Distinguishing Pseudo-science and Science

The following are suggestions for recognizing pseudo-science and separating it from the genuine article:

1.	The side-stepping of falsification;
2.	An absence of self-correcting conduct and practices, and the evasion of peer review;
3.	A pre-occupation with confirmation rather than disconfirmation;
4.	A proclivity for attempting to reverse the burden of proof, put simply: the responsibility to demonstrate the truth of a claim rests with those making that claim, so if UFOlogists put forward the hypothesis that the source of some or many ‘UFO’ sightings is spacecraft controlled by extraterrestrial intelligent beings the onus is on proponents to prove this is so, not on sceptics to demonstrate it isn’t the case;
5.	The failure of ‘connectivity’ , that is, neglecting to adequately relate and reconcile putative phenomena and proposed concepts and hypotheses with well-established scientific principles and well-verified knowledge;
6.	Giving undue attention to and placing disproportionate or inappropriate reliance upon testimonials and anecdotal evidence (in contrast to, for example, the findings of well-conducted research and sampling relevant, independent expert testimony);
7.	The use of language in a way which tends to obscure issues and understanding – the terminology employed likely to lack scientific precision and legitimacy – to the naϊve it could seem “scientific sounding”;
8.	The omission of ‘boundary conditions’, that is, the specification of clear limits under which predicted phenomena do or not apply, for example, a particular therapy is asserted to be efficacious for almost all disorders, irrespective of the individual causes of the various conditions;
9.	Rationalizing to produce an illusion of support for a favoured claim, for example, despite repeated, long-term adverse research findings proponents of the Rorschach inkblot 'test' contend that these investigations failed to adequately mirror clinicians’ use of the Rorschach in that it is declared clinicians only apply its results in concert with a complex of other information “...[the index] is never interpreted in isolation...”, whereas should a study produce evidence favourable to the efficacy of the Rorschach (even though that research also assumes the same pattern of use of the ‘test’) proponents will embrace these findings as corroborating and reinforcing their position to continue its clinical application† – so what then will proponents accept as evidence showing that the Rorschach should be abandoned as a clinical tool, at least for certain uses? The answer it would appear is probably nothing.

 † ‘heads I win, tails you loose’.