The last issue of the newsletter summarized part of the talk Roy Auerbach made at the April A.R.T. membership meeting on quackery in science. This article continues that summary. The difference between science and pseudoscience, Roy said, is not always immediately apparent, but becomes clear upon careful investigation. Pseudoscience is often characterized by a tendency to concern itself with highly comprehensive theories, rather than the modest, incremental theories characteristic of sound science. Pseudoscience is more likely to tackle the origins of the universe than the effects of sunlight on seed germination.
Pseudoscientific findings are likely to be persistently difficult to verify.
This happens in science, too, but usually disappears with better reseasrch methods. Scientists often have a modest view of themselves and their work, and feel themselves to be a part of a scientific community. Pseudo scientists often view themselves as geniuses with great contributions to make to humanity who are unjustifiably scorned by mainstream scientists. Pseudoscientific conclusions are more likely than scientific conclusions to be presented to the public without benefit of evaluation by independent researchers. Finally, the quack scientist is likely to be a lonely figure, working alone and producing totally unexpected findings.