Pseudoscience acquires muscles - and teeth!

Martin Bridgstock worries about a new trend which might, in the long run, threaten both science and skepticism.

What exactly is a pseudoscience? The Oxford English Dictionary defines it like this:

A pretended or spurious science, a collection of related beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status that scientific truths now have1.

Probably most of us would be comfortable with this definition. Pseudoscience is fake science. It may resemble science superficially, but the nature of the ideas, and the relationships between the ideas and reality, are nothing like those of true science.

On the face of it, pseudoscientists seem pretty harmless. The idea of self-appointed Great Minds working away in their sheds to disprove Einstein or generate perpetual motion is pretty amusing. Probably most of us would favour a tolerant policy towards them: we live in free countries, and there is a small chance that one day, one of them might be right. However, there is one circumstance in which pseudoscience becomes quite terrifying, and that is when its practitioners acquire power and influence.

Dictatorship and pseudoscience

Before the middle of the 20th century, two forms of pseudoscience gained real power. In Stalin's Soviet Union an eccentric plant scientist named Lysenko got the support of Stalin for his weird ideas. These included the denial of genes and Darwinian evolution, and a refusal to accept that members of the same species competed with each other.

Because Lysenko had the backing of Stalin, scientists opposing him could be hounded from office, arrested and in some cases killed. And because Lysenko's ideas damaged Soviet agriculture, the failure to feed the country's population blighted the standard of living of millions of people for decades2.

At about the same time, in Germany, another type of pseudoscience was gaining sway. The basis of the Nazi ideology was the supremacy of the Aryan race to others. Non-Aryans were regarded as incapable of higher civilization and the Jews, in particular, were hated and distrusted. Above all, 'Aryan science' was thought to be superior to 'Jewish science'. As a result, scientists of Jewish background - hundreds of them - were forced from their positions. And the theories of brilliant scientists with Jewish backgrounds - such as Einstein - were forbidden. The effect on some parts of German science was devastating. When David Hilbert, the doyen of German mathematics, was asked about the impact of Nazi politics upon German mathematics he replied, "It doesn't exist any more!"3

These two types of pseudoscience did great damage to the nations in which they flourished. We tend to overlook them amid the hideous atrocities perpetrated by the two dictators. Alan Bullock, for instance, estimates that Hitler and Stalin were responsible for about 17 million murders each4. However, it is becoming clear that in modern, tolerant, democratic societies, pseudosciences are also finding ways to power. As in the dictatorships, they are seeking to undermine real science.

Pseudoscience in the democracies

Let us look at one of these. Way back in 1953, research evidence was emerging that smoking was addictive and dangerous. Medical statistics and experiments on mice showed clearly that exposure to the tars found in cigarettes greatly increased the risk of cancer. What is more, we now know that the tobacco industry's own research supported these findings5.

The top management of the tobacco firms was thrown into a panic. The leaders met, and decided on a campaign strategy to enable their industry to survive. Part of the strategy was a straightforward lobbying campaign.

The industry's position was that there was "no proof" that tobacco was bad, and they fostered that position by manufacturing a "debate," convincing the mass media that responsible journalists had an obligation to present "both sides" of it … the so-called balance campaign involved aggressive dissemination and promotion to editors and publishers of "information" that supported the industry's position6.

To support this position, the industry needed more than PR. It needed scientific evidence - or at least what seemed to be scientific evidence - in support of its position.

But where could the industry get such evidence? As Oreskes and Conway point out7, it's not all that difficult. Science is intrinsically full of uncertainties. Even when scientists are pretty sure they know how some aspect of the universe works, there are lots of problems and questions left. If you are determined, it is not difficult to list these problems, then suggest that everything is uncertain, and that 'more research' is needed before anything can be done.

But where would you find scientists to work on such topics? Again, that is not hard. Some scientists - like some of the rest of us - are immoral, and will do anything if you pay them enough. Others simply will not see the ethical implications if their research is funded. Yet others believe strongly that there should be no government intervention in commercial matters, and will be sympathetic for that reason.

Oreskes and Conway describe how the tobacco industry, using lavish funds, was able to create what looked like a massive scientific case for saying that it was not clear that tobacco was harmful to human health. They supported 'scientific' journals and conferences devoted to this argument. And they succeeded. It was not until the 21st century, more than 50 years later, that it finally became clear that tobacco is appallingly dangerous, and that millions of people have died as a result of it.

The industry also had an army of lawyers. Compensation claims against the tobacco industry were resisted ruthlessly through the courts, if necessary making round after round of appeals against unfavourable findings. Few people had the stamina or the resources to fight a case against the tobacco industry to a conclusion.

Looked at in retrospect, the behaviour of the industry appears truly monstrous. They knew perfectly well, from their own research, that they were killing huge numbers of people, yet they chose to defend their actions and deny those seeking compensation any kind of help. At the same time they sought to blur the science and create uncertainty over issues which they knew were close to being certain.

Are there other cases in which pseudoscience has acquired this kind of power base? There certainly are. Oreskes and Conway's main focus is upon climate change deniers. They demonstrate that business firms with an interest in opposing restrictions funded scientists to argue that there was 'doubt' about human effects on the world's climate, and that nothing should be done until more research gave the answers. In some cases, the scientists hired to create 'doubt' in this area were the same ones who had argued that the evidence was not sufficient for the harmful effects of tobacco!8

In another direction entirely, mass religious fanaticism can also create this new and dangerous kind of pseudo-science. The most florid example of this is the massive 'creation science' movement which, for a time, looked as if it would dominate science teaching in American schools.

To a large extent, the creation science movement was shaped by the American constitution. This forbids government authorities from promoting religion. Therefore, if religious fundamentalists wished to counterbalance the teaching of evolution in state schools, they could not simply demand that their religious beliefs be taught as well. They had to pretend that their beliefs were 'scientific', and that a Two Models approach to science - embracing both creation and evolution - must be taught in schools. It is chilling to realise that at one stage, 23 American state legislatures were considering legislation to enforce 'equal time' for creation and evolution in their state schools9.

Of course, in order to make their case carry weight, the creation scientists had to present an intellectual structure which looked convincing. So they ransacked the scientific literature, looking for findings and comments which could be taken as evidence against evolution and for creation. People with PhDs (some genuine, some purchased) wrote and spoke in favour of creation science, and organisations with scientific-sounding names sprouted, such as the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Science Research Society10.

Eventually, creation science was identified for what it truly was, a pseudoscience, and conclusively defeated in courtroom battles. So was its successor, the Intelligent Design movement11 (Lebo 2008). However, the fact remains that tens of millions of people still believe that the key scientific concept of evolution is wrong, and that a viable alternative exists, namely some form of creationism. It is perfectly possible that, one day, their support and resources will be mobilised again.

The implications of the new pseudoscience

I suggest that these developments should be of deep concern. Dissidents who cannot accept scientific findings are no longer confined to tinkering in sheds or writing self-published books. Instead, if they have sufficient backing, they can pose as proper scientists and perhaps acquire real power. It might even be possible for such movements, eventually, to overthrow science itself. It happened for a while in Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia, and it almost happened with creation science. In my view, there is nothing guaranteed about the onward march of science, and some pseudo- scientific movement, one day, might be capable of reversing it.

What can be done? The skeptics have an important role here. Surveys show that the general population has little understanding of how science works, or of the key findings of science. This makes the public vulnerable to the slick, convincing claims of special pleaders. Skeptics are another matter. We can identify when a pseudoscience is acquiring power, and can subject it to withering critique. Indeed, we are specialists at exactly this, and many of us can publicly spell out exactly how bogus science differs from the real thing. I suggest that focusing on pseudoscience with powerful financial backing, or with mass religious or political backing, should be one of all skeptics' main priorities. This is the lethal strain of the virus.

Seen in this light, skepticism becomes more than an amusing pastime. It is an important way in which we can preserve one of the very bases of civilisation. That, I think, is eminently worth doing.

References

1. Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Ed. 2004. OUP.
2. Medvedev, Z. 1969. The Rise and Fall of T. D. Lysenko. New York, Columbia University Press.
3. Cornwell, J. 2003. Hitler's Scientists, p. 198. London, Penguin.
4. Bullock, A. 1993. Hitler and Stalin. London, Fontana.
5. Oreskes, N., Conway, E. M. 2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warning, p.21. London, Bloomsbury.
6. ibid., p.16.
7. ibid., p. 31.
8. ibid., p. 186.
9. Bridgstock, M., Smith, K. 1986. 'Introduction.' in Bridgstock, M., Smith, K. (eds): Creationism: an Australian Perspective. Melbourne, Australian Skeptics: 5-8.
10. Bridgstock, M. 1986. 'But lots of creationists are scientists, and with so many brilliant people on both sides shouldn't both be taught?' in Bridgstock, M., Smith, K. (eds): Creationism: an Australian Perspective. Melbourne, Australian Skeptics: 12-13.
11. Lebo, L. 2008. The Devil In Dover. New York, New Press.