# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
This pseudoscience red flag is the claim or findings that, under identical conditions, cannot be consistently reproduced. Scientific credibility depends upon the scientific method and, more importantly, reproducibility of results. Pseudoscientific claims are based on their lacking this rigor and instead leaning towards anecdotes or unverifiable observations.

Connection:
This picture basically shows how pseudoscientific claims fail the test of reproducibility: for example, products making unlikely claims about health benefits put out pictures of anecdotes rather than demonstrations or verification. Yet these claims remain unproven, which means that they are not believable because they do not exemplify much about truth. Science, on one hand, depends on a methodology that includes critical thinking, weighing the evidence, and verification of consistency regarding test results, which these pseudoscientific methods denied.

By failing at the test of reproducibility, pseudoscientific claims more often represent an appeal to emotion or prejudice than a useful basis for action.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
This pseudoscience red flag refers to concepts or claims which do not evolve over time, do not change in response to new evidence. The idea of progress is integral to science in that research adds to previously established knowledge through the scientific method. Most pseudoscientific theories would ignore new findings and continue with outdated or refuted ideas.
Connection:
This image exemplifies the pseudoscientific tendency to remain stagnant and resist progress. For instance, practices like astrology have remained unchanged for centuries, relying on outdated assumptions and ignoring advancements in fields such as astronomy and physics. Unlike reputable scientific disciplines that adapt to new data through critical thinking and evaluating evidence, pseudosciences cling to anecdotes and confirmation bias, showing no effort to incorporate modern findings.

This lack of progress evidences refusal to engage the necessary critical thinking process that involves recognizing bias and considering sources, among other key steps to ensure a scientific discipline is dynamic and trustworthy.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
This pseudoscience red flag refers to practices or claims inspired by profit rather than scientific discovery or credibility. Pseudoscientific claims often sell some kind of untested product or treatment, promising incredible results by using scientific-sounding jargon and appeals to emotions while disregarding the scientific method and demonstrable validity.

This picture shows the commercialization of pseudoscience, where financial interests override ethical considerations. Companies selling "detox drinks" or "miracle weight loss pills", for instance, use anecdotes and false testimonials instead of the evaluation of evidence to back up their claims. Businesses that do not follow the scientific method take advantage of the lack of critical thinking in people and their trust in seemingly reputable sources.

This creates a distorted view of the truth and works against efforts at debunking such claims, since financial motivation gets in the way of honest and ethical practices.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
The "All Natural" red flag refers to the claim that something is superior because it is natural. This usually appeals to the false belief that natural products are therefore safe or effective and dismisses the scientific method and any evaluating evidence to back up such claims.
Connection:
This image represents the "All Natural" fallacy often used in marketing products like supplements or alternative medicines. While these products emphasize being "natural," they typically lack reputable sources or demonstrable validity for their claims. For instance, "natural" does not always equate to "safe"—poison ivy is natural but harmful.

This claim abuses all kinds of critical thinking barriers, like group-think and distorted views of truth, to make the consumer more trusting of the emotional appeals than the evidence. Without testing proper to the scientific method, the safety and efficiency of these products remain in question.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
This red flag involves interpreting a relationship between two variables-that is, one causes the other-when no evidence to support causation exists. Two things may happen together; in other words, they may be correlated. However, just because this is so does not mean one causes the other. This is typically a result of neglecting to carry out the scientific method and evaluating evidence appropriately.

Connection:
This image illustrates the confusion between correlation and causation, a common fallacy in pseudoscience. For example, studies showing people who eat ice cream are more likely to drown might suggest a causal link. However, the true explanation is a third variable—hot weather, which increases both swimming and ice cream consumption.

Such claims manipulate audiences through failure to recognize bias and misinterpretation of data. If critical thinking is ignored and demonstrable validity is lacking, the misunderstanding can be easily exploited by pseudoscience to make false claims, creating a distorted view of the truth.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
The "Mystical Energy" red flag involves the claiming of invisible forces or undefined forces said to influence health, emotions, or the environment. These energies are described in terms that sound like science, but the description is devoid of any basis in the scientific method or demonstrable validity.
Connection:
This image has a fantastically futuristic portrayal often seen in "mystical energy" claims. So many pseudoscientific practices, like crystal healing or Reiki, make use of this kind of imagery to convey an impression of credibility. Support for such claims very often comes without evidence from credible sources and relies on anecdotes or emotional appeal rather than the rigors of the scientific method.

The term "energy" is often hijacked from physics, distorting a view of the truth into a confusion of scientific principles with concepts that have not been verified. Except for critical thinking or steps such as evaluating evidence, these claims lead individuals to believe in pseudoscience rather than science itself.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
It is an argumentation fallacy wherein too much verbosity presents the argument in overly complex detail. The purpose of this kind of argumentative mechanism is to mislead or intimidate an audience into accepting a claim without evaluation of evidence or critical thinking.
Connection:
This is an image of how proof by verbosity is meant to be complex or overwhelming, such as making the listener get deluged by too much information. One example of debates is where members present a series of loosely related statements in quick succession so opponents cannot deal effectively with each.

By the latter, one might say such tactics do not depend on bypassing critical thinking process steps like identifying claims or spotting bias but instead through intimidation via the illusion of authority.

# data[].attributes.body
Suppression by Authorities" is a deliberate act performed by authorities in order to hinder, discredit, or censor information, practices, or discoveries that run counter to the tide. Many connotations of pseudoscience come forth in discussions of suppression whereby a number of claims would suggest quite valid ideas have been suppressed to maintain existing norms or interests.

Connection:
It symbolizes the suppression of the voice of dissent or controversial information by those in power. This is realized in such hypothetical examples like historical claims of medical authorities suppressing alternative treatments to protect pharmaceutical interests. While most of such claims are not valid, they propagate distrust in reputable sources and the scientific method.

This red flag serves to exploit critical thinking barriers, such as group-think, by making powerful entities appear to maliciously withhold the truth from the public. True science involves looking at evidence and making sure at no time does a claim receive a free pass. Suppression narratives may be valid in instances but more often are used to deflect rigorous scrutiny in pseudoscience.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
Emotional Connection: The tendency of people to believe in some claim or idea because of some sort of strong emotion evoked, such as hope, fear, or nostalgia. This cause for belief mostly bypasses rational thought and critical thinking, using emotional appeals instead of factual evidence.

Connection:
This picture, in general, represents how pseudoscience often juggles the ball of emotional investment to justify its claims. For instance, any product coming into the market with the brand name "cure-all" creates a ray of hope among people suffering from incurable diseases, and thus they believe the anecdotes without looking at the evidential analysis. Similarly, pseudoscientific tests like astrology or energy healing often attract those desiring comfort and control in cases of uncertainty.

This emotional association will blind the reasoning tool, distort the view of truth, and change where feelings outweigh facts. Barring the effort to recognize bias or to apply the scientific method, beliefs that are emotionally understandable will lead to pseudoscience rather than informed knowledge.

# data[].attributes.body
Perception and Observation: It is dependence on oneself and directly observed things through senses to arrive at beliefs. Even these, while useful, again at the mercy of pitfalls like bias, misinterpretation, or even limitation, which give rise to wrong inferences when the scientific method comes in conflict.
Connection:
The figure above illustrates how perception might impact beliefs in pseudoscience. For instance, a coincidental trend is noticed in events, and a person interprets that trend as being a result of a mystical cause such as luck or energy. Although these kinds of observations tend to feel real, they are typically anecdotal and devoid of evidence evaluation or demonstrable validity.

Perception would give a misbegotten look at the truth by skipping some of the steps involved in critical thinking, such as identifying the claim or evaluating the sources present. Most the pseudoscientific claims manipulate the subjectivity of perception by asking the individuals to make usage of personal experiences without consideration toward scientific inquiry.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
"Simplicity" is the preference for simple explanations over complex ones even though the simple one lacks evidence or validity. A tendency like this can then predispose these people to pseudoscientific claims because these solutions to problems like others are simple and usually do not use the scientific methodology of establishing proper evidence.

Connection
This image epitomizes the appeal of simplicity, which is one of the reasons these sorts of pseudoscientific claims tend to attract attention. Take, for example, the claim "Drink this tea, and the pounds melt away." It's infinitely more appealing than a scientifically correct explanation involving things like diet, exercise, and metabolism. These sorts of claims eschew any sense of demonstrable validity and, instead, depend upon scientific-sounding rhetoric to attract an audience.

On the other hand, simplicity may give a very one-sided view of the truth, thus leaving them more open to pseudoscience by escaping the complexity of either evidence evaluation or even recognition of bias. It gives further importance to applying the critical thinking process in weighing whether a simple explanation holds true with credible evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
One would explain the "Unexplained" as events or phenomena that have no scientific explanation at this time. This, in turn, has frequently made people explain such events with supernatural or pseudoscientific causes rather than seeking demonstrable validity or applying the scientific method.

Connection:

This diagram gives reason to the interest in the unknown, being one of the strong reasons for belief in pseudoscience. The occurrence of unidentified flying objects or strange lights in the sky, for example, is immediately ascribed to extra-terrestrial activity, mostly without critical verification of evidence. Such a phenomenon handily plays on human curiosity or the unease of uncertainty.

The unexplained now bypasses critical thinking through various barriers of group-think and appeal to emotion. Devoid of evidence or adherence to a scientific method, these claims create a caricature of truth that convinces people to adapt explanations that are not supported-or pseudoscientific-rather than accept the limitations of human knowledge at any given moment.