by his own opinion) that Jews had built the Egyptian pyramids. In this example, the fabrication of the first and last assertions is as plain as a pikestaff. Historically, Semitic people did not figure as an important population, nor Hebrew people have come out at that point in time (origin of Jewish people goes back to 1700-1500 BC).

This kind of fraud is offensive for serious science; therefore, most of the non-specialists would believe the lie without a question.

Something comparable occurred when archeologists found some statues of bearded people at La Venta, Mexico (Olmec culture). Immediately, some editors documented the discovery by writing arguing, "Those statues possess a clear Jewish facial appearance." In contradiction, Olmec culture flourished from 5000 BC to 800 BC; instead, those small anthropologists dated the statues from 1500 BC, Jews come from Abraham, who lived (if he existed) in about 1800 BC, and Jewish people made an important population until 400 BC. However, some university historians have taught the tale to their students in academic programs, making an incredible ACADEMIC PSEUDOSCIENCE. Are you aware of those tricksters?

We should understand that the Jewish scribes wrote the Bible (Old Testament) until around 500 BC, during the Babilonian postexilic period; up to that time, there was no Bible. In addition, before than the Jewish people existed, the Phoenician navigators (Semites) were who probably firstly traveled to America, and this has been confirmed by most of the serious Anthropologists. Perhaps, those small statues represent to Phoenicians, the greatest marines of those times. Saying that the Jews were skillful navigators is the greatest unbelievable lie never said. (Click here for more Academic Pseudoscience)

We have no more to say that Creation Science and its entire annex (Theistic Evolutionism, progressive creationism, etc.) are fitting the category of false Sciences (pseudosciences).

Other pseudosciences:
Angelic Science
Anthropogenic Global Warming
Anthropogenic Climate Change
Divination by pendulums
Psychic Surgery
Naturism (the belief that the mythical four elements cure diseases).
Therapeutic Touch
Parallel Science (Magic)
Pyramidal Science
Biblical Science
Egyptian Science



Right now, a few Sociologists hahave spread the fallacy that the factual sciences are only ideologies invented by the white-males-elite. Instead of talking about factual sciences as the "knowledge about the true nature of the Cosmos", the pseudo-sociologists affirm that science is an expression of the Caucasian-man civilization. They insist on making us to believe that any ideas invented by the human societies are technically valid, although these were obvious fantasies.

For example, if someone thinks that the roosters sing at midmorning for foretelling a gust of wind, for those pseudo-sociologists the simple fact that for that person his belief is thought as real, then that belief would be scientifically valid. It would not concern anything the meticulous observations made by scientists to demonstrate that the belief would be false; simply, pseudo-sociologists affirm that if somebody thinks that something is true, automatically that idea would be a scientific statement. For these socio-antiscientists, the scientific corroboration would be wrong and their false knowledge would be true just because they think that it is real, as they say, because the real scientific corroboration would be suitable only for the white-males-societies. Thus, this constructivist-relativist line of thought implies that the economic power, the connection with a specific ethnic or social group of scientists by means of the exercise of freedom to establish and/or maintain the force of dogmas, is what dictates science. Thus, relativists disdain the scientific method, therefore they consider that it is a production of white-males-societies, and thus, it would be valid only to substantiate the ideology of the white-males-societies.

In this fashion, the constructivist-relativist sociologists become against science (antiscience) trying to destroy the true science through the teaching of false concepts (pseudoscience) via the substitution of systematic concepts by an imaginary ideology (unscience).



THE PROBLEM: Some paleontologists disagree with other paleontologists on the feeding behavior of Tyrannosaurus rex.

Both groups base their suppositions (hypothesis) on the analysis of several fossils.

One of the groups deduces that the T. rex was a kind of carrion- eater; while the other group concludes that the T. rex was a merciless hunter.

The field of battle relocated from laboratories to Media. Hence, the public (scientists and non-scientists) is up to date on the mulish conflict.

THE PSEUDO-REASONING: "Science is biased. The truth is what priest X said on T. rex lived at the same time as man and that they were very friends, because God shaped them to be righteous towards humans. The first evidence was reported by the UFOlogists Y, who wrote in an issue of Mystical Review that he saw an unusual antediluvian Etruscan plate, where a woman and her children were drawn feeding a Tyrannosaurus rex; behinds them, above the horizon, it was sketched something that was, beyond doubt, an extraterrestrial space ship."

THE TRUE REASONING: If both groups of scientists have realistic substantiation on the subject, the first hypothetical and logical inference (from us, scientists for honest research) is that T. rex offered both of a carrion-eater and of a hunter feeding behaviors.



First Model:

We could say, "Perhaps, it will rain tomorrow because the atmospheric conditions seem to indicate that it could rain".

We cannot say, "Unquestionably, it will rain tomorrow because roosters cackled last night at 11 PM".

We never can say, "Saturn is in Virgo's home, and the Moon is opposed to Libra, then surely it will rain."

We cannot even say, "Known that a specialist on climate assumed it, I am sure that it will rain tomorrow.

Second Model:

We could say, "Because there is no factual substantiation on the matter, I am not sure about the existence of life in other planets".

On the other hand, we cannot say, "Undoubtedly, there is life in other planets, even if there is not a single proof on the matter".

We never can say, "God created this enormous universe, with innumerable worlds, for a good reason, those worlds were created for being populated, then definitely there is intelligent life in other planets".

We cannot even say "This universe is enormous... it has innumerable worlds... it would be a tremendous wastefulness if there were not life out from earth; subsequently, by common sense, I deduce that there is intelligent life in other planets".

(Note the fact that our universe be immense does not mean forcibly that it must have Earth-like planets. In addition, we could find trillions of Earth-like planets in the universe, but to date we have not evidenced the existence of them. Besides, the similitude between some planets and Earth does not mean that living beings could prosper in those planets, or that the intelligent life in fact must have evolved in those worlds. Thus, we cannot assure that there is life there and there, just because we think it must be so by our personal feelings, practicalities, or impressions).



Some 1438 years ago, Saint Columba reported the first sighting of the monster. He expelled the beast that was terrifying him "In the name of Christ". This allows us to conclude that the monster is some kind of fiend or, if not, it is a good Christian.

The next sighting occurred in 1933 when Mr. and Mrs. Spicer saw the monster crossing the road, by land. They reported that the monster was 6 feet long (1.83 m). After their first tale, by a mysterious motivation, the couple changed their first appreciation to 30 feet long (9.14 m). 24 feet (7.31m) are a considerable difference as to be deceived by shadows.

After Spicer's sighting, Dr. Arthur Grant saw the beast! However, he saw it not swimming in the lake, but behind the bushes, on land. This time, the monster was 20 feet long (6.10 m). If we take the first Spicer's report, the beast would grow up 14 feet long (4.27 m); if we consider the second report of Mr. and Mrs. Spicer, then the monster decreased 10 feet in one year!

26 years after, McLeod, a good taleteller, found the monster on beach, resting or something so. This time, the beast was 40 to 60 feet long! As you can see, each time, the creature goes longer and longer... This time, the monster grew up 54 feet since the tale of the Spencers.

A criptozoologist (criptozoologists are pseudoscientists who crazily seek for legendary beasts) said that these changes in size have an explanation if we take into account that it is not a single beast, but a "family" of monsters. This appalling explanation came out from rationality. If criptozoologists try to explain those changes in size saying that there are several monsters in the lake, the whole tale will be annulled itself, because three such-dimensional monsters hardly would hide in a limited volume of water; am I right? Picture in mind three or more monsters larger than a whale, with large needs of oxygen and food, having their home into a reduced hole would not they be enough obvious? This stuff makes the fraud gets naked, because defenders of a solitary beast are conferring to the monster a category of an immortal being. Calculate the age of the beast; the first sighting occurred in 565 AD; the last one was made by a group of criptozoologists who supposedly "detected" the beast by radar devices in 1996; do a simple rest and get the age of the monster: 1431 years old! Sincerely, do you believe on it?


LANGMUIR’S CLUES (from Gratzer, Walter, The Undergrowth of Science.  Oxford University Press.  New York.  2000)

Irving Langmuir (1881-1957), prize Nobel of Physics, identified the following six clues to identify pseudoscience and pseudoscientific statements or information:

Clue No. 1: The maximum effect observed has been produced by an agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent from the intensity of the cause. For example, what has been affirmed upon the effect of the greenhouse gases upon the intensity of the current El Niño y La Niña. Actually, the effect is so small that the effects caused by the global warming on both currents do not depend at all from the intensity of the global warming forced by the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases.

Clue No. 2: The effect is of a magnitude (measurement) that remains close to the limit of detectability or many measurements are necessary because of the low statistical significance of the results. For example, the statistical results on the effect of cigarettes on passive smokers are so low that the real effects remain in the limits of hardly detectable. Another case resides in the statistical results on the differences between Coral Calcium and mineral Calcium for preventing the effects of a deficiency of Calcium. The tradesmen of Coral Calcium exaggerated the statistical results carrying out measurements that not yet have finished because, in the final number of results, both types of Calcium follow identical ways as preventives of Calcium deficiency in our bodies.

Clue No. 3: There are affirmations that the results were achieved with great accuracy. For example, the paleontologists that defend the hypothesis that the Tyrannosaurus rex was an active predator are base on the "accurate" coincidence between the shape of a T. rex’s fang and a bite on a vertebra of a Stegosaurus’ fossilized spinal column. Obviously, to exist such "accuracy" between the shape of the fang and the bite, the tooth used for comparison would have to be, forcibly, the tooth of the T. rex that munched the backbone of that Stegosaurus. Besides, the coincidence between the bite and the shape of the fang does not mean that a T. rex was hunting to the Stegosaurus; perhaps, the T. rex just bite to an already dead Stegosaurus.

Clue No. 4: Fantastic hypothesis are suggested that are in opposition to real events. For example, there is a fantastic hypothesis on the massive extinction of species at the Cretaceous because of a collision of a meteorite against Earth. The experience shows us that massive extinctions (of more than 50% of the existing species) occur approximately each 62 million years. The evidence demonstrates that the massive extinctions are cyclic and gradual and that occur because of drastic decreases in the density of energy available for living beings inhabiting the whole planet. If it were a matter of meteorites, the Earth already had been destroyed for the surplus of collisions with meteorites.

Clue No. 5:  The disapprovals on that information or report are deciphered in the precise moment when the criticisms are offered by means of a pertinent and improvised apology. For example, at some point in televised debates on Global Warming, people in favor of the anthropogenic cause come up with conclusions at the precise moment when they are in a predicament to verify scientifically their feelings. In this way, a false idea arose that the scientists who demonstrated systematically the natural cause of Global Warming were serving to the most polluting companies in trade for special compensations. Also, they fiddle with the concept “consensus”, confounding it with “reality”, and they drive the real quantity of scientists who are in "consensus" up the reality at the just moment, without exhibiting a single list of them. The last is called dogmatism.

Clue No. 6: The number of critics is above an average of 50 percent and subsequently it falls to forgetfulness. For example, the criticisms against Peter Düesberg’s pseudoscience on AIDS reached their maximum height in the number of publications dedicated to refute his antiscientific assertions. After a period of five weeks, all the publications containing censures against Düesberg’s allegations disappeared. On the other hand, the scientific reports on AIDS are maintained more or less constant, with gradual small declines in standards.



Scientists have demonstrated that parapsychology is pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience has grown since 1976, when some universities of England and United States tried to incorporate courses on paranormal phenomena in their academic curricula.

Some "academics", as Randi, Taylor, Balanovsky and others, tried to convince to the university authorities and the public that their experiments proved "convincingly" the existence of paranormal phenomena. 

However, when the university scientists repeated the same experiments under controlled conditions, each one of the assertions on the existence of paranormal events were rejected until showing that such phenomena were a blatant fraud.

The scientists of the 70s demonstrated that the individuals that presumed of possessing paranormal powers were swindling; as well as the "children of the spoons" -those children that were trained for cheating on bending metals through "mind's energy".

Do you remember Uri Geller, that Israeli bender of spoons? Geller's fraud was so astounding and so broadly unfolded by the Media by the whole world that a prestigious scientific magazine as the New Scientist fell over the fraud and published an article backing up the “psychic feats" of Geller (magazine of October of 1974).

But when scientists substantiated the dishonesty of Geller and many other “psychics” from those times, the Paranormal fell into a crushing discredit, so that the researchers of the paranormal had to abandon their aspirations to convert their "inquiries" into science.

But the paranormal fanatics would not remain in quiet forever. In our misinformed-on-science world, they have reloaded and have obtained the addition of programs of extrasensory perception, telekinesis, divination, and other paranormal ruses in prestigious universities, for example in the Edinburgh University in England.

And what do you think about Nature magazine? In 1979, the editors of Nature published a series of articles on "psychic energy" where their authors disdained science when saying that the paranormal phenomena seemed not to exist because they were undetectable through the scientific devices of that epoch.

From those articles and letters, it was born the modern idea that the paranormal phenomena obey to the effects of “energies not observable, detectable or measurable through the standard scientific mechanisms”.

The last assertion is a sophism because if those “energies” are not observable, detectable or measurable, then how do psychics know about them?

But the worst has still not happened. The formerly scientific famous channel, the Discovery Channel, now dedicates extensive spaces to tales about ghosts, religious pseudoscience (on biblical issues, of course), alienologists, telepathists and psychics, etc., (such as, Archeological News, A Haunting, Sensing Murder, etc.).

But I mean that not only the Discovery Channel has changed because the best part of TV channels and Radio stations dedicate extensive spaces to pseudoscience, while the scientific reports are reduced to small notes exposed very, very quickly.

Now that more scientists work in the discovery of new species, and that those scientists have been revealing the existence of hundreds of modern species, the lovers of lie hold their beliefs on a fallacy when suggesting that like we ignore the existence of many species, we scientists do not know now about the existence of paranormal phenomena. Yea, I know about the existence of their forgeries as forgeries they are, but not as real observable facts.



Seven clues to distinguish science from Pseudoscience

Scientific vs Pseudoscientific Methods

HIV/AIDS: The Perils of Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience. A Classic from Science Magazine


http://www.skeptics.ca (Ontario Skeptics)





We must tell you that this kind of pseudoscience is not privative of the anthropogenic global warming advocates; unfortunately, we find pseudoscience also at the skeptics' (anti-AGW) files.

The pseudoscience is most pronounced in the so-called "scientific blogs", which of scientific don’t have a hair.

The process of issuing at those “scientific” blogs consists on the publication of an article written by the owner of the blog or by any other person the owner had chosen for authoring an article.  Afterward, the article is exposed to the blog readers’ criticism. Each reader exposes arbitrarily his own opinion on the article. However, the greater part of those opinions has not been endorsed by scientific literature which has been ratified by Peer Reviews. As a result, through logical fallacy, the false knowledge or false science on any matter is spread. Often, the articles written and published by the blog owner or by anyone from his friends, contain blunders and include pseudoscience or Antiscience.

A good example on this issue is the expression “Oceans’ Heat Content”, which is the preferred phrase of climatologists. Heat is not a state function, but a process function; consequently, heat cannot be contained by any system. It is a fallacy.

Another example comes from thinking that the gases of the stratosphere have absolutely dissimilar thermal properties with respect to the gases of the troposphere. Some solar physicists think the carbon dioxide in the stratosphere, whose concentration is ~340 ppmV, does not absorb the long-wave thermal radiation emitted by the surface of the Earth, land and oceans, but only the lower troposphere. It is a pseudoscience.

What is the purpose of those antiscientific people? Decompose the real clean science and substitute it by their personal beliefs. Most bloggers are creationist, phenomenologist, or solipsist people. Many of them are a mixture of two or more antiscientific philosophies.

One of our staff members was offended and banned by the owner of a well known “scientific” blog just for having quoted from a book on Radiative Heat Transfer, exposing the pseudoscience expressed by one of his moderators. The owner of the blog got extremely furious at our colleague, and insulted him by saying that his science was ridiculous (even when he had cited exactly the words of Dr. Modest which had been taken from his book on Radiative Heat Transfer. We are convinced the password for those blogs is "believe what I say, or you will be banned".

So do not think that pseudoscience comes only from the anthropogenic global warming party, but it comes also from the anti-anthropogenic global warming side.

We suggest you that, if you are not reading it from peer reviewed literature, or from academic texts, doubt seriously on every bit from what you are reading.










Nahle, N. S. Pseudoscience. 1999. Biology Cabinet-Journal on Line. New Braunfels, TX.

"In the lies of good you were born and hidden; through good all has become devious and deceitful from bottom."  Zarathustra
designed with Homestead
Copyright© 2004 by Biology Cabinet Organization
Tell a friend about this page
Biology Cabinet

Research and Advisory on Biology
Copyright©Image Library