Articles, blog posts, and Instagram accounts sometimes tell us that the world will end on a particular date, evoking a strong sense of panic. Some people frantically change their behavior altogether due to sudden news that the world will be ending. Concerned individuals may prepare for this time period by nestling in their basements with their closest loved ones, mentally unready for their sealed fate.
Doomsday predictions like the 2012 Maya Apocalypse, the Taiwanese True Way Prediction of 1988, and several others impacted respective communities as news spread. Dire warnings such as these trace back centuries, including Johannes Stöffler’s Great Flood Doomsday Prediction of February 25th, 1524. Due to Stöffler’s status as a noteworthy and influential mathematician and astronomer at the time, individuals fully believed a vast flood would submerge the world. In preparation for calamity, German nobleman Count Von Iggleheim even built a three-story ark. Despite these prophecies of catastrophe, the world has, in fact, survived.
Yet, conspiracy theorists still insist that you are likely to encounter extraterrestrial species and go missing, rendered forever isolated, if you dare to enter the Bermuda Triangle. The lack of proof makes you wonder, however, if these claims hold any merit.
According to Dr. Google, acupuncture and acupressure treatments are valid in providing internal healing and alleviating limb pain; these and other alternative medicines are claimed to holistically treat cancer, but why do patients not see any signs of remission?
The Earth, which some Internet users note is flat and hollow, is in fact not experiencing any climate change according to other online “experts,” so human activities apparently have no impact on the environment. Fantastic — these claims seem to prove everything we input and emit lacks consequence!
Often, the pseudoscience we encounter in the media and through research is nearly indistinguishable from fact by the naked eye. It is presented in a convincing, authoritative manner with supposed “scientific fact” to support claims and pose a robust argument.
To effectively detect pseudo-intelligence from actuality, we must analyze the nature of pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is often convincingly presented with the support of a prominent social figure or a media source that is deemed reputable. Facts are often fabricated or entirely theoretical, and this is where readers must carefully investigate research methods, quantitative and qualitative data, and primary sources of data. Ask questions as you engage with research, and be sure to think critically about all components: hypotheses, claims, statistics, and conclusions.
Many pseudoscientific arguments share common elements. They are often unfalsifiable, utilize anecdotes and personal story testimony, and exclude alternative evidence. They also tend to neglect the totality of data, lack effective scientific language, exaggerate claims and evidence, and are anti-progressive. Awareness of these characteristics can allow one to spot pseudoscience upon internal reflection of the content they are consuming.
Professor David Richters, a psychologist and vision scientist at Northeastern University, explains that it is crucial to realize that science is never quick to close the door on a theory. Thus, it is a red flag if any claim entirely dismisses a subject.
In order to engage our critical thinking skills when consuming science, research recommends a stronger science education starting from youth, as it is currently poor and rapidly deteriorating. This will equip our society with the mindset to discern science from a lack thereof. Adults can exercise critical thinking skills by investigating research methods in literature, gauging where statistics have originated, and assessing the pioneers behind strong scientific claims.
“Question everything, as naivete is the culprit of susceptibility to the deceptive persuasion of pseudoscience.”
Pseudoscience can be incredibly damaging to our wellbeing and state of affairs. It presents plausibly fabricated or exaggerated theories and data as indisputable, wreaking unnecessary havoc and capitalizing on diminishing critical thinking skills due to differences in quality of science education. Question everything, as naivete is the culprit of susceptibility to the deceptive persuasion of pseudoscience.