Science vs Pseudoscience: What, Where, When, Which, Why, Who and How

SCIENCE

Definition: Knowledge ascertained by observation and experiment, critically tested, systematized and brought under general principles, esp in relation to the physical world (Chambers Dictionary, 12th Edition, 2011).

S1. Web of Science: Collection of over 32 million science publications

http://thomsonreuters.com/thomson-reuters-web-of-science

S2. PubMed comprises more than 23 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

S3. ScienceDirect: Collection of over 12 million science publications

http://www.sciencedirect.com

S4. Science in "How Stuff Works"

http://science.howstuffworks.com

S5. Faculty of Science - National University of Singapore

http://www.science.nus.edu.sg

PSEUDOSCIENCE

Definition: A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method (New Oxford American Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2010).

P1. What Is Pseudoscience?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pseudoscience

P2. Pseudoscience: What is it? How can I recognize it?
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html

P3. List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience

P4. Characteristics of pseudoscience:

    1 Vague and/or exaggerated claims and ambiguous language

    2 Lack of peer review, and claims of vast establishment conspiracies

    3 No attempts or interest in replication or outside verification

    4 Stasis, and hostility towards development or change of the idea

    5 Frequent changes in methodology without changing the conclusions

    6 Refusal to use the scientific method, or the claim that it can not be used

    7 Misuse of scientific terms

    8 Misrepresentation of terms

    9 Poor standards of evidence

    10 Reliance on negative proofs

    11 Reliance on outside or unrelated fields for results

    12 Reliance on outdated or later refuted scholarly works

    13 Ideas are unfalsifiable

    14 Clear political and religious motivation

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

P5: Quackwatch, an alternative medicine watchdog: Aims to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct"
http://www.quackwatch.org


LITERATURE (26)

Bunge, M., 1991. What is science? Does it matter to distinguish it from pseudoscience? A reply to my commentators. New Ideas in Psychology 9, 245–283. doi:10.1016/0732-118X(91)90030-P

Burki, T., 2009. Denying AIDS. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 9, 600. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(09)70252-X

Coles, E.M., Veiel, H.O.F., 2001. Expert testimony and pseudoscience: How mental health professionals are taking over the courtroom. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 24, 607–625. doi:10.1016/S0160-2527(01)00100-5

Cone, E.J., 2006. Ephemeral profiles of prescription drug and formulation tampering: Evolving pseudoscience on the Internet. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Drug Formulation and Abuse Liability 83, Supplement 1, S31–S39. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2005.11.027

Gefter, A., 2010. The fuzzy boundary between science and pseudoscience. New Scientist 206, 48–49. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(10)61275-4

Giuffre, M., 1997. Science, bad science, and pseudoscience. Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing 12, 434–438. doi:10.1016/S1089-9472(97)90007-1

Grimes, D.A., Schulz, K.F., Raymond, E.G., 2010. Surrogate end points in women’s health research: science, protoscience, and pseudoscience. Fertility and Sterility 93, 1731–1734. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.12.054

Gulrajani, N., 2004. World Bank pseudoscience? The Lancet 364, 1852–1853. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17431-X

Herbert, J.D., Lilienfeld, S.O., Lohr, J.M., Montgomery, R.W., O’Donohue, W.T., Rosen, G.M., Tolin, D.F., 2000. Science and pseudoscience in the development of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: Implications for clinical psychology. Clinical Psychology Review 20, 945–971. doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(99)00017-3

Kelly, I.W., Janzen, B.L., Saklofske, D.H., 2012. Psychology, Science, and Astrology, in: Ramachandran, V.S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Second Edition). Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 218–224.

Kratochwill, T.R., 2012. Comments on “Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in school psychology:” Evidence-based interventions for grandiose bragging. Journal of School Psychology 50, 37–42. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.11.003

Lilienfeld, S.O., 2010. Can psychology become a science? Personality and Individual Differences, Collected works from the Festschrift for Tom Bouchard, June 2009: A tribute to a vibrant scientific career 49, 281–288. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.024

Lilienfeld, S.O., Ammirati, R., David, M., 2012. Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in school psychology: Science and scientific thinking as safeguards against human error. Journal of School Psychology 50, 7–36. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.09.006

Makgoba, M.W., 2002. Politics, the media and science in HIV/AIDS: the peril of pseudoscience. Vaccine, Global HIV Therapeutics - HIV Vaccines, Nobel Forum, Karolinska 20, 1899–1904. doi:10.1016/S0264-410X(02)00063-4

Monvoisin, R., 2005. Élixirs floraux de Bach : étude zététique: Critique des concepts pseudo-scientifiques, pseudo-médicaux et des postures philosophiques induites par la théorie du Dr Bach. Annales Pharmaceutiques Françaises 63, 416–428. doi:10.1016/S0003-4509(05)82310-7

Morrison, G.S., 2014. Distinguishing between forensic science and forensic pseudoscience: Testing of validity and reliability, and approaches to forensic voice comparison. Science & Justice 54, 245–256. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2013.07.004

Okada, F., Kinoshita, S., 1995. Shinshinsho: clinical entity or pseudoscience? The Lancet 346, 66–67. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(95)92107-9

Rogers, L.J., 2010. Sexing the Brain: The Science and Pseudoscience of Sex Differences. The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences 26, S4–S9. doi:10.1016/S1607-551X(10)70051-6

Sheldon, M.P., 2014. Claiming Darwin: Stephen Jay Gould in contests over evolutionary orthodoxy and public perception, 1977–2002. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 45, 139–147. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.10.002

Simberloff, D., 2004. Invasion biology. Critique of a pseudoscience: D.I. Theodoropoulos, Avvar Books, 2003, ISBN: 0970850417, xiv+237 pp. Ecological Economics 48, 360–362. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.11.002

Spaan, J.A.E., 2010. The danger of pseudoscience in Informetrics. Journal of Informetrics 4, 439–440. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.010

Thorp, S.R., 2004. Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology: Edited by S. O. Lilienfeld, S. J. Lynn, & J. M. Lohr. New York: Guilford Press, 2003, 474 pages, $42.00. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 56, 381. doi:10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00119-3

Tye, A., 2005. Invasion biology: critique of a pseudoscience. Biological Conservation 122, 505–506. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2004.08.003

Uriel Latorre, P., 2009. Pseudociencia. Enfermería Clínica 19, 238. doi:10.1016/j.enfcli.2009.03.006

Van Rillaer, J., 1991. Strategies of dissimulation in the pseudosciences. New Ideas in Psychology 9, 235–244. doi:10.1016/0732-118X(91)90029-L

Van Rillaer, J., 2012. La psychanalyse freudienne : science ou pseudoscience ? Pratique Neurologique - FMC 3, 348–353. doi:10.1016/j.praneu.2012.09.001