Pseudoscience

While many philosophers may have convinced each other that the problem of demarcation is unsolvable, scientists feel that there are obvious differences between science and pseudo-sciences and many want to continue to use the distinction. The editors of the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (2000) reply to the problem by taking an ecumenical approach that presents differing views on the nature of pseudoscience and includes for discussion almost any scientific claim that has led to controversy. Instead of looking for an essence, it may be possible to show that there is a "family resemblance" among genuine sciences and clear differentiation between science and pseudoscience in many cases.

There are extremely strong practical reasons to make a general distinction between science and pseudoscience. First, we cannot investigate everything. Much of our knowledge is simply taken on authority. Scientists immediately dismiss certain kinds of claims in order to spend more time on what they hope will be more productive research. Stephen Braude complains that it seems almost impossible to conduct an open inquiry into psychic phenomena because most scientists insist that there is no good evidence for the existence of such phenomena, without even looking at evidence that has been published. These dismissals of evidence seem more like close-minded prejudice than open-minded scientific inquiry, but they may be necessary to allow effective allocation of resources to projects that are considered more fruitful. The difficult issue is to know when to open an area for investigation and when to stop investigating and consider an issue settled. We inevitably take many majority opinions as fact, without question. As William James put it, "Our knowledge lives on the credit system." Second, to settle some issues, we must make some principled distinction between science and pseudo-science. Given that the United States Constitution forbids government-established religion, attempts to require the teaching of creationism (an alternative to Darwin from which overt references to religion have been removed) force courts to decide whether creationism really is science or pseudoscience. Having politicians determine which scientific theories to teach in schools is problematic, but requiring the teaching of religion in disguise is unconstitutional.