← Back to catalogue
Research draft

pseudoscience

vr.tr.pseudoscience · INF.KNW

Let an agent help people evaluate scientific claims, explain criteria used by scientists and philosophers, attribute characterisations of specific movements to sources, and protect people from harmful health or financial pseudoscience.

Thing Registry Information and virtual systems

Research draft, second pass

A second pass drafted this model: the structure a model of this thing needs, and what is known about it in the world. The line under this one says how the second half was obtained - researched against sources, or recalled without web access, in which case nothing here was read anywhere and every claim is a lead to verify. Unreviewed either way.

written by Claude from model knowledge without web access - no source was read, every claim is a lead to verify

Researched by: Claude

Purpose and description

Let an agent help people evaluate scientific claims, explain criteria used by scientists and philosophers, attribute characterisations of specific movements to sources, and protect people from harmful health or financial pseudoscience.

Beliefs, claims or practices presented as scientific but not compatible with scientific method, such as unfalsifiable claims, perpetual motion devices and health claims without evidence; where to draw the line between science and non-science, the demarcation problem, is debated, and specific characterisations should be attributed to their sources.

What it is for: Critical thinking, science literacy and consumer protection.

It can be evaluate a claim against scientific evidence; explain demarcation criteria such as falsifiability; identify warning signs of pseudoscience; find reliable evidence reviews.

Distinguishing features

Claims scientific status

Lacks rigorous testing

Resists correction

Label is sometimes contested

What it looks like

Claims in advertising, media and products using scientific-sounding language without supporting evidence.

How it is recognised

Unfalsifiable or untestable claims

Appeals to secret knowledge or conspiracy

Emerging science with limited evidence is not automatically pseudoscience

Related models

is a kind of - category

misinformation

is contrasted with - counterpart

science

is evaluated by - method

scientific method

is related to - related topic

propaganda

In practice

Families and kinds

perpetual motion and free energy claims

unsupported health claims

pseudo-historical and pseudo-linguistic claims

science denialism

contested classifications attributed to critics

Standards and regulation

Advertising rules on health and product claims

Medicines regulation

Consumer protection law

Failure modes and hazards

Harm from abandoning effective treatment

Financial loss from fraudulent devices

Unattributed labelling of belief systems

Also called

magnet motorPerendev magnet motoranthroposophyDenialism of the Brazilian military dictatorshippseudolinguisticspseudo-linguisticspseudohistorypseudoastronomypseudopsychologypseudoanatomyAyurvedapseudoarchaeologyGeobiologypseudoscientific transphobiafolk historyparapsychologyneuro-linguistic programminghealing knowledgepseudomedicineEnneagram of PersonalityradiesthesiarumpologygeopathologycloudbusterAnthroposophical medicineYumeihoMidbrain activationpseudo-scholarshippseudophysicspseudoscientific metrologyPsychic archaeologyfacilitated communicationextrasensory perceptionphysiognomypseudoscientific language comparisonAryanismanthroposophic architectureprotochronismAyurvedic medicineMaharishi Ayur-Veda

+18

Where this came from

wikidata · CC0 1.0

Source repository Registry entry point

Drafted structure

Bundle to layer to finding to question, as the second pass will find it: 4 bundles · 8 layers · 8 findings · 16 questions.

Evaluate Checking claims.

Evidence decides.

Evidence

Scientific evidence.

Evidence

Evidence.

  1. What do systematic reviews or scientific bodies say about this claim? provenance
  2. How strong is the evidence? boundary

Signs

Warning signs.

Signs

Warning signs.

  1. Does the claim rely on testimonials, secret mechanisms or refusal of testing? boundary
  2. What test would settle it? definition
Philosophy Demarcation.

Criteria are debated.

Criteria

Demarcation criteria.

Criteria

Demarcation criteria.

  1. How do philosophers such as Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos approach demarcation? provenance
  2. What are the limits of each criterion? boundary

Attribution

Contested labels.

Attribution

Attribution.

  1. Who characterises this movement or practice as pseudoscience, and how do its adherents respond? provenance
  2. Is the label attributed rather than asserted? boundary
Harm Protecting people.

Harm prevention.

Health

Health claims.

Health

Health claims.

  1. Is someone considering stopping effective treatment for an unproven remedy? boundary
  2. How should the agent encourage them to talk to a clinician? action

Money

Fraudulent devices.

Money

Fraudulent products.

  1. Is a product such as a free-energy device being sold with impossible claims? boundary
  2. How can it be reported to consumer or advertising authorities? action
Learning Science literacy.

Skills protect people.

Teach

Critical thinking.

Teach

Critical thinking.

  1. Which resources teach people to evaluate scientific claims? provenance
  2. How can it be taught respectfully? action

Denialism

Denial of evidence.

Denialism

Denialism.

  1. How do scholars describe denialism of established historical or scientific facts? provenance
  2. How should the agent respond with evidence? action

What the second pass must settle

  • Should specific claims be separate entries?
  • How should evidence reviews be linked?
  • How should contested labels be attributed?
Draft as JSON