# data[].attributes.body
Jackson smith 100924425

# data[].attributes.body
1.) Use of scientific-sounding language that is meaningless, an example of this would be a psychic saying to a client "Mystical energy can be easily identified using the psychotronic amplification method" They would do this to undermine their client into believing what they said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are the scientific terms that are constantly abused by pseudo-scientists?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Answer (1 of 6): I'll pick my favorite ones. Energy and Vibration: These are probably the most misused terms. They are often prefixed with the adjectives positive and negative. There are umpteen youtube videos that ask its views to do things that would increase positive energy or positive vibra...

# data[].attributes.body
2.) results that can not be replicated or verified, the perfect definition to this pseudoscience watchlist is Sylvia Browne whom I have already talked about in a previous discussion post, she was offered to test her psychic abilities but she never went through with it due to the fact that there were no real abilities to prove.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jon Ronson on America's most controversial psychic Sylvia Browne

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sylvia Browne is famous for telling distraught parents where their missing children are - but as in the case of Amanda Berry, she gets it wrong. A lot. So why does she still have such a massive following?

# data[].attributes.body
3.) often appealing to peoples emotion, this pseudoscience watchlist is defined by its name which is peoples emotion specifically using it to manipulate the client, usually aimed at vulnerable people and this is due to the fact that the clients emotion will overpower rational thoughts which is what people in pseudoscience want to happen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the science behind emotional manipulation? Can people really manipulate others’ emotions with their thoughts, or is this just pse...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Answer (1 of 2): The science behing emotional manipulation is the same as behind emotional psychosocial influence, to which manipulation is a subset. However there’s a caveat; by definition manipulation is neither measurable or even observable since its effectiveness hinges on deception, which i…

# data[].attributes.body
4.) Deliberately creating mystery, this appeals to two parts of people first our love for mystery and two our need for excitement, this will make the client deeply believe in the pseudoscience even more which is what they want to happen when using this watchlist method.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ignorance makes masses fall easily for pseudoscientists, and education can fix it, writes Pranay Aggarwal

# data[].attributes.body
--> Conformation bias, this relates to the ESP which was talked about in the third presentation but. conformation bias is the tendency to collect information and favor a specific outcome from the information that you found.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman reminded us, "the first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." One crucial principle in psychiatry is that all of us, no matter how intelligent or well-trained, are susceptible to being duped by specious claims. Research reveals, at best, modest and often negligible correlations between measures of intelligence and critical thinking skills, suggesting that these 2 domains are largely distinct. Nevertheless, because of a phenomenon known as bias blind spot, whereby most of us are keenly aware of others' mental shortcomings yet largely oblivious to our own, we may overestimate our capacities to distinguish dubious from well-supported psychiatric claims (for reviews of widespread biases and other errors in psychiatry, see Croskerry and Crumlish and Kelly).

A careful consideration of errors in thinking is germane to psychiatry and related fields because of the continuing insinuation of pseudoscientific claims into myriad domains of mental health practice. Pseudoscientific claims display the superficial trappings of science but lack its substance. As a consequence, they can readily fool nonspecialists-and even specialists, on occasion-into believing that they are well-supported by evidence. In contrast to developed sciences, pseudosciences tend to lack methodological and procedural safeguards against confirmation bias, the deeply entrenched tendency to seek out evidence consistent with one's hypotheses and to deny, dismiss, or distort evidence that is not. Such safeguards include randomization to conditions in the case of experimental designs; placebo controls; blinded designs; pre- and post-test measures with demonstrated reliability, construct validity, norms, and standardization; and rigorous peer review. These safeguards are far from foolproof and do not eliminate all sources of medical error. Nevertheless, they are widely accepted as desiderata in psychiatric research and are crucial bulwarks against commonplace errors in clinical inference.

Although the boundaries separating pseudoscience from science are fuzzy, pseudosciences are characterized by several warning signs-fallible but useful indicators that distinguish them from most scientific disciplines. Such warning signs include an emphasis on confirmation rather than refutation of hypotheses (weighing hits more than misses), overuse of ad hoc hypotheses (after-the-fact escape hatches or loopholes) for explaining away negative findings, absence of self-correction in the face of repeated negative findings, placing the burden of proof on skeptics rather than on proponents of assertions, expansive claims that greatly outstrip the available research evidence, overreliance on anecdotal evidence (anecdata), evasion of systematic peer review, and the use of scientific-sounding but largely vacuous terminology (for example, "receptors of the neuro networks with progressively lower valences")., In contrast to most accepted medical interventions, which are prescribed for a circumscribed number of conditions, many pseudoscientific techniques lack boundary conditions of application. For example, some proponents of Thought Field Therapy, an intervention that purports to correct imbalances in unobservable energy fields, using specified bodily tapping algorithms, maintain that it can be used to treat virtually any psychological condition, and that it is helpful not only for adults but also for children, dogs, and horses.

No indicator of pseudoscience should be used in isolation to disqualify a claim, because some scientific research programs make use of them as well. For example, ad hoc hypotheses play a legitimate role in science, especially when invoked judiciously. In most mature sciences, such hypotheses tend to enhance the theory's content, predictive power, or both. In contrast, in pseudosciences, ad hoc hypotheses are typically introduced as desperate measures to explain away contrary findings, and rarely enhance the theory's substance or capacity to generate successful predictions.

Pseudoscience poses a serious threat to psychiatric practice and consumers of mental health services. Whether they be assertions concerning the use of the Rorschach Inkblot Test to detect anxiety or depression, energy therapies for trauma, gluten-free diets for autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or sensory-motor integration therapy for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, numerous mental health claims are contradicted or inadequately supported by research evidence (see Lilienfeld et al for a reasonably comprehensive overview of pseudoscientific assertions in clinical psychology and psychiatry). Moreover, many unsubstantiated psychological and psychiatric techniques are widely used. For example, although controlled evidence demonstrates that facilitated communication, sometimes called supported typing, is ineffective for ASD, survey data indicate that it continues to be widely administered in many quarters, with up to 10 per cent of people with ASD receiving it.

Some may be tempted to dismiss pseudoscientific techniques as harmless and as best ignored. This approach would be misguided for 2 major reasons. First, growing evidence suggests that at least some psychological treatments are iatrogenic. For example, crisis debriefing (critical incident stress debriefing) for trauma-exposed victims and Scared Straight interventions for adolescents with conduct disorder have been associated with negative effect sizes in several controlled trials., Second, even techniques that are themselves innocuous can exact substantial indirect harm because of what economists term opportunity costs. Specifically, the substantial time, effort, energy, and money expended in seeking out and undergoing ineffective treatments may leave mental health consumers with few resources to obtain effective treatments.

Unsubstantiated techniques have a lengthy history in psychiatry. Spinning chairs, tranquilizing chairs, the Utica crib, bloodletting, blistering, purging, leeching, dental removal, and prefrontal lobotomy, among scores of other treatments, were once believed by many physicians to be effective for psychiatric disorders, but are now recognized as useless or harmful. Although the field of psychiatry has learned from many of the painful mistakes of the past, a continued attitude of healthy self-criticism and vigilance will be essential to minimize errors in clinical practice and diminish risk to clients. Although controlled data are lacking, some authors have proposed that teaching psychiatry and psychology students about the well-intentioned but disastrous treatment mistakes of previous eras-and the ways in which such mistakes were corrected-may be an effective didactic tool for debiasing them against overconfidence in their clinical judgments. This educational practice underscores the ubiquitous fallibility of human reasoning processes and the necessity of rigorous research designs to minimize errors in inference.

Fortunately, the recent movement to embrace evidence-based practice (EBP), now widely accepted in most areas of medicine, has at last begun to gain traction in psychiatry and psychology. As Lee and Hunsley discuss in their article in this In Review, EBP and the accompanying push to develop clinical practice guidelines are crucial steps toward assisting practitioners with the challenging task of sifting pseudoscience from science in psychotherapy and assessment (the latter discussed in their online supplemental material). Some practitioners recoil at practice guidelines on the grounds that they place constraints on clinical judgment in the selection of techniques. Nevertheless, data consistently indicate that unbridled clinical judgment regarding the effectiveness of treatments tends to be inferior to carefully collected data on their effectiveness. The latter data should be overruled sparingly, and only when there is a clear-cut reason to believe that a given treatment is unlikely to work for a given client (for example, a past history of repeated failures to respond to well-delivered cognitive-behavioural therapy for a client with a mood disorder). Psychiatry's past mistakes are a reminder than even well-intentioned techniques can do harm. Perhaps nowhere is this sobering lesson more evident than in the domain of recovered memory techniques, which have been found in numerous laboratory studies to be associated with a heightened risk of false recollections in a large proportion of people. As Lynn et al point out in their "survey of surveys" in this In Review, beliefs have consequences. Lynn and coauthors review a large corpus of data demonstrating that sizeable proportions of clinicians hold poorly supported beliefs about human memory, such as the belief that memory works like a video camera or tape recorder, or that memories are stored permanently in the brain. Many of these beliefs are shared by current and would-be clients in psychotherapy. As Lynn and colleagues note briefly in their concluding section, such beliefs may contribute to the adoption of unsupported and even dangerous clinical methods, such as suggestive techniques (for example, repeated prompting of memories, hypnosis, journalling, body work, and so-called truth serum) to recover purported memories of childhood trauma.

These 2 In Review articles, underscore a key point. Science, being a human endeavour, is necessarily imperfect. Nevertheless, science-which is a set of finely honed tools designed to prevent us from fooling ourselves-remains psychiatry's best hope of winnowing out errors in clinical inference and improving patient care.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Introduction to Special Section on Pseudoscience in Psychiatry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman reminded us, "the first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

# data[].attributes.body
1.) One reason to believe in these sorts of practices is emotional connection, for example someone trying to talk to a passed family member maybe under the influence of their emotions which mentioned before makes then vulnerable leading them to make improper decisions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A typical 19th-century phrenology chart: During the 1820s, phrenologists claimed the mind was located in areas of the brain, and were attacked for doubting that mind came from the nonmaterial soul. Their idea of reading "bumps" in the skull to predict personality traits was later discredited.[1][2] Phrenology was first termed a pseudoscience in 1843 and continues to be considered so.[3]

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited. It is not the same as junk science.

The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has scientific, philosophical, and political implications. Philosophers debate the nature of science and the general criteria for drawing the line between scientific theories and pseudoscientific beliefs, but there is widespread agreement "that creationism, astrology, homeopathy, Kirlian photography, dowsing, ufology, ancient astronaut theory, Holocaust denialism, Velikovskian catastrophism, and climate change denialism are pseudosciences." There are implications for health care, the use of expert testimony, and weighing environmental policies. Addressing pseudoscience is part of science education and developing scientific literacy.

Pseudoscience can have dangerous effects. For example, pseudoscientific anti-vaccine activism and promotion of homeopathic remedies as alternative disease treatments can result in people forgoing important medical treatments with demonstrable health benefits, leading to deaths and ill-health. Furthermore, people who refuse legitimate medical treatments for contagious diseases may put others at risk. Pseudoscientific theories about racial and ethnic classifications have led to racism and genocide.

The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative, particularly by purveyors of it, because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Therefore, those practicing or advocating pseudoscience frequently dispute the characterization.

The word pseudoscience is derived from the Greek root pseudo meaning "false" and the English word science, from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge". Although the term has been in use since at least the late 18th century (e.g., in 1796 by James Pettit Andrews in reference to alchemy), the concept of pseudoscience as distinct from real or proper science seems to have become more widespread during the mid-19th century. Among the earliest uses of "pseudo-science" was in an 1844 article in the Northern Journal of Medicine, issue 387:

That opposite kind of innovation which pronounces what has been recognized as a branch of science, to have been a pseudo-science, composed merely of so-called facts, connected together by misapprehensions under the disguise of principles.

An earlier use of the term was in 1843 by the French physiologist François Magendie, that refers to phrenology as " a pseudo-science of the present day". During the 20th century, the word was used pejoratively to describe explanations of phenomena which were claimed to be scientific, but which were not in fact supported by reliable experimental evidence.

Dismissing the separate issue of intentional fraud - such as the Fox sisters' "rappings" in the 1850s - the pejorative label pseudoscience distinguishes the scientific ' us', at one extreme, from the pseudo-scientific ' them', at the other, and asserts that ' our' beliefs, practices, theories, etc., by contrast with that of ' the others', are scientific. There are four criteria:
(a) the 'pseudoscientific' group asserts that its beliefs, practices, theories, etc., are ' scientific';
(b) the ' pseudoscientific' group claims that its allegedly established facts are justified true beliefs;
(c) the ' pseudoscientific' group asserts that its ' established facts' have been justified by genuine, rigorous, scientific method; and
(d) this assertion is false or deceptive: "it is not simply that subsequent evidence overturns established conclusions, but rather that the conclusions were never warranted in the first place"

From time to time, however, the usage of the word occurred in a more formal, technical manner in response to a perceived threat to individual and institutional security in a social and cultural setting.

Relationship to science

Pseudoscience is differentiated from science because - although it usually claims to be science - pseudoscience does not adhere to scientific standards, such as the scientific method, falsifiability of claims, and Mertonian norms.

Scientific method

The scientific method is a continuous cycle of observation, questioning, hypothesis, experimentation, analysis and conclusion.

A number of basic principles are accepted by scientists as standards for determining whether a body of knowledge, method, or practice is scientific. Experimental results should be reproducible and verified by other researchers. These principles are intended to ensure experiments can be reproduced measurably given the same conditions, allowing further investigation to determine whether a hypothesis or theory related to given phenomena is valid and reliable. Standards require the scientific method to be applied throughout, and bias to be controlled for or eliminated through randomization, fair sampling procedures, blinding of studies, and other methods. All gathered data, including the experimental or environmental conditions, are expected to be documented for scrutiny and made available for peer review, allowing further experiments or studies to be conducted to confirm or falsify results. Statistical quantification of significance, confidence, and error are also important tools for the scientific method.

Falsifiability

During the mid-20th century, the philosopher Karl Popper emphasized the criterion of falsifiability to distinguish science from non-science. Statements, hypotheses, or theories have falsifiability or refutability if there is the inherent possibility that they can be proven false, that is, if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument that negates them. Popper used astrology and psychoanalysis as examples of pseudoscience and Einstein's theory of relativity as an example of science. He subdivided non-science into philosophical, mathematical, mythological, religious and metaphysical formulations on one hand, and pseudoscientific formulations on the other.

Another example which shows the distinct need for a claim to be falsifiable was stated in Carl Sagan's publication The Demon-Haunted World when he discusses an invisible dragon that he has in his garage. The point is made that there is no physical test to refute the claim of the presence of this dragon. Whatever test one thinks can be devised, there is a reason why it does not apply to the invisible dragon, so one can never prove that the initial claim is wrong. Sagan concludes; "Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?". He states that "your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true", once again explaining that even if such a claim were true, it would be outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

Mertonian norms

During 1942, Robert K. Merton identified a set of five "norms" which characterize real science. If any of the norms were violated, Merton considered the enterprise to be non-science. These are not broadly accepted by the scientific community. His norms were:

Originality: The tests and research done must present something new to the scientific community.

Detachment: The scientists' reasons for practicing this science must be simply for the expansion of their knowledge. The scientists should not have personal reasons to expect certain results.

Universality: No person should be able to more easily obtain the information of a test than another person. Social class, religion, ethnicity, or any other personal factors should not be factors in someone's ability to receive or perform a type of science.

Skepticism: Scientific facts must not be based on faith. One should always question every case and argument and constantly check for errors or invalid claims.

Public accessibility: Any scientific knowledge one obtains should be made available to everyone. The results of any research should be published and shared with the scientific community.

Refusal to acknowledge problems

In 1978, Paul Thagard proposed that pseudoscience is primarily distinguishable from science when it is less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and its proponents fail to acknowledge or address problems with the theory. In 1983, Mario Bunge suggested the categories of "belief fields" and "research fields" to help distinguish between pseudoscience and science, where the former is primarily personal and subjective and the latter involves a certain systematic method. The 2018 book about scientific skepticism by Steven Novella, et al. The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe lists hostility to criticism as one of the major features of pseudoscience.

Criticism of the term

Larry Laudan has suggested pseudoscience has no scientific meaning and is mostly used to describe human emotions: "If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science' and 'unscientific' from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us". Likewise, Richard McNally states, "The term 'pseudoscience' has become little more than an inflammatory buzzword for quickly dismissing one's opponents in media sound-bites" and "When therapeutic entrepreneurs make claims on behalf of their interventions, we should not waste our time trying to determine whether their interventions qualify as pseudoscientific. Rather, we should ask them: How do you know that your intervention works? What is your evidence?"

Alternative definition

For philosophers Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome R. Ravetz "pseudo-science may be defined as one where the uncertainty of its inputs must be suppressed, lest they render its outputs totally indeterminate". The definition, in the book Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy, alludes to the loss of craft skills in handling quantitative information, and to the bad practice of achieving precision in prediction (inference) only at the expenses of ignoring uncertainty in the input which was used to formulate the prediction. This use of the term is common among practitioners of post-normal science. Understood in this way, pseudoscience can be fought using good practices to assess uncertainty in quantitative information, such as NUSAP and - in the case of mathematical modelling - sensitivity auditing.

The astrological signs of the zodiac

The history of pseudoscience is the study of pseudoscientific theories over time. A pseudoscience is a set of ideas that presents itself as science, while it does not meet the criteria to be properly called such.

Distinguishing between proper science and pseudoscience is sometimes difficult. One proposal for demarcation between the two is the falsification criterion, attributed most notably to the philosopher Karl Popper. In the history of science and the history of pseudoscience it can be especially difficult to separate the two, because some sciences developed from pseudosciences. An example of this transformation is the science of chemistry, which traces its origins to the pseudoscientific or pre-scientific study of alchemy.

The vast diversity in pseudosciences further complicates the history of science. Some modern pseudosciences, such as astrology and acupuncture, originated before the scientific era. Others developed as part of an ideology, such as Lysenkoism, or as a response to perceived threats to an ideology. Examples of this ideological process are creation science and intelligent design, which were developed in response to the scientific theory of evolution.

Indicators of possible pseudoscience

Homeopathic preparation Rhus toxicodendron, derived from poison ivy

A topic, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be termed pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.

Assertion of a claim with little or no explanatory power.

Failure to make use of operational definitions (i.e., publicly accessible definitions of the variables, terms, or objects of interest so that persons other than the definer can measure or test them independently) (See also: Reproducibility).

Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e., failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (See: Occam's razor).

Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess well-articulated limitations under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.

Lack of effective controls in experimental design, such as the use of placebos and double-blinding.

Lack of understanding of basic and established principles of physics and engineering.

Improper collection of evidence

Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment (See also: Falsifiability).

Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict. Scientific claims that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best "conjectures", or at worst "pseudoscience" (e.g., ignoratio elenchi).

Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must therefore be true, and vice versa (See: Argument from ignorance).

Over-reliance on testimonial, anecdotal evidence, or personal experience: This evidence may be useful for the context of discovery (i.e., hypothesis generation), but should not be used in the context of justification (e.g., statistical hypothesis testing).

Use of myths and religious texts as if they were fact, or basing evidence on readings of such texts.

Use of concepts and scenarios from science fiction as if they were fact. This technique appeals to the familiarity that many people already have with science fiction tropes through the popular media.

Presentation of data that seems to support claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with those claims. This is an example of selection bias or cherry picking, a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect.

Repeating excessive or untested claims that have been previously published elsewhere, and promoting those claims as if they were facts; an accumulation of such uncritical secondary reports, which do not otherwise contribute their own empirical investigation, is called the Woozle effect.

Reversed burden of proof: science places the burden of proof on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g., an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than on the claimant.

Appeals to holism as opposed to reductionism to dismiss negative findings: proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the "mantra of holism" .

Lack of openness to testing by other experts

Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (termed "science by press conference"): Some proponents of ideas that contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their ideas to peer review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is biased towards established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forgo the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.

Some agencies, institutions, and publications that fund scientific research require authors to share data so others can evaluate a paper independently. Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to reproduce the claims contributes to a lack of openness.

Appealing to the need for secrecy or proprietary knowledge when an independent review of data or methodology is requested.

Substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all viewpoints is not encouraged.

Absence of progress

Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims. Terence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has changed very little in the past two millennia.

Lack of self-correction: scientific research programmes make mistakes, but they tend to reduce these errors over time. By contrast, ideas may be regarded as pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence. The work Scientists Confront Velikovsky (1976) Cornell University, also delves into these features in some detail, as does the work of Thomas Kuhn, e.g., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) which also discusses some of the items on the list of characteristics of pseudoscience.

Statistical significance of supporting experimental results does not improve over time and are usually close to the cutoff for statistical significance. Normally, experimental techniques improve or the experiments are repeated, and this gives ever stronger evidence. If statistical significance does not improve, this typically shows the experiments have just been repeated until a success occurs due to chance variations.

Personalization of issues

Tight social groups and authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.

Assertion of a conspiracy on the part of the mainstream scientific community, government, or educational facilities to suppress pseudoscientific information. People who make these accusations often compare themselves to Galileo Galilei and his persecution by the Roman Catholic Church; this comparison is commonly known as the Galileo gambit.

Attacking the motives, character, morality, or competence of critics (See Ad hominem fallacy).

Use of misleading language

Creating scientific-sounding terms to persuade non-experts to believe statements that may be false or meaningless: for example, a long-standing hoax refers to water by the rarely used formal name "dihydrogen monoxide" and describes it as the main constituent in most poisonous solutions to show how easily the general public can be misled.

Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways, thereby demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in the discipline.

Prevalence of pseudoscientific beliefs

The Ministry of AYUSH in the Government of India is purposed with developing education, research and propagation of indigenous alternative medicine systems in India. The ministry has faced significant criticism for funding systems that lack biological plausibility and are either untested or conclusively proven as ineffective. Quality of research has been poor, and drugs have been launched without any rigorous pharmacological studies and meaningful clinical trials on Ayurveda or other alternative healthcare systems. There is no credible efficacy or scientific basis of any of these forms of treatment.

In his book The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan discusses the government of China and the Chinese Communist Party's concern about Western pseudoscience developments and certain ancient Chinese practices in China. He sees pseudoscience occurring in the United States as part of a worldwide trend and suggests its causes, dangers, diagnosis and treatment may be universal.

A large percentage of the United States population lacks scientific literacy, not adequately understanding scientific principles and method. In the Journal of College Science Teaching, Art Hobson writes, "Pseudoscientific beliefs are surprisingly widespread in our culture even among public school science teachers and newspaper editors, and are closely related to scientific illiteracy." However, a 10,000-student study in the same journal concluded there was no strong correlation between science knowledge and belief in pseudoscience.

During 2006, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) issued an executive summary of a paper on science and engineering which briefly discussed the prevalence of pseudoscience in modern times. It said, "belief in pseudoscience is widespread" and, referencing a Gallup Poll, stated that belief in the 10 commonly believed examples of paranormal phenomena listed in the poll were "pseudoscientific beliefs". The items were "extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts, telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation, and channelling". Such beliefs in pseudoscience represent a lack of knowledge of how science works. The scientific community may attempt to communicate information about science out of concern for the public's susceptibility to unproven claims. The NSF stated that pseudoscientific beliefs in the U.S. became more widespread during the 1990s, peaked about 2001, and then decreased slightly since with pseudoscientific beliefs remaining common. According to the NSF report, there is a lack of knowledge of pseudoscientific issues in society and pseudoscientific practices are commonly followed. Surveys indicate about a third of adult Americans consider astrology to be scientific.

In Russia, in the late 20th and early 21st century, significant budgetary funds were spent on programs for the experimental study of " torsion fields", the extraction of energy from granite, the study of " cold nuclear fusion", and astrological and extrasensory "research" by the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Emergency Situations, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the State Duma (see Military Unit 10003). In 2006, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Nikolai Spassky published an article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, where among the priority areas for the development of the Russian energy sector, the task of extracting energy from a vacuum was in the first place. The Clean Water project was adopted as a United Russia party project; in the version submitted to the government, the program budget for 2010-2017 exceeded $14 billion.

There have been many connections between pseudoscientific writers and researchers and their anti-semitic, racist and neo-Nazi backgrounds. They often use pseudoscience to reinforce their beliefs. One of the most predominant pseudoscientific writers is Frank Collin, a self-proclaimed Nazi who goes by Frank Joseph in his writings. The majority of his works include the topics of Atlantis, extraterrestrial encounters, and Lemuria as well as other ancient civilizations, often with white supremacist undertones. For example, he posited that European peoples migrated to North America before Columbus, and that all Native American civilizations were initiated by descendants of white people.

The Alt-Right using pseudoscience to base their ideologies on is not a new issue. The entire foundation of anti-semitism is based on pseudoscience, or scientific racism. In an article from by Sander Gilman, Gilman describes the pseudoscience community's anti-semitic views. "Jews as they appear in this world of pseudoscience are an invented group of ill, stupid or stupidly smart people who use science to their own nefarious ends. Other groups, too, are painted similarly in 'race science', as it used to call itself: African-Americans, the Irish, the Chinese and, well, any and all groups that you want to prove inferior to yourself". Neo-Nazis and white supremacist often try to support their claims with studies that "prove" that their claims are more than just harmful stereotypes. For example Bret Stephens published a column in The New York Times where he claimed that Ashkenazi Jews had the highest IQ among any ethnic group. However, the scientific methodology and conclusions reached by the article Stephens cited has been called into question repeatedly since its publication. It has been found that at least one of that study's authors has been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a white nationalist.

The journal has published a number of editorials in the last few years warning researchers about extremists looking to abuse their work, particularly population geneticists and those working with ancient DNA. One article in Nature, titled "Racism in Science: The Taint That Lingers" notes that early-twentieth-century eugenic pseudoscience has been used to influence public policy, such as the Immigration Act of 1924 in the United States, which sought to prevent immigration from Asia and parts of Europe. Research has repeatedly shown that race is not a scientifically valid concept, yet some scientists continue to look for measurable biological differences between 'races'.

Explanations

In a 1981 report Singer and Benassi wrote that pseudoscientific beliefs have their origin from at least four sources.

A 1990 study by Eve and Dunn supported the findings of Singer and Benassi and found pseudoscientific belief being promoted by high school life science and biology teachers.

Psychology

The psychology of pseudoscience attempts to explore and analyze pseudoscientific thinking by means of thorough clarification on making the distinction of what is considered scientific vs. pseudoscientific. The human proclivity for seeking confirmation rather than refutation ( confirmation bias), the tendency to hold comforting beliefs, and the tendency to overgeneralize have been proposed as reasons for pseudoscientific thinking. According to Beyerstein, humans are prone to associations based on resemblances only, and often prone to misattribution in cause-effect thinking.

Michael Shermer's theory of belief-dependent realism is driven by the belief that the brain is essentially a "belief engine" which scans data perceived by the senses and looks for patterns and meaning. There is also the tendency for the brain to create cognitive biases, as a result of inferences and assumptions made without logic and based on instinct - usually resulting in patterns in cognition. These tendencies of patternicity and agenticity are also driven "by a meta-bias called the bias blind spot, or the tendency to recognize the power of cognitive biases in other people but to be blind to their influence on our own beliefs". Lindeman states that social motives (i.e., "to comprehend self and the world, to have a sense of control over outcomes, to belong, to find the world benevolent and to maintain one's self-esteem") are often "more easily" fulfilled by pseudoscience than by scientific information. Furthermore, pseudoscientific explanations are generally not analyzed rationally, but instead experientially. Operating within a different set of rules compared to rational thinking, experiential thinking regards an explanation as valid if the explanation is "personally functional, satisfying and sufficient", offering a description of the world that may be more personal than can be provided by science and reducing the amount of potential work involved in understanding complex events and outcomes.

Anyone searching for psychological help that is based in science should seek a licensed therapist whose techniques are not based in pseudoscience. Hupp and Santa Maria provide a complete explanation of what that person should look for.

Education and scientific literacy

There is a trend to believe in pseudoscience more than scientific evidence. Some people believe the prevalence of pseudoscientific beliefs is due to widespread scientific illiteracy. Individuals lacking scientific literacy are more susceptible to wishful thinking, since they are likely to turn to immediate gratification powered by System 1, our default operating system which requires little to no effort. This system encourages one to accept the conclusions they believe, and reject the ones they do not. Further analysis of complex pseudoscientific phenomena require System 2, which follows rules, compares objects along multiple dimensions and weighs options. These two systems have several other differences which are further discussed in the dual-process theory. The scientific and secular systems of morality and meaning are generally unsatisfying to most people. Humans are, by nature, a forward-minded species pursuing greater avenues of happiness and satisfaction, but we are all too frequently willing to grasp at unrealistic promises of a better life.

Psychology has much to discuss about pseudoscience thinking, as it is the illusory perceptions of causality and effectiveness of numerous individuals that needs to be illuminated. Research suggests that illusionary thinking happens in most people when exposed to certain circumstances such as reading a book, an advertisement or the testimony of others are the basis of pseudoscience beliefs. It is assumed that illusions are not unusual, and given the right conditions, illusions are able to occur systematically even in normal emotional situations. One of the things pseudoscience believers quibble most about is that academic science usually treats them as fools. Minimizing these illusions in the real world is not simple. To this aim, designing evidence-based educational programs can be effective to help people identify and reduce their own illusions.

Boundaries with science

Classification

Philosophers classify types of knowledge. In English, the word is used to indicate specifically the natural sciences and related fields, which are called the social sciences. Different philosophers of science may disagree on the exact limits - for example, is mathematics a formal science that is closer to the empirical ones, or is pure mathematics closer to the philosophical study of logic and therefore not a science? - but all agree that all of the ideas that are not scientific are non-scientific. The large category of non-science includes all matters outside the natural and social sciences, such as the study of history, metaphysics, religion, art, and the humanities. Dividing the category again, unscientific claims are a subset of the large category of non-scientific claims. This category specifically includes all matters that are directly opposed to good science. Un-science includes both "bad science" (such as an error made in a good-faith attempt at learning something about the natural world) and pseudoscience. Thus pseudoscience is a subset of un-science, and un-science, in turn, is subset of non-science.

Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing. The most notable disputes concern the evolution of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the Solar System, and the origin of the universe. Systems of belief that derive from divine or inspired knowledge are not considered pseudoscience if they do not claim either to be scientific or to overturn well-established science. Moreover, some specific religious claims, such as the power of intercessory prayer to heal the sick, although they may be based on untestable beliefs, can be tested by the scientific method.

Some statements and common beliefs of popular science may not meet the criteria of science. "Pop" science may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction. Indeed, pop science is disseminated to, and can also easily emanate from, persons not accountable to scientific methodology and expert peer review.

If claims of a given field can be tested experimentally and standards are upheld, it is not pseudoscience, regardless of how odd, astonishing, or counterintuitive those claims are. If claims made are inconsistent with existing experimental results or established theory, but the method is sound, caution should be used, since science consists of testing hypotheses which may turn out to be false. In such a case, the work may be better described as ideas that are "not yet generally accepted". Protoscience is a term sometimes used to describe a hypothesis that has not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method, but which is otherwise consistent with existing science or which, where inconsistent, offers reasonable account of the inconsistency. It may also describe the transition from a body of practical knowledge into a scientific field.

Philosophy

Karl Popper stated it is insufficient to distinguish science from pseudoscience, or from metaphysics (such as the philosophical question of what existence means), by the criterion of rigorous adherence to the empirical method, which is essentially inductive, based on observation or experimentation. He proposed a method to distinguish between genuine empirical, nonempirical or even pseudoempirical methods. The latter case was exemplified by astrology, which appeals to observation and experimentation. While it had empirical evidence based on observation, on horoscopes and biographies, it crucially failed to use acceptable scientific standards. Popper proposed falsifiability as an important criterion in distinguishing science from pseudoscience.

To demonstrate this point, Popper gave two cases of human behavior and typical explanations from Sigmund Freud and Alfred Adler's theories: "that of a man who pushes a child into the water with the intention of drowning it; and that of a man who sacrifices his life in an attempt to save the child." From Freud's perspective, the first man would have suffered from psychological repression, probably originating from an Oedipus complex, whereas the second man had attained sublimation. From Adler's perspective, the first and second man suffered from feelings of inferiority and had to prove himself, which drove him to commit the crime or, in the second case, drove him to rescue the child. Popper was not able to find any counterexamples of human behavior in which the behavior could not be explained in the terms of Adler's or Freud's theory. Popper argued it was that the observation always fitted or confirmed the theory which, rather than being its strength, was actually its weakness. In contrast, Popper gave the example of Einstein's gravitational theory, which predicted "light must be attracted by heavy bodies (such as the Sun), precisely as material bodies were attracted." Following from this, stars closer to the Sun would appear to have moved a small distance away from the Sun, and away from each other. This prediction was particularly striking to Popper because it involved considerable risk. The brightness of the Sun prevented this effect from being observed under normal circumstances, so photographs had to be taken during an eclipse and compared to photographs taken at night. Popper states, "If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted." Popper summed up his criterion for the scientific status of a theory as depending on its falsifiability, refutability, or testability.

Paul R. Thagard used astrology as a case study to distinguish science from pseudoscience and proposed principles and criteria to delineate them. First, astrology has not progressed in that it has not been updated nor added any explanatory power since Ptolemy. Second, it has ignored outstanding problems such as the precession of equinoxes in astronomy. Third, alternative theories of personality and behavior have grown progressively to encompass explanations of phenomena which astrology statically attributes to heavenly forces. Fourth, astrologers have remained uninterested in furthering the theory to deal with outstanding problems or in critically evaluating the theory in relation to other theories. Thagard intended this criterion to be extended to areas other than astrology. He believed it would delineate as pseudoscientific such practices as witchcraft and pyramidology, while leaving physics, chemistry, astronomy, geoscience, biology, and archaeology in the realm of science.

In the philosophy and history of science, Imre Lakatos stresses the social and political importance of the demarcation problem, the normative methodological problem of distinguishing between science and pseudoscience. His distinctive historical analysis of scientific methodology based on research programmes suggests: "scientists regard the successful theoretical prediction of stunning novel facts - such as the return of Halley's comet or the gravitational bending of light rays - as what demarcates good scientific theories from pseudo-scientific and degenerate theories, and in spite of all scientific theories being forever confronted by 'an ocean of counterexamples'". Lakatos offers a "novel fallibilist analysis of the development of Newton's celestial dynamics, [his] favourite historical example of his methodology" and argues in light of this historical turn, that his account answers for certain inadequacies in those of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. "Nonetheless, Lakatos did recognize the force of Kuhn's historical criticism of Popper - all important theories have been surrounded by an 'ocean of anomalies', which on a falsificationist view would require the rejection of the theory outright...Lakatos sought to reconcile the rationalism of Popperian falsificationism with what seemed to be its own refutation by history".

Many philosophers have tried to solve the problem of demarcation in the following terms: a statement constitutes knowledge if sufficiently many people believe it sufficiently strongly. But the history of thought shows us that many people were totally committed to absurd beliefs. If the strengths of beliefs were a hallmark of knowledge, we should have to rank some tales about demons, angels, devils, and of heaven and hell as knowledge. Scientists, on the other hand, are very sceptical even of their best theories. Newton's is the most powerful theory science has yet produced, but Newton himself never believed that bodies attract each other at a distance. So no degree of commitment to beliefs makes them knowledge. Indeed, the hallmark of scientific behaviour is a certain scepticism even towards one's most cherished theories. Blind commitment to a theory is not an intellectual virtue: it is an intellectual crime.

Thus a statement may be pseudoscientific even if it is eminently 'plausible' and everybody believes in it, and it may be scientifically valuable even if it is unbelievable and nobody believes in it. A theory may even be of supreme scientific value even if no one understands it, let alone believes in it.

-  Imre Lakatos, Science and Pseudoscience

The boundary between science and pseudoscience is disputed and difficult to determine analytically, even after more than a century of study by philosophers of science and scientists, and despite some basic agreements on the fundamentals of the scientific method. The concept of pseudoscience rests on an understanding that the scientific method has been misrepresented or misapplied with respect to a given theory, but many philosophers of science maintain that different kinds of methods are held as appropriate across different fields and different eras of human history. According to Lakatos, the typical descriptive unit of great scientific achievements is not an isolated hypothesis but "a powerful problem-solving machinery, which, with the help of sophisticated mathematical techniques, digests anomalies and even turns them into positive evidence".

To Popper, pseudoscience uses induction to generate theories, and only performs experiments to seek to verify them. To Popper, falsifiability is what determines the scientific status of a theory. Taking a historical approach, Kuhn observed that scientists did not follow Popper's rule, and might ignore falsifying data, unless overwhelming. To Kuhn, puzzle-solving within a paradigm is science. Lakatos attempted to resolve this debate, by suggesting history shows that science occurs in research programmes, competing according to how progressive they are. The leading idea of a programme could evolve, driven by its heuristic to make predictions that can be supported by evidence. Feyerabend claimed that Lakatos was selective in his examples, and the whole history of science shows there is no universal rule of scientific method, and imposing one on the scientific community impedes progress.

-  David Newbold and Julia Roberts, "An analysis of the demarcation problem in science and its application to therapeutic touch theory" in International Journal of Nursing Practice, Vol. 13

Laudan maintained that the demarcation between science and non-science was a pseudo-problem, preferring to focus on the more general distinction between reliable and unreliable knowledge.

[Feyerabend] regards Lakatos's view as being closet anarchism disguised as methodological rationalism. Feyerabend's claim was not that standard methodological rules should never be obeyed, but rather that sometimes progress is made by abandoning them. In the absence of a generally accepted rule, there is a need for alternative methods of persuasion. According to Feyerabend, Galileo employed stylistic and rhetorical techniques to convince his reader, while he also wrote in Italian rather than Latin and directed his arguments to those already temperamentally inclined to accept them.

-  Alexander Bird, "The Historical Turn in the Philosophy of Science" in Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Science

Politics, health, and education

Political implications

The demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience brings up debate in the realms of science, philosophy and politics. Imre Lakatos, for instance, points out that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union at one point declared that Mendelian genetics was pseudoscientific and had its advocates, including well-established scientists such as Nikolai Vavilov, sent to a Gulag and that the "liberal Establishment of the West" denies freedom of speech to topics it regards as pseudoscience, particularly where they run up against social mores.

Something becomes pseudoscientific when science cannot be separated from ideology, scientists misrepresent scientific findings to promote or draw attention for publicity, when politicians, journalists and a nation's intellectual elite distort the facts of science for short-term political gain, or when powerful individuals of the public conflate causation and cofactors by clever wordplay. These ideas reduce the authority, value, integrity and independence of science in society.

Health and education implications

Distinguishing science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education. Treatments with a patina of scientific authority which have not actually been subjected to actual scientific testing may be ineffective, expensive and dangerous to patients and confuse health providers, insurers, government decision makers and the public as to what treatments are appropriate. Claims advanced by pseudoscience may result in government officials and educators making bad decisions in selecting curricula.

The extent to which students acquire a range of social and cognitive thinking skills related to the proper usage of science and technology determines whether they are scientifically literate. Education in the sciences encounters new dimensions with the changing landscape of science and technology, a fast-changing culture and a knowledge-driven era. A reinvention of the school science curriculum is one that shapes students to contend with its changing influence on human welfare. Scientific literacy, which allows a person to distinguish science from pseudosciences such as astrology, is among the attributes that enable students to adapt to the changing world. Its characteristics are embedded in a curriculum where students are engaged in resolving problems, conducting investigations, or developing projects.

Alan J. Friedman mentions why most scientists avoid educating about pseudoscience, including that paying undue attention to pseudoscience could dignify it.

On the other hand, Robert L. Park emphasizes how pseudoscience can be a threat to society and considers that scientists have a responsibility to teach how to distinguish science from pseudoscience.

Pseudosciences such as homeopathy, even if generally benign, are used by charlatans. This poses a serious issue because it enables incompetent practitioners to administer health care. True-believing zealots may pose a more serious threat than typical con men because of their delusion to homeopathy's ideology. Irrational health care is not harmless and it is careless to create patient confidence in pseudomedicine.

On 8 December 2016, journalist Michael V. LeVine pointed out the dangers posed by the Natural News website: "Snake-oil salesmen have pushed false cures since the dawn of medicine, and now websites like Natural News flood social media with dangerous anti-pharmaceutical, anti-vaccination and anti-GMO pseudoscience that puts millions at risk of contracting preventable illnesses."

The anti-vaccine movement has persuaded large numbers of parents not to vaccinate their children, citing pseudoscientific research that links childhood vaccines with the onset of autism. These include the study by Andrew Wakefield, which claimed that a combination of gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression, which are often seen in children with ASD, occurred within two weeks of receiving vaccines. The study was eventually retracted by its publisher, and Wakefield was stripped of his license to practice medicine.

Alkaline water is water that has a pH of higher than 7, purported to host numerous health benefits, with no empirical backing. A practitioner known as Robert O. Young who promoted alkaline water and an " Alkaline diet" was sent to jail for 3 years in 2017 for practicing medicine without a license.

References

Bibliography

Works cited

Abbott, K. (30 October 2012). "The Fox Sisters and the Rap on Spiritualism". Smithsonian.com. Archived from the original on 19 July 2020.

Andrews JP, Henry R (1796). History of Great Britain, from the death of Henry VIII to the accession of James VI of Scotland to the crown of England. Vol. II. London: T. Cadell and W. Davies. Archived from the original on 16 July 2021.

Blum, J.M. (1978). Pseudoscience and Mental Ability: The Origins and Fallacies of the IQ Controversy. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Bunge M (1983a). "Demarcating science from pseudoscience". Fundamenta Scientiae. 3: 369-388.

Bunge, Mario (1983b). Epistemology & Methodology II: Understanding the World. Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Volume 6. Springer Netherlands. pp. 223-228. ISBN 978-90-277-1634-7. Archived from the original on 13 June 2020.

Devilly GJ (2005). "Power therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry". The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 39 (6): 437-445. doi:10.1080/j.1440-1614.2005.01601.x. PMID 15943644. S2CID 208627667.

C.J. Efthimiou; R. Llewellyn (2006). "Is pseudoscience the solution to science literacy?". arXiv:physics/0608061.

Gauch HG (2003). Scientific Method in Practice. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-01708-4. LCCN 2002022271.

Hansson SO (5 May 2021). "Science and Pseudo-Science". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

Moll, A. (1902). Christian Science, Medicine, and Occultism. London: Rebman.

Ruscio, John (2002). Clear thinking with psychology : separating sense from nonsense. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning. ISBN 978-0-534-53659-6. OCLC 47013264.

Sager C, ed. (2008). "Voices for evolution" (PDF). National Center for Science Education. Archived (PDF) from the original on 18 December 2010.

Sagan C (1994). The demon-haunted world. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 978-0-345-40946-1.

Shermer M (1997). Why people believe weird things: pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. ISBN 978-0-7167-3090-3.

Thagard, Paul R. (1978). "Why astrology is a pseudoscience". PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. 1978 (1): 223-234. doi:10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1978.1.192639. ISSN 0270-8647. S2CID 147050929. Archived from the original on 28 March 2019.

Yeates, L.B. (Autumn 2018). "James Braid (II): Mesmerism, Braid's Crucial Experiment, and Braid's Discovery of Neuro-Hypnotism". Australian Journal of Clinical Hypnotherapy & Hypnosis. 40 (1): 40-92.

Further reading

Alcock, J. (2001). Science vs. Pseudoscience, Nonscience, and Nonsense. The Skeptical Inquirer, 25(3), 50-54.

Bauer HH (2000). Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, and Other Heterodoxies. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-02601-0.

Charpak G, Broch H (2004). Debunked: Esp, telekinesis, other pseudoscience (in French). Translated by Holland BK. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-7867-1. Debunked. Originally published 2002 by Odile Jacob as Devenez sorciers, devenez savants

Cioffi F (1998). Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience. Chicago and La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, division of Carus. pp. 314. ISBN 978-0-8126-9385-0.

Derksen AA (1993). "The seven sins of pseudo-science". J Gen Phil Sci. 24: 17-42. doi:10.1007/BF00769513. S2CID 140478903.

Derksen AA (2001). "The seven strategies of the sophisticated pseudo-scientist: a look into Freud's rhetorical toolbox". J Gen Phil Sci. 32 (2): 329-350. doi:10.1023/A:1013100717113. S2CID 141312494.

Frietsch, Ute, The Boundaries of Science/ Pseudoscience Archived 11 April 2021 at the Wayback Machine, EGO - European History Online Archived 8 February 2013 at the Wayback Machine, Mainz: Institute of European History Archived 19 February 2016 at the Wayback Machine, 2015, retrieved: March 8, 2021 (pdf Archived 16 July 2021 at the Wayback Machine).

Gardner M (1957). Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (2nd, revised & expanded ed.). Mineola, NY: Dover Publications. ISBN 978-0-486-20394-2. fads and fallacies. Originally published 1952 by G.P. Putnam's Sons, under the title In the Name of Science.

Gardner M (1990). Science - Good, Bad and Bogus. Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-0-87975-573-7.

Gardner M (2000). Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-32238-5.

Gordon, Michael D. (2021). On the Fringe: Where Science Meets Pseudoscience. Oxford University. ISBN 978-0-19-755576-7.

Hansson SO (1996). "Defining pseudoscience". Philosophia Naturalis. 33: 169-76.

Kaufman, Allison B. & Kaufman, James C. (eds.), Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science, The MIT Press, (Cambridge, MA), 2018. ISBN 978-0-262-53704-9

Martin M (1994). "Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and science education". Science & Education. 3 (4): 1573-901. Bibcode:1994Sc&Ed...3..357M. doi:10.1007/BF00488452. S2CID 22730647.

Pigliucci M, Boudry M (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-05196-3.

Pratkanis AR (1995). "How to Sell a Pseudoscience". Skeptical Inquirer. 19 (4): 19-25. Archived from the original on 11 December 2006.

Shermer M (2011). "What Is Pseudoscience?: Distinguishing between science and pseudoscience is problematic". Scientific American. 305 (3): 92. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0911-92. PMID 21870452. Archived from the original on 29 July 2018.

Shermer M, Gould SJ (2002). Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York: Holt Paperbacks. ISBN 978-0-8050-7089-7.

Wilson F. (2000). The Logic and Methodology of Science and Pseudoscience. Canadian Scholars Press. ISBN 978-1-55130-175-4.

Wolpert, Lewis (1994). The Unnatural Nature of Science. Vol. 341. Harvard University Press. p. 310. doi:10.1016/0140-6736(93)92665-g. ISBN 978-0-674-92981-4. PMID 8093949. S2CID 44724752. First published 1992 by Faber & Faber, London.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.

# data[].attributes.body
3.) Ancient wisdom, people are drawn to ancient wisdom which is something that the pseudoscience industry can take advantage of but ancient wisdom us specifically pre-Christian knowledge, philosophy, and beliefs which is in accordance to the Collins English dictionary.

# data[].attributes.body
2.) The unexplained, if a client seems unsure to the point of interest in a topic is something a pseudoscientist can use against them, this is due to the appeal of the unexplained to a person which could be a reason to fall trap to the practice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's difficult to change someone's mind if they have anything like a strong opinion on the risks of vaccination, or the usefulness of orbs and essential oils in the treatment of late-stage liver cancer. But if you're ever going to stand a chance of doing so, you're going to need to wipe the rage-spittle off your face and set about the hard, not especially rewarding work of trying to understand these people. And so for this week's , we reached out to a number of psychologists and historians who've studied the issue to figure out why people believe in pseudoscience.

Robert MacDougall
Associate Professor, History, University of Western Ontario, who studies the history of science and pseudoscience in nineteenth-century America

It would be lovely to think that we believe things because they are true, and disbelieve them because they are false. And truth is, generally, a useful quality for an idea to have; it provides some competitive advantage in the battle for our hearts and minds. But it's hardly the only criteria that makes an idea stick or spread. Beliefs persist when they perform some useful function for the individual or society that believes them. The work performed by a weird or false belief is often obvious when you think about it: People believe in get-rich-quick schemes because they'd really like to get rich quick. They believe in miracle cures because they want to be well. They believe in ghosts or séances because they don't want their loved ones to be gone.

As a historian, the episodes that intrigue me most are the ones where the work performed by a given belief is not so obvious. In the 1890s, a few hundred Americans, most of them married women, left their homes and families to form a communal utopia in South Florida called the Koreshan Unity, dedicated to the proposition that the earth is hollow-and we live on the inside. It is hard to see just what benefit the Koreshans got out of this belief, until you dig deeper to find that they also called for the strict equality of the sexes, and for permanent celibacy for all. "Believe in the hollow earth and you never have to have sex again."

Not all ideas are created equal. History and psychology both suggest that we cling most tenaciously to our beliefs, even the false ones, when they support some narrative about who we think we are. That's why there is always a bull market for ideas that seem to justify injustice, like the racist pseudoscience of the 19th and early 20th centuries or, I would argue, climate change denialism today. Slaveholders, and CEOs, want reassurance that they're not bad people. This goes for those of us who believe in good science, too. I have seen a few scientific theories tested first-hand; I find airplanes and penicillin pretty convincing. But let's be honest: I also believe in science because I see myself as the kind of person who believes in science. This confirms my own view of myself as rational and well educated, and it conforms with the views of people I respect. A twenty-first century flat earther (there are no Koreshan-style hollow earthers today, that I know of) is drawn to that belief because of their own self-concept, as an iconoclast who cannot be fooled by authority figures like science teachers or experts on TV. I remain confident the earth is round. But the flat earthers and I are both motivated less by our view of the planet than by our views of our own ourselves.

That's why you can't fight flat earthers or anti-vaxxers or any other brand of pseudoscience with arguments from authority. If you want to combat false belief, you have to ask, "What work is this belief doing for the person who holds it?" Then you start from there.

"It would be lovely to think that we believe things because they are true, and disbelieve them because they are false... But it's hardly the only criteria that makes an idea stick or spread."
Professor of Psychology and Head of the Anomalistic Research Unit at Goldsmiths University, who specializes in the psychology of paranormal beliefs and experiences, cognition and emotion

Most people do not have a good understanding of real science, and can therefore be taken in if a claim is presented in 'science-y' language. Thus purveyors of medical pseudoscience will freely use terms like energy, vibrations, frequencies, resonance and so on in describing their interventions but none of these terms are being used in the precise way that a physicist would use them.

Many pseudoscientists will also refer to the latest ideas in real science to imply that their claims are derived from the latest cutting-edge theories. One example would be claiming that homeopathy is consistent with quantum mechanics despite the fact that, in reality, homeopathy is not consistent with any accepted scientific theory and, furthermore, there is no convincing evidence that it has any therapeutic value over and above that of a placebo.

This highlights another feature of pseudoscience: its supporters choose to completely ignore all evidence which undermines their claims, often providing spurious reasons for doing so. These reasons often include the following: (a) your so-called science is too crude to measure the effects involved, (b) your test was based upon a flawed understanding of the pseudoscientific theory, and (c) you have to get the conditions just right for the effects to occur and you failed to do so. In fact these reasons are simply in-built loopholes that allow the pseudoscientist to avoid any possibility of claims being falsified.

Some pseudosciences are inherently non-falsifiable. A good example would be so-called Scientific Creationism. To allow the dismissal of all scientific evidence suggesting that the earth is much older than the few thousand years that Young Earth Creationists believe, the claim is made that God created the earth with that evidence of a prior existence already in place (e.g., fossils in rocks, light in transit from distant stars, rings in trees in the Garden of Eden). Such inherent non-falsifiability is a guarantee that one is dealing with a pseudoscience.

Finally, pseudosciences are popular so because they often provide people with beliefs that they would like to be true-anything from miracle cures to the existence of a benevolent God to life after death and much else besides. Confirmation bias, the most ubiquitous and powerful of all cognitive biases, combined with poor critical thinking skills does the rest.

Professor, Psychology, Illinois State University Doctoral Student, Cognitive and Information Sciences, University of California, Merced

"If you want to combat false belief, you have to ask, 'What work is this belief doing for the person who holds it?' Then you start from there."
Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Psychology, University of California
Professor, Psychology, Emory College, and the editor of Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, among other books

We argue that we don't need to appeal to any special psychological mechanisms to understand why people believe pseudoscientific claims or reject scientific claims.

Every person relies on an assortment of mental shortcuts that make getting through the day easier, but we do so at some cost to accurately understanding the world. Many of these mental shortcuts are known as "cognitive biases" and pseudoscientific beliefs often exploit common cognitive biases that we all engage in from time to time.

For example, a common bias involves what's called "teleological thinking," which just means that people look out into the world and try to understand things they experience in terms of functions or purposes. This makes sense when you realize that our lives are filled with people who do things for purposeful reasons and whose behaviors often serve some function. So, it is easy to think that biological or physical phenomena also exist for some purpose rather than as a consequence of how physical, chemical, or biological processes just happen. Clouds don't exist "for raining," but that is an easier concept for most people to grasp than the description of energy exchange and matter transformations involved in "the water cycle." And most people don't need to understand the water cycle to live their lives, so there's very little pressure to accurately understand why clouds exist. Likewise, understanding the myriad processes and mechanisms of biological evolution is far more complicated than a belief that life was purposefully created by some powerful being, so the collection of pseudoscience beliefs under the umbrella terms "creationism" and "intelligent design" are common despite all scientific evidence to the contrary.

Another cognitive bias that we all share is a tendency to engage in "essentialist thinking," which is a bias to try to understand categorical differences as being due to some fundamental and unchanging essence of the categories. This tendency makes sense sometimes, because there are essential differences between, for instance, animate objects and inanimate objects and between living and nonliving entities. But some pseudoscientific claims take advantage of our bias to engage in essentialist thinking and claim essential differences between, for instance, the mathematical capabilities of men and women, or immutable differences in intelligence between various racial categories. In fact, most "scientific racism," or the pseudoscientific belief that there are intrinsic differences in the superiority or inferiority of particular racial groups, rests largely on taking this common bias towards essentialist thinking to support logically and scientifically absurd conclusions.

We also have a bias to trust in the testimony of others that develops early childhood, and continues into adulthood. As adults, we tend to take the default position that what we are being told is truthful unless we have reason to assume someone is lying or trying to deceive us. All cognitive biases allow people to end up with a "good enough" understanding of their world rather than a sophisticated understanding of the world. And there are a lot of cognitive biases-we have only mentioned a few. Because cognitive biases do make navigating the world easier, even at a cost to accuracy, many pseudoscience beliefs tend to be examples of an extreme version of one or a combination of cognitive biases.

Former naturopathic doctor who became a critic of naturopathy and alternative medicine
"Isaac Newton may be more famous today for his path-breaking contributions to physics and mathematics, but he devoted a considerable part of his life to alchemy, including the quest for the Philosopher's Stone that would convert base metals into gold or silver."

People may have many different motives for subscribing to pseudoscientific beliefs. Sometimes the purpose is to defend a more fundamental belief system, as when biblical literalists find themselves obliged to support creationism. Other times the anti-scientific ideas ensue out of wishful thinking, or even a desperate hope. Too many tragic examples can be found among the numerous miracle cures for cancers that as yet have no cures. Perhaps a personal belief in astrology often has a similar if more mild function: the desire to exert control over the uncontrollable. At the very least, the daily horoscope gives life meaning that it might not otherwise enjoy.

As a scientist, I find another manifestation of pseudoscientific beliefs far more fascinating, namely, when scientists themselves believe them! Isaac Newton may be more famous today for his path-breaking contributions to physics and mathematics, but he devoted a considerable part of his life to alchemy, including the quest for the Philosopher's Stone that would convert base metals into gold or silver. Johannes Kepler was not only a great mathematician and astronomer, but also a notable astrologer who earned money casting horoscopes. Linus Pauling may have won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, yet he also advocated mega-doses of vitamin C to cure cancer. Although I am personally skeptical about the empirical support for parapsychological phenomena, many reputable scientists have not shared that skepticism, including psychology's own William James.

How are these apparent aberrancies even possible? As in the previous examples, the causes are probably multiple. To start with, the boundary between science and pseudoscience is often not absolute, and therefore it's subject to individual interpretation. Moreover, that boundary frequently shifts over time, so pseudosciences can become sciences, and sciences can become pseudosciences. In the former case, alchemy evolved into chemistry, courtesy of Antoine Lavoisier and others. In the latter case, Franz Josef Gall's pioneering research in neuroscience, including the localization of mental functions in the brain, eventually turned into the untenable enterprise of phrenology. Finally, we must admit that scientists are just people and accordingly may sometimes betray certain cognitive "blind spots" that prevent them from realizing the unscientific status of their own ideas. Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theory offers more than one example. Just ask his mother!

Our minds tend to seek out and detect patterns; that's basically an adaptive tendency, as it helps us to make sense of our often bewildering worlds and to avoid danger. We are prone to seeing order in disorder and sense in nonsense. For example, when we eat a meal and feel sick soon afterwards, we try to think about what we ate that might have given us food poisoning. That's entirely reasonable. But the tendency to find meaningful patterns in data can also lead us to erroneous conclusions, such as vast conspiracy theories or the belief that vaccines cause autism. In these cases, we are usually perceiving systematic associations that aren't there. We also shouldn't underestimate the role of emotion. Many of us are drawn to pseudoscientific beliefs, such as belief in spirit mediums, because we understandably yearn to make contact with our departed loved ones. Many of these beliefs also afford us a sense of control, even if this sense is illusory; for example, astrological horoscopes reassure us that we can forecast the otherwise unpredictable events of the forthcoming day. We all harbor deep-seated wishes for greater hope and control over our lives, so it's not surprising that many of us are prone to these beliefs.

Do you have a burning question for Giz Asks? Email us at tipbox@gizmodo.com.
"When it comes to medical pseudoscience, I think people get duped because charlatans use medical terminology and science-y sounding words that the average person cannot recognize as gobbledegook."

In brief, I don't think people believe in pseudoscience, so much as fall prey to it.

When it comes to medical pseudoscience, I think people get duped because charlatans use medical terminology and science-y sounding words that the average person cannot recognize as gobbledegook; patients turn away from medicine when they are feeling hopeless, lost, and frustrated with the medical system (there is research showing a correlation between cancer patients feeling hopeless and out of control and the embrace of alternative cancer therapies); and medicine does not (yet) deal well with hard to explain, or frankly inexplicable, medical conditions. This can leave patients feeling desperate and particularly vulnerable to alternative therapies. I think this is one reason why you have patients with chronic fatigue, as an example of a hard to treat chronic condition, turning to therapies like homeopathy and naturopathy. They are willing to try anything, and think, "what's the harm?"

Unfortunately, alternative medicine can be quite dangerous. The therapies can be understudied, or not studied at all. When an alternative therapy has been researched, the research generally shows these alternatives are ineffective. Patients spending time and money on alternative therapies may be missing an important treatment window and diverting limited resources away from effective medical care. Sadly, patients with non-life threatening conditions, like eczema, have died from using alternative therapies [] under the false assumption that if something is natural, it is safe.

Psychological scientist and the author of The Memory Illusion: Remembering, Forgetting, and the Science of False Memory

Some of the biggest reasons why we are misled include:

(1) Distracted by jargon. We are not well versed in how a particular kind of science works and so are misled by scientific sounding terms (like those used in homeopathy).

(2) Trusting the underdog. We have conspiratorial thinking about an area (like not trusting 'big Pharma') which makes us not trust the larger scientific body in that area, and instead place trust in who we perceive to be scientific underdogs (for example, anti-vaxxers).

(3) Wishful thinking. We really want something to be true, and our wishful thinking clouds our judgement (like wanting there to be a cure for an incurable disease).

(4) Never thought to check. We accept incorrect information because it comes from a source we generally trust-like a friend or relative or teacher-and we never check whether the information is correct.

(5) Trusting ourselves too much. When we struggle to understand something, particularly in an area where we feel we have some basic knowledge, we may assume that the others are wrong or dangerous (like assuming that GMOs are inherently bad).

We need to be careful not to assume that pseudoscientific thinking is limited to people who are not well educated or who are not intelligent, instead realizing that almost all of us have at least a few of these beliefs and trying to actively rid ourselves of them whenever we can.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's difficult to change someone's mind if they have anything like a strong opinion on the risks of vaccination, or the usefulness of orbs and essential oils in the treatment of late-stage liver cancer. But if you're ever going to stand a chance of doing so, you're going to need to wipe the rage-spittle off your face...

# data[].attributes.body
4.) Proof by verbosity, this is a simple red flag definition, proof by verbosity is when a psychic is not getting a hit on their client they can start to argue and intimidate the client by overwhelming them with a lot of information at the same time to disrupt their thought process.

# data[].attributes.body
2.) Mystical energy is also apart of the sixth sense or ESP again and the definition for this topic is a term given to the Energies that cannot be explained by anything other then ESP.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"ATTENTION INFERIOR LIFEFORMS!"

This article, Mystic Energy, is property of the ArtistOfTheDaleks. Disturb my empire without permission and you shall be Exterminated!

Mystic Energy also called Etheron Energy and sometimes called Spirit Energy is the term given to the Energies that permeate all of existence and not and are responsible for the unseen forces that cannot be explained by the standard model. They are the spiritual aspect of the universe and the source of power for many Mages, Espers, and Otherworldly beings in the universe. It is not to be confused with Dark Fluid.

Some civilizations have their own term for Etheron Energy. The Vrilya for instance called this energy Vril and the term was adopted by the Thule Society and Wunderwaffen Program Before and During the Second World War. The Sumerians called it Ni ( Aura) while the Egyptians called it Ka. The Hindus referred to it as Prana, The Shintos and Buddhists called it Chi, The Norse revered it as Od, and Taoists refer to it as Dragon Energy.

The Etheron Flux Field is in short the Subquantum Ether. It is responsible for the doubling effect within all quantum particles and energies and effects all four fundamental forces including gravity. The Etheron Flux Field is the source of Quintessence, the Fifth Fundamental Force. The first Aryan to discover physical evidence this field was Nikola Tesla. Nikola's living relatives that now work for the Sphere Alliance have carried on his work for the benefit of Galactic Civilization.

Etherons are a type of Subquantum Elementary Particle. They are basically the particle that decides how all other particles operate including Higgs Bosons and Gravitons. Etherons come in many forms and cannot be detected like other particles by conventional means. These particles are what make up Etheron Energy and are the source of the Mystic Arts. It is also the source of Electrogravitic Coupling and Gravitomagnetism. Etherons produce Longitudinal Scalar Waves and when amplified during use can be directly visible.

Occult Technology deals with not just harnessing the Quantum Energy generated by these forces but the source of this field's power, Etherons. If you can control directly how the Etheron Flux Field works there is nothing that can possibly remain unseen. With this method you can literally alter the universe and it's forces on a reasonable scale. This is essentially what magic and psionics are but applying these concepts to technology isn't always an easy task if you do not understand how both physics and magic work. In fact trying to create such technology without prior understanding can not only be dangerous but extremely lethal. If such technology malfunctioned it could possibly cause some severe effects to the fabric of reality in that region such as the collapse the area around it into a quantum singularity.

The Meridian System is a complex circulatory system of Mystic Energy. It is comprised of Spirit Circuits or Meridians that interconnect with all Pressure Points within the body including the main Seven Chakras. Pressure points are swirling culminations of Mystic Energy within the body and if disrupted can cause serious harm. This system is essential to the production of Psi, Ki, and Mana within the body and cannot normally be seen by the unaided eye.

The Mystic Origin is a hidden state within the Meridian System achieved by a link with the intrinsic truths and forces of the universe and nature. This is accomplished by following certain disciplines or pursuing knowledge of the Esoteric and the Occult. By doing this one balances out and unifies their Seven Chakras and initiates this link. In the practice of Kabbalah this state is referred to as Da'at.

Chakras are Pools of Spiraling Energy Within The Body And Soul. They are blocked by negative energies and unlocked by positive ones. They are crucial to being able to perform Magic or Psionics.

There are Seven Major Chakras within the body and each one corresponds to a certain aspect of being. They are pools of spiralling energy within the three bodies. Unlocking each one grants further access to the Higher Chakras.

The Aura, also referred to as Emanation, is the radiance of the soul caused by the Mystical Energy within. Depending on what chakras are active it can take a myriad of colors. While Auras can be visible to Mystic Arts practitioners, the colors of them typically are not unless the caster exerts Magical Energy to make them visible or the observer possesses a specific Bloodline Talent such as Mystic Eyes that enable them to see it. And for most Espers and Mages, they can sense it but not actually see it without proper training. Qualities that Auras give off can change according to health, mood, thoughts, and spiritual condition. Auras can also be found in all things but these auras are not caused by a Soul Radiance but instead caused by a Matrix Radiance, a radiance caused by Non-Living existence especially the non-living environment that life develops in.

An aura can have more than one color but often a color has several shades.

Green is a color associated with the heart chakra.

Pink is a color along the same wavelength as green as such it too is associated with the heart.

Blue comes in a range of Light to deep shades and tones. These are associated with the Throat chakra.

Indigo is a deep blueish purple color often associated with the Third Eye Chakra.

Violet refers to a color between Indigo and Red. These are often associated with the crown chakra.

Gold is a color along a unique wavelength that only a select few have. Associated with the Divine and Completeness, it closely ties into the White wavelength.

White is an aura color associated with completeness and equilibrium. Symbolizing purity a white aura is often associated with the divine.

Composite colors are colors that are a blend of one or more aura colors. They may or may not vibrate on a frequency within the body.

Gray Auras are unusual they are a mix between White and Black Auras suggesting a balance between not only divine but also earthly desires as well.

Rainbow Auras are a mixture of all colors, shades, and tints. They are extremely rare and only occur in new souls whom are offspring of Indigo and Crystal Children.

Amber Auras are a mixture between Orange and Yellow Auras giving the appearance of the gemstone Amber. This indicates a very individualistic and passionate person.

Crystal Auras are white and opalescent in appearance. They are extremely rare as it indicates a spiritually advanced being. Despite its extreme rarity, variants of it have been proven to exist such as the Crystal Indigo and White Violet Auras.

The Aura of Lucifer Morningstar is Violet and Indigo and is common for Indigo Children. His aura is unusual though in that it has golden-white sparkles in it, a trait common in some Crystal Children. As a result, Lucifer's aura is varying shades of purple with golden white star-like sparkles resembling a night sky. Lucifer's Aura is of a Rare variety called a Crystal Indigo Aura and is found in Star Children born into both Spectra of Soul Rays.

The Center of Melody Fireheart' Aura is called a White Violet Aura and is common for Crystal Children. The Aura is composed of various pastel colors near and of the Violet Spectrum because of it's Opalescent qualities mixed with white. As a result colors like Pink or Lilac may appear in it as well.

The Center of Nero Darkbriar' Aura is called a Flamelight Aura and is common in people with a warrior spirit and overly passionate and sometimes aggressive personality. Nero's is described as an Aura that "Burns like the flames of hell themselves". Nero's variation takes on variations of Blue colors akin to hellfire with a dark glow around it.

Ley Lines are a network of Mystic Conduits that cover a Stellar, Planetary, or Galactic object. These conduits often influence a celestial body's nature. Mages whom can tap into these conduits are granted a massive boost in power being able to siphen Mystic Energy from the environment. Despite this however harnessing these energies is often limited to how much output the body can handle, if one overdoes it, the energies could rip apart the bodies of it's users, killing the caster in a large explosion.

Source Veins are locations along Ley Lines where the Mystical Energy pools at and flows from. Often found near Vile Vortices or Nexus Gates, this is where the Mystic Energy permeates into the physical realm. Metal deposits of Mithril and Orichalcum can be found here.

Vile Vortices are 12 Mystic Hotspots located on a celestial object in various places. These are like Super Gates. Vile Vortices are areas where the Ley Lines converge in one area and form an entrance to a Star Conduit. These vortexes are often used as portals for FTL travel involving a Star Drive.

Nexus Gates are like Miniature Vile Vortices, countless many can be found on celestial bodies. Like vile vortices these can be used for FTL travel. However unlike vile vortices, these gates can be used to travel to other locations on the same celestial body. As a result a person can travel from one point on a planet to another point on the opposite hemisphere in a mere minute.

Star Conduits are the Mystical Transport Tunnels Ley Lines produce. They are Linked to Nexus Gates and Vile Vortices. These permeate the whole Universe/Multiverse and are used as a form of FTL Travel to different locations in the Universe/Multiverse. Star Conduits seem to have a Spiral-Like flow to them possibly influenced by the movement of Mystic Energy within them and the Golden Ratio Factor.

Mystic Energy is the Source of all Mystic Arts. The Mystic Arts compose of the disciplines that consist of Psychic Powers, Magic, Cultivation, and Alchemy. To use Mystic Arts one must have the Mystic Sense also known as The Mind's Eye which is the ability to sense and perceive Mystic Energy. Other Abilities that fall into this category is Arcane Form and Bloodline Talents.

© Shea C. Marks 2017 All rights Reserved

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mystic Energy also called Etheron Energy and sometimes called Spirit Energy is the term given to the Energies that permeate all of existence and not and are responsible for the unseen forces that cannot be explained by the standard model.

# data[].attributes.body
5.) Red herring in this case is not a type of smoked fish but is a type of red flag many pseudoscientist use to disrupt the clients though process, a red herring is a piece of information that's given to the client that is meant to be misleading.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This fallacy consists in diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first. Son: "Wow, Dad, it's really hard to make a living on my salary." Father: "Consider yourself lucky, son. Why, when I was your age, I only made $40 a week."

# data[].attributes.body
3.) Ideology, sometimes as unrealistic as it may seem a lot of people truly believe in the pseudoscience practice as it is, for example astrology and the star signs are all things people do deeply believe in.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In Western astrology, astrological signs are the twelve 30-degree sectors that make up Earth's 360-degree orbit around the Sun. The signs enumerate from the first day of spring, known as the First Point of Aries, which is the vernal equinox. The astrological signs are Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces. The Western zodiac originated in Babylonian astrology, and was later influenced by the Hellenistic culture. Each sign was named after a constellation the sun annually moved through while crossing the sky. This observation is emphasized in the simplified and popular sun sign astrology. Over the centuries, Western astrology's zodiacal divisions have shifted out of alignment with the constellations they were named after by axial precession of the Earth while Hindu astrology measurements correct for this shifting. Astrology (i.e. a system of omina based on celestial appearances) was developed in Chinese and Tibetan cultures as well but these astrologies are not based upon the zodiac but deal with the whole sky.

Astrology is a pseudoscience. Scientific investigations of the theoretical basis and experimental verification of claims have shown it to have no scientific validity or explanatory power. More plausible explanations for the apparent correlation between personality traits and birth months exist, such as the influence of seasonal birth in humans.

According to astrology, celestial phenomena relate to human activity on the principle of " as above, so below", so that the signs are held to represent characteristic modes of expression. Scientific astronomy used the same sectors of the ecliptic as Western astrology until the 19th century.

Various approaches to measuring and dividing the sky are currently used by differing systems of astrology, although the tradition of the Zodiac's names and symbols remain mostly consistent. Western astrology measures from Equinox and Solstice points (points relating to equal, longest, and shortest days of the tropical year), while Hindu astrology measures along the equatorial plane ( sidereal year).

Western zodiac signs

The twelve ecliptic signs. Each dot marks the start of a sign and they are separated by 30°. The intersection of the celestial equator and the ecliptic define the equinoctial points: First Point of Aries ( ) and First Point of Libra ( ). The great circle containing the celestial poles and the ecliptic poles (P and P′), intersect the ecliptic at 0° Cancer ( ) and 0° Capricorn ( ). In this illustration, the Sun is schematically positioned at the start of Aquarius ( ).

Western astrology is a direct continuation of Hellenistic astrology as recorded in Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos in the 2nd century. Hellenistic astrology in turn was partly based on concepts from Babylonian tradition. Specifically, the division of the ecliptic in twelve equal sectors is a Babylonian conceptual construction. This division of the ecliptic originated in the Babylonian "ideal calendar" found in the old compendium MUL.APIN and its combination with the Babylonian lunar calendar, represented as the "path of the moon" in MUL.APIN. In a way, the zodiac is the idealisation of an ideal lunar calendar.

By the 4th century BC, Babylonian astronomy and its system of celestial omens influenced the culture of ancient Greece, as did the astronomy of Egypt by late 2nd century BC. This resulted, unlike the Mesopotamian tradition, in a strong focus on the birth chart of the individual and the creation of Horoscopic astrology, employing the use of the Ascendant (the rising degree of the ecliptic, at the time of birth), and of the twelve houses. Association of the astrological signs with Empedocles' four classical elements was another important development in the characterization of the twelve signs.

The body of the Hellenistic astrological tradition as it stood by the 2nd century is described in Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos. This is the seminal work for later astronomical tradition not only in the West but also in India and the Islamic sphere and has remained a reference for almost seventeen centuries as later traditions made few substantial changes to its core teachings.

Western astrological correspondence chart

The following table shows the approximate dates of the twelve astrological signs, along with the classical and modern rulerships of each sign. By definition, Aries starts at the First Point of Aries which is the location of the Sun at the March equinox. The precise date of the Equinox varies from year to year but is always between 19 March and 21 March. The consequence is the start date of Aries and therefore the start date of all the other signs can change slightly from year to year. The following Western astrology table enumerates the twelve divisions of celestial longitude with the Latin names. The longitude intervals, are treated as closed for the first endpoint ( a) and open for the second ( b) - for instance, 30° of longitude is the first point of Taurus, not part of Aries. The signs are occasionally numbered 0 through 11 in place of symbols in astronomical works.

The twelve signs are positioned in a circular pattern, creating a pattern of oppositions related to different philosophically polarized attributes. Fire and air elements are generally 180 degrees opposed in Western astrology, as well as earth and water elements. Not all systems of astrology have four elements, notably the Sepher Yetzirah describes only three elements emanating from a central divine source. Spring signs are opposite to autumn ones, winter signs are opposite to summer ones and vice versa.

Aries is opposite to Libra

Taurus is opposite to Scorpio

Gemini is opposite to Sagittarius

Cancer is opposite to Capricorn

Leo is opposite to Aquarius

Virgo is opposite to Pisces

In Western astrology, the polarity divides the zodiac in half and refers to the alignment of a sign's energy as either positive or negative, with various attributes associated to them as a result. Positive polarity signs, also called active, yang, expressive, or masculine signs, are the six odd-numbered signs of the zodiac: Aries, Gemini, Leo, Libra, Sagittarius, and Aquarius. Positive signs make up the fire and air triplicities. Negative polarity signs, also called passive, yin, receptive, or feminine signs, are the six even-numbered signs of the zodiac: Taurus, Cancer, Virgo, Scorpio, Capricorn, and Pisces. Negative signs make up the earth and water triplicities.

The modality or mode of a given sign refers to its position in the season it is found in. Each of the four elements manifests in three modalities: cardinal, fixed, and mutable. Since each modality comprehends four signs, they are also known as Quadruplicities. For example, the sign Aries is found in the first month of spring in the Northern Hemisphere, so practitioners of astrology describe it as having a cardinal modality. The combination of element and modality provides the signs with their unique characterizations. For instance, Capricorn is the cardinal earth sign, impressing its association with action (cardinal modality) in the material world (earth element).

Triplicities of the four elements

The planets' sign positions on May 16, 2012. The signs are colored according to the associated element. Each planet is represented by a glyph next to its longitude within the sign. Additional symbols may be added to represent apparent retrograde motion (℞), or apparent stationary moment (shift from retrograde to direct, or vice versa: S).

The Greek philosopher Empedocles identified fire, earth, air, and water as elements in the fifth-century BC. He explained the nature of the universe as an interaction of two opposing principles, love and strife, manipulate the elements into different mixtures that produce the different natures of things. He stated all the elements are equal, the same age, rule their own provinces, and possess their own individual character. Empedocles said that those born with nearly equal proportions of the elements are more intelligent and have the most exact perceptions.

The elemental categories are called triplicities because each classical element is associated with three signs The four astrological elements are also considered as a direct equivalent to Hippocrates' personality types (sanguine = air; choleric = fire; melancholic = earth; phlegmatic = water). A modern approach looks at elements as "the energy substance of experience" and the next table tries to summarize their description through keywords. The elements have grown in importance and some astrologers begin natal chart interpretations by studying the balance of elements in the location of planets (especially the Sun's and Moon's ascendant signs) and the position of angles in the chart.

Celestial body rulerships

Representation of the western astrological signs in a 1716 Acta Eruditorum table illustration

Dignity and detriment, exaltation and fall

A traditional belief of astrology, known as essential dignity, is the idea that the Sun, Moon, and planets are more powerful and effective in some signs than others because the basic nature of both is held to be in harmony. By contrast, they are held to find some signs to be weak or difficult to operate in because their natures are thought to be in conflict. These categories are Dignity, Detriment, Exaltation, and Fall.

and Detriment: A planet is strengthened or dignified if it falls within the sign that it rules. In other words, it is said to exercise of the sign. For example, the Moon in Cancer is considered "strong" (well-dignified). If a planet is in the sign opposite which it rules (or is dignified in), it is said to be weakened or in Detriment (for example, the Moon in Capricorn). This may also be termed a "debility".

In traditional astrology, other levels of Dignity are recognised in addition to Rulership. These are known as Exaltation, Triplicity, Terms or bounds, and Face or Decan, which together are known as describing a planet's Essential dignity, the quality or ability of one's true nature.

Exaltation and : A planet is also strengthened when it is in its sign of exaltation. In traditional horary astrology, this denotes a dignity just less than rulership. Exaltation was considered to give the planet's significance(s) the dignity of an honoured guest: the centre of attention but constrained in power. Examples of planets in their Exaltation are: Saturn (Libra), Sun (Aries), Venus (Pisces), Moon (Taurus), Mercury (Virgo, although some disagree with this classification), Mars (Capricorn), Jupiter (Cancer). A planet in the opposite sign of this is in its fall, and thus weakened, perhaps more than Detriment. There is discord as to the signs in which the two extra-Saturnian planets may be considered to be exalted.

The following table summarizes the positions described above:

In addition to essential dignity, the traditional astrologer considers Accidental dignity of planets. This is placement by house in the chart under examination. Accidental dignity is the planet's "ability to act". So we might have, for example, Moon in Cancer, dignified by rulership, is placed in the 12th house it would have little scope to express its good nature. The 12th is a cadent house as are the 3rd, 6th and 9th and planets in these houses are considered weak or afflicted. On the other hand, Moon in the 1st, 4th, 7th, or 10th would be more able to act as these are Angular houses. Planets in Succedent houses of the chart (2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th) are generally considered to be of medium ability to act. Besides Accidental Dignity, there are a range of Accidental Debilities, such as retrogradation, Under the Sun's Beams, Combust, and so forth.

Additional classifications

Equirectangular plot of declination vs right ascension of the modern constellations with a dotted line denoting the ecliptic. Constellations are colour-coded by family and year established. (detailed view)

Each sign can be divided into three 10° sectors known as decans or decanates, though these have fallen into disuse. The first decanate is said to be most emphatically of its own nature and is ruled by the sign ruler. The next decanate is sub-ruled by the planet ruling the next sign in the same triplicity. The last decanate is sub-ruled by the next in order in the same triplicity.

While the element and modality of a sign are together sufficient to define it, they can be grouped to indicate their symbolism. The first four signs, Aries, Taurus, Gemini, and Cancer, form the group of personal signs. The next four signs, Leo, Virgo, Libra, and Scorpio form the group of interpersonal signs. The last four signs of the zodiac, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces, form the group of transpersonal signs.

Dane Rudhyar presented the tropical zodiac primary factors, used in the curriculum of the RASA School of Astrology. The tropical zodiac is the zodiac of seasonal factors as opposed to the sidereal zodiac (constellation factors). The primary seasonal factors are based on the changing ratio of sunlight and darkness across the year. The first factor is whether the chosen time falls in the half of the year when daylight is increasing, or the half of the year when darkness is increasing. The second factor is whether the chosen time falls in the half of the year when there is more daylight than darkness, or the half when there is more darkness than daylight. The third factor is which of the four seasons the chosen time falls in, defined by the first two factors. Thus

The spring season is when daylight is increasing and there is more daylight than darkness.

The summer season is when darkness is increasing and there is more daylight than darkness.

The autumn season is when darkness is increasing and there is more darkness than daylight.

The winter season is when daylight is increasing and there is more darkness than daylight.

Western sign gallery

Indian astrology

In Indian astrology, there are five elements: fire, earth(Land), air, water, and ether. The master of fire is Mars, while Mercury is of land, Saturn of air, Venus of water, and Jupiter of ether.

Jyotish astrology recognises twelve zodiac signs (Rāśi), that correspond to those in Western astrology. The relation of the signs to the elements is the same in the two systems.

Nakshatras

A nakshatra ( Devanagari: नक्षत्र, Sanskrit , a metaphorical compound of 'map/chart', and 'guard'), or lunar mansion, is one of the 27 divisions of the sky identified by prominent star(s), as used in Hindu astronomy and astrology ( Jyotisha). "Nakshatra" in Sanskrit, Kannada, Tulu and Tamil and Prakrit also, thus, it refers to stars themselves.

Chinese zodiac signs

Chinese astrological signs operate on cycles of years, lunar months, and two-hour periods of the day (also known as shichen). A particular feature of the Chinese zodiac is its operation in a 60-year cycle in combination with the Five Phases of Chinese astrology ( Wood, Fire, Metal, Water and Earth). Nevertheless, some researches say that there is an obvious relationship between the Chinese 12-year cycle and zodiac constellations: each year of the cycle corresponds to a certain disposal of Jupiter. For example, in the year of Snake Jupiter is in the Sign of Gemini, in the year of Horse Jupiter is in the Sign of Cancer and so on. So the Chinese 12-year calendar is a solar-lunar-jovian calendar.

Zodiac symbolism

The following table shows the twelve signs and their attributes.

The twelve signs

Chart showing the 24 cardinal directions and the symbols of the sign associated with them.

In Chinese astrology, the zodiac of twelve animal signs represents twelve different types of personality. The zodiac traditionally begins with the sign of the Rat, and there are many stories about the Origins of the Chinese Zodiac which explain why this is so. When the twelve zodiac signs are part of the 60-year calendar in combination with the four elements, they are traditionally called the twelve Earthly Branches. The Chinese zodiac follows the lunisolar Chinese calendar and thus the "changeover" days in a month (when one sign changes to another sign) vary each year. The following are the twelve zodiac signs in order.

The five elements

: The earth person is serious, logical and methodical, intelligent, objective and good at planning. The direction associated with Earth is Center. The season for Earth is the changeover point of the four seasons. It is the fixed element for the animal signs Ox, Dragon, Goat and Dog.

The five elements operate together with the twelve animal signs in a 60-year calendar. The five elements appear in the calendar in both their yin and yang forms and are known as the ten Celestial stems. The yin/yang split seen in the Gregorian calendar means years that end in an even number are Yang (representing masculine, active, and light), those that end with an odd number are Yin (representing feminine, passive and darkness), subject to Chinese New Year having passed.

References

Arroyo, Stephen (1975). Astrology, Psychology and The Four Elements. California: CCRS Publications

Arroyo, Stephen (1989). Chart Interpretation Handbook. California: CCRS Publications. ISBN 0-916360-49-0

Bobrick, Benson (2005). The Fated Sky: Astrology in History. Simon & Schuster. 369 pp.

Caiozzo, Anna (2003). Images of the Sky. Paris-Sorbonne. Signs and Constellations.

Eric Francis (2016). "Why Your Zodiac Sign is Not Wrong"

Hone, Margaret (1978). The Modern Text-Book of Astrology. Revised edition. England: L. N. Fowler & Co. Ltd. ISBN 085243-357-3

Johnsen, Linda (2004 March). A Thousand Suns: Designing Your Future with Vedic Astrology. Yes International Publishers.

Mayo, Jeff (1979). Teach Yourself Astrology. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Rochberg, Francesca (1998), "Babylonian Horoscopes", American Philosophical Society, New Series, Vol. 88, No. 1, pp. i-164. doi:10.2307/1006632. JSTOR 1006632.

Rudhyar, Dane (1943). Astrological Signs - The Pulse of Life.

Sachs, Abraham (1948), "A Classification of the Babylonian Astronomical Tablets of the Seleucid Period", Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 271-290. doi:10.2307/3515929. JSTOR 3515929.

Sutton, Komilla (1999). The Essentials of Vedic Astrology. England: The Wessex Astrologer Ltd.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Western astrology, astrological signs are the twelve 30-degree sectors that make up Earth's 360-degree orbit around the Sun. The signs enumerate from the first day of spring, known as the First Point of Aries, which is the vernal equinox. The astrological signs are Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces.