PSEUDOSCIENCE Bradley Monton Good science, bad science, pseudoscience Pseudoscience is not science, though it masquerades as science. (We'll unpack this accusation of masquerading below.) But not all non-science is pseudoscience. Playing football, writing a novel, and dancing a jig are all activities that are neither scienti!c nor pseudoscienti!c. (One can, of course, scienti!cally study each of these activities – and presumably it's equally possible to pseudoscienti!cally study them.) But such activities, as standardly engaged in, are neither scienti!c nor pseudoscienti!c. So, we have a three-part distinction: science, non-science that is pseudoscience, and non-science that is not pseudoscience. Within the "science" category, it is helpful to distinguish between good science and bad science. Suppose a worker in a chemistry lab accidentally contaminates a sample, makes an incorrect pipette reading, and reports a false result as a consequence. Assuming that this worker is otherwise behaving as one normally would while working in a chemistry lab, then this worker is doing bad science, but not pseudoscience. Bad science is still science. Regarding what counts as doing bad science, it's the behavior that violates the norms of scienti!c practice that's the key, not the achieving of the false result. Suppose that some physicists add two numbers incorrectly, and end up getting a true result as a consequence – the theory they are working with is a false theory, and their math error coincidentally is what was needed for the theory to generate a true result. Still, the behavior of adding numbers incorrectly is bad science, and that's what the physicists are doing. But the key point is that violating the norms of scienti!c practice isn't by itself enough to count as pseudoscience – violating the norms is not a suf!cient condition. This raises the question: what are the conditions that are jointly suf!cient and necessary for something to count as pseudoscience? Some examples of pseudoscience Analyses of the concept of pseudoscience are all controversial, as we'll see below. It's somewhat less controversial to give examples of particular instances of pseudoscience. Martin Gardner is probably the most famous pseudoscience-debunker, and even he TF33006.indb 469 18/03/2013 15:38 BR ADLEY MONTON 470 admits that it's hard to demarcate between pseudoscience and science: "Pseudoscience is a fuzzy word that refers to a vague portion of a continuum on which there are no sharp boundaries" (Gardner 2001: 1). Gardner divides this continuum into four categories. On one end are "beliefs which all scientists !nd preposterous," such as the claim that the earth is a hollow sphere and we are living inside it, or the claim that the earth was created 10,000 years ago. Next, there are "slightly less weird claims," such as homeopathy and Scientology. Gardner's next category are "controversial claims" (Gardner 2001: 2), such as the belief that God played a role in guiding evolution, and claims about the ability to extract unlimited energy from the vacuum of space. Gardner's last category is "open conjectures by scientists," such as speculations about other universes, and panspermia – the view that life originated elsewhere and then came to earth. The National Science Board of the United States National Science Foundation (NSF) issued a 2006 report on American public attitudes towards science, in which it said that many Americans have pseudoscienti!c beliefs (National Science Board 2006). The beliefs listed in the report include: astrology, lucky numbers, the existence of unidenti!ed "ying objects (UFOs), extrasensory perception (ESP), magnetic therapy, clairvoyance, ghosts, mentally communicating with the dead, and channeling (allowing a spirit being to temporarily assume control of a human body during a trance). Lists of particular pseudoscienti!c claims are often controversial, or at least open to interpretation. For example, consider the NSF claim that belief in the existence of unidenti!ed "ying objects is a pseudoscienti!c belief. Taken literally, that belief isn't pseudoscienti!c; it's clearly true. There are some mysterious objects that competent people like commercial and military pilots have seen in the sky that remain unidenti!ed. The NSF report also declares that clairvoyance is pseudoscienti!c, and points out that many Americans believe in it. But here is the de!nition of clairvoyance, as given in the report: "the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future." I believe that I do have such power: I know that the Sun rose yesterday, and I predict that the Sun will rise tomorrow. Thus, one has to be careful in declaring a particular claim to be pseudoscienti!c – it may be that one is just interpreting the claim differently than other people, or not adequately taking into account ways in which believing the claim could be a reasonable scienti!c thing to do. Another reason to be careful in declaring a claim to be pseudoscienti!c is that, historically, some people have done so, when later developments have shown that the claim in question actually has a solid scienti!c basis. For example, the claim that rocks sometimes fall from the sky was once declared a pseudoscienti!c claim (Hines 2003: 35). But we now know that meteorites are real. Here's another (slightly more controversial) example. The claim that acupuncture is medically effective has in the past been declared a pseudoscienti!c claim (by e.g. Sampson et al. (1991)), but we now have some plausible scienti!c evidence for acupuncture's effectiveness (Allchin 1996; Jones 2002). (Note that there does not yet TF33006.indb 470 18/03/2013 15:38 PSEUDOSCIENCE 471 exist an agreed-upon theory that explains the effectiveness of acupuncture, but that doesn't mean that it's not an effective medical intervention.) What sort of thing is pseudoscience? Even though there is a widely agreed-upon list of theories and practices that count as pseudoscience, it's not obvious how to come up with an analysis that demarcates those from cases of science. The above examples of pseudoscience are helpful, but they provide only an incomplete characterization of pseudoscience. Perhaps they are enough if one is simply trying to provide them as paradigm cases, where future cases of possible pseudoscience can be compared to them. But what many would like is an analysis of the form: X is pseudoscience if and only if –, where the blank is !lled in with conditions that are jointly necessary and suf!cient for something to count as pseudoscience. Before talking about how to !ll in that blank, let's ask a preliminary question: what category of reality does X fall into? I'll consider !ve possibilities: X is a statement, X is a theory, X is a pairing of a theory and evidence, X is the behavior of a person, and X is the behavior of a group of people. Imre Lakatos (1974: 5) treats pseudoscience as applying to statements; he writes that "a statement may be pseudoscienti!c even if it is eminently 'plausible' and everybody believes in it." Thus, by his lights, a single statement like "There is a monster living in Loch Ness" could be a pseudoscienti!c statement. One could argue instead that the concept of pseudoscience applies to theories, where a theory is roughly understood as a related set of claims about the world, or as a model of a part of reality. Paul Thagard (1978), for example, characterizes the concept of pseudoscience in terms of theories (we'll critically examine his de!nition below). On the view that statements or theories are what count as pseudoscienti!c, it's not a matter of logic that they so count. It's logically possible for us to live in a world where, for example, spirit beings exist and can control a human body, and astrology is accurate in predicting people's personality characteristics. So, in assessing channeling and astrology as pseudoscienti!c, one must do so in a context where one is taking into account empirical beliefs about the world. Because of this, some would argue that evidence plays a key role in declaring something pseudoscienti!c, and that really it's the pairing of the theory (or statement) and evidence that counts as pseudoscienti!c. It's easiest to consider this view with an example. In ancient times, people believed that the Earth was "at, and they had good reason for doing so, given the evidence they had: the interior angles of triangles they drew summed to 180 degrees, when people traveled in one direction they didn't come back to their starting point, and so on. Given the evidence they had, it was a reasonable scienti!c hypothesis that the Earth was "at. But given the evidence we have, such a view is pseudoscienti!c. On this view of pseudoscience, what counts as pseudoscience is time dependent. It may also be culture dependent – a contemporary isolated tribe could have the same evidence that the ancients had, and so for that tribe it is a reasonable TF33006.indb 471 18/03/2013 15:38 BR ADLEY MONTON 472 scienti!c hypothesis that the Earth is "at. But if a member of our culture and our epistemic community were to endorse the hypothesis, that person would be behaving pseudoscienti!cally. This leads to my next point. Some (such as Derksen 1993) would argue that looking at the evidence/theory relation still misses something crucial about what counts as pseudoscience – they would say that it's really the behavior of a person that should be evaluated as pseudoscienti!c or not. For example, one can approach astrology in a pseudoscienti!c way, by blithely endorsing its pronouncements on personality traits, or one can approach it in a scienti!c way, by conducting a rigorous experiment to test astrology's pronouncements. Indeed, it is because such rigorous experiments have been done that we are con!dent that astrology is a false theory. The person who is conducting rigorous experiments to test the predictions of astrology is not being pseudoscienti!c (even if that person is aware of all the evidence we have that astrology is a false theory). But the person who endorses astrology, and ignores all the countervailing evidence, is being pseudoscienti!c. If the person's behavior is what counts, then one could pseudoscienti!cally argue for a legitimate scienti!c theory. For example, suppose that Fred says that fairies have assured him that general relativity is true; Fred is, arguably, behaving pseudoscienti!cally. Finally, it may not be the behavior of a person that counts as pseudoscienti!c, but the behavior of a group of people. Speci!cally, sometimes a "practice" is declared pseudoscienti!c. The idea here is that individuals have their idiosyncrasies; what we should focus on is whether the group of people are generally behaving in a scienti!cally legitimate way. To sum up: we've looked at a number of options for what could count as pseudoscience: a statement, a theory, pairing of a theory and evidence, the behavior of a person, and the behavior of a group of people. Note that a combination of these views could be true. For example, it could be that, when evaluating a theory as pseudoscienti!c, we should look at the relationship between the available evidence and the theory, while when evaluating a person as a pseudoscientist, we should look at the behavior of the person. Pseudoscience – an analysis Let's now look at an example of an analysis of the concept of pseudoscience, !lling in the blank in: "X is pseudoscience if and only if –." A promising analysis is due to Paul Thagard. He writes: A theory is said to be pseudoscienti!c if and only if (1) it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems, but (2) the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering con!rmations and discon!rmations. (Thagard 1978: 227–28) TF33006.indb 472 18/03/2013 15:38 PSEUDOSCIENCE 473 One arguable virtue of this account is that it yields the result that whether a theory is scienti!c or not depends in part on when the theory is being evaluated. Another arguable virtue is that it brings in the behavior of practitioners, and doesn't just focus on the content of the theory. But there are arguably objectionable consequences of Thagard's de!nition too. Here are two. First, a theory can be pseudoscienti!c only if there are alternative theories to which it can be compared. Thagard admits this consequence; for example, he writes: The current fad of biorhythms, implausibly based like astrology on date of birth, can not be branded as pseudoscienti!c because we lack alternative theories giving more detailed accounts of cyclical variations in human beings ... (Thagard 1978: 229) Pace Thagard, I maintain that biorhythm theory can be declared pseudoscienti!c, simply because of the evidence that refutes it, and the behavior of the practitioners in the face of that evidence. Thagard's bringing in of the community of practitioners in the de!nition of pseudoscience has merit, but it leads to the second troubling consequence of his de!nition. Consider some theory that has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period, and faces many unsolved problems, but 90 percent of the community of practitioners of that theory are making strenuous attempts to develop the theory toward the solutions of the problems. Suppose that the other 10 percent of the community of practitioners are slackers: they aren't developing the theory, show no concern for attempts to comparatively evaluate the theory, and are selective in considering con!rmations and discon!rmations. Suppose that the productive members of the community all go to a conference, and an evil scientist kills them all, so only the slackers are left. Does it follow that the evil scientist caused the theory in question to become pseudoscienti!c? This is what follows from Thagard's de!nition, but it strikes me as an implausible consequence. Pseudoscience – characteristic features We've seen an example of how to de!ne "pseudoscience" via conceptual analysis; let's now consider a different way of getting a grip on that concept. Instead of giving necessary and suf!cient conditions for the concept to hold, some philosophers think it's better to just give a list of features that, while neither necessary nor suf!cient, are commonly characteristic "warning signs" of pseudoscience. Here is the type of list that is given (based on Bunge 1984; Lilienfeld 2005; and Hansson 2008): • A tendency to invoke ad hoc hypotheses, as a means of immunizing claims from falsi!cation. • A neglecting of observations or experiments that con"ict with a theory. • A tendency to place the burden of proof on skeptics, not proponents, of claims. TF33006.indb 473 18/03/2013 15:38 BR ADLEY MONTON 474 • Reliance on experiments that cannot be repeated by others with the same outcome. • Reliance on some authorities as having a special ability to determine what is true or false. • Excessive reliance on anecdotal and testimonial evidence. • Evasion of the scrutiny afforded by peer review. • Failure to build on existing scienti!c knowledge. • Use of impressive-sounding jargon whose primary purpose is to lend claims a facade of scienti!c respectability. The more a practice exhibits such features, the more likely it is to be pseudoscienti!c. Another related characterization of pseudoscience is provided by Clark Glymour and Douglas Stalker (1982). They do not attempt to provide jointly necessary and suf!cient conditions, but instead provide an amusing characterization of the fundamental principles of pseudoscience construction, and use this to construct two original pseudosciences. (The principles include: !nd some coincidences and base your theory around them; say that the coincidences happened because of a cosmic plan; and don't get bogged down with facts.) Finally, I'll mention Frank Ciof!'s important essay "Freud and the Idea of a Pseudoscience." Ciof!'s main point is that "A pseudoscience is not constituted merely by formally defective theses but by methodologically defective procedures" (Ciof! 1970: 115). He argues, speci!cally, that Freudian psychoanalysis utilizes these methodologically defective procedures, and is hence a pseudoscience. Ciof! never tries to spell out his characterization of the methodologically defective procedures in terms of necessary and suf!cient conditions, but the main procedures he focuses on are those that enable psychoanalysis to avoid refutation. For example, Ciof! argues that Freud provides an explanation of a child's sadistic behavior as a product of the actions of his punitive father, but also, elsewhere, provides an explanation of a child's sadistic behavior as a product of the fact that the child had a lenient and indulgent father (Ciof! 1970: 128). Setting up a theory or practice to avoid refutation is presumably neither necessary nor suf!cient for something to be a pseudoscience, but it is at least sometimes a characteristic of pseudoscience. Problems with analysis Which is more helpful, providing an analysis of the concept of pseudoscience, or providing a list of common characteristics? Listing the common characteristics is nonideal, for the obvious reason that one can't logically deduce whether something is a pseudoscience from the fact that it meets some of the characteristics. An analysis, on the other hand, does in principle enable one to simply divide up the world into pseudoscience and non-pseudoscience. Nevertheless, there are three problems I want to raise with the project of giving a conceptual analysis of pseudoscience. The !rst problem is simply that it's hard to give a successful analysis of the concept of pseudoscience – I've never come across one that I wasn't able to generate a counterexample to. Larry Laudan makes a related point about the project of analyzing science, TF33006.indb 474 18/03/2013 15:38 PSEUDOSCIENCE 475 in his famous 1983 paper "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem". Laudan argues that all criteria that have been given in the past to attempt to demarcate between science and non-science have turned out to be unsuccessful. My second concern is a general one, about the whole project of analysis. Speci!cally, I have some sympathies with the argument behind the paradox of analysis. The purported paradox is as follows: if one knows what the meaning of a concept is, one doesn't need to do the analysis; if one doesn't know what the meaning of a concept is, one won't be able to do the analysis. So doing conceptual analysis is either unhelpful or impossible. Here is the third and !nal worry I have about the project of giving a conceptual analysis of pseudoscience. The worry is that, in focusing on what the correct analysis is of a concept, one gets side-tracked from the important issues one should be discussing. Suppose that Alice claims that she has achieved cold fusion in her laboratory, and Bob looks at her evidence and accuses her of doing pseudoscience. The discussion could continue in such a way that Alice argues that the evidence does support her claim, or the discussion could continue in such a way that Alice argues that the concept of pseudoscience is such that what she is doing doesn't count as pseudoscience. The important discussion to be having in this context is the former one – does the evidence support the claim? Whether what she is doing counts as pseudoscience is less relevant. (While I gave a !ctional example to illustrate this point, a real-life example occurs in the contemporary debates about whether intelligent design theory is pseudoscienti!c – see the "Further reading" section below.) "Pseudoscience" as emotive work What does one achieve by declaring some theory or practice "pseudoscience"? Laudan, in his aforementioned paper, argues that such a declaration merely expresses an emotive condemnation of that theory or practice. Laudan writes: If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like "pseudo-science" and "unscienti!c" from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us. (Laudan 1983: 349) Laudan says that, instead, we should focus on the evidence for and against the claims made. Relatedly, historian of science Michael Gordin (2012) argues that scientists designate a doctrine as "pseudoscience" only when the scientists perceive themselves to be threatened – perhaps by the new ideas themselves, but potentially also by what those ideas represent about the authority of science. Those who ignore the opinion of Laudan and Gordin, and continue using the term "pseudoscience" to re"ect negatively about a theory or practice, may also unintentionally be re"ecting negatively on themselves. Laudan's overall point, in his paper where he says that we should drop terms like "pseudo-science" from our vocabulary, is that the project of demarcating between TF33006.indb 475 18/03/2013 15:38 BR ADLEY MONTON 476 science and non-science is a project that we should give up on. While I have some sympathies with this position, I worry that it goes too far. Some claims can be made about the difference between science and non-science, and these claims are helpful. For example, it is helpful to note that we shouldn't necessarily expect more certainty from science than from non-science. We can be more certain about what will happen in a football game than we can about what will happen in a particle detector, for example. Ironically, Laudan, in the course of eschewing the demarcation between science and non-science, gets this wrong. He says that any philosophically interesting demarcation device must distinguish scienti!c and non-scienti!c matters in a way which exhibits a surer epistemic warrant or evidential ground for science than for non-science. (Laudan 1983: 343) If one followed this desideratum, though, one would get an implausible demarcation, because in fact we often have surer epistemic warrant for non-scienti!c claims than for scienti!c claims. Just as it can be helpful to examine the differences between science and non-science, so it can be helpful to examine the differences between science and pseudoscience. We can gain a better understanding of how science works by trying to !gure out why, for example, general relativity is a science while ESP is a pseudoscience. But the project of giving a general analysis of the concept of pseudoscience, in such a way that one can apply that analysis to any future theory or instance of human practice to determine whether or not it counts as pseudoscience, outstrips our abilities to conceptualize how all possible future instances of science and pseudoscience might go. The scienti!c method, Feyerabend, and astrology So far, I haven't talked about the scienti!c method, which is sometimes appealed to as a way of demarcating between science and pseudoscience. The reason I haven't is that I agree with, for example, Paul Feyerabend (1975), who argues that there is no such thing as "the scienti!c method." Different methods have been successfully used by scientists in different !elds and at different times. Any attempt to lay out the methodology of science would simply impose inappropriate and unhelpful constraints on future scienti!c work. Feyerabend presents a number of historical examples to argue that new and successful science work violated the then-extant canons of scienti!c methodology. Once the new science was recognized as successful, the canons of scienti!c methodology simply changed to accommodate the new work. What would Feyerabend say about a particular example of a purported pseudoscience, like astrology? He has a fascinating piece criticizing a statement by 186 "leading scientists" that objects to astrology (Bok et al., 1975). Feyerabend (1978) maintains that their arguments against astrology are misguided, and don't recognize the sophisticated foundation that astrology is built on. He also argues that, while the leading scientists successfully show that certain predictions of astrology are incorrect, TF33006.indb 476 18/03/2013 15:38 PSEUDOSCIENCE 477 "every moderately interesting theory is always in con"ict with numerous experimental results" (Feyerabend 1978: 26). When I forget about the dangers of doing emotive work with the concept of pseudoscience, astrology strikes me as a paradigm example of a pseudoscience. It is a scienti!c-looking theory about the connection between the physical world and our mental lives, and it is, as the leading scientists point out, widely endorsed and uncritically distributed by mainstream media sources. And yet it is a false theory, and its endorsers ignore all the empirical evidence against it. But Feyerabend warns us to be careful here – modern astrology may be problematic, but Feyerabend points out that it "inherited interesting and profound ideas." The leading scientists who criticize it unfairly criticize the basic assumptions of astrology, and "in the process turn their own subjects into caricatures," because in fact we do have scienti!c evidence of a correlation between the motions of the planets and life on earth (via a correlation between the motions of the planets and solar "ares, and the in"uence of solar activity on e.g. tree growth) (Feyerabend 1978: 24). The lesson I draw from this is that, while pseudoscience does exist in the world, and it deserves our condemnation, one has to ensure that one is not misrepresenting good science in order to ful!ll one's goal of condemning the pseudoscience. See also Evidence; Explanation; Scienti!c method; Social studies of science; The virtues of a good theory. References Allchin, D. (1996) "Points East and West: Acupuncture and Comparative Philosophy of Science," Philosophy of Science 63: S107–S115. Bok, Bart J. et al. (1975) "Objections to Astrology: A Statement by 186 Leading Scientists," The Humanist 35(5): 4–6. Bunge, Mario (1984) "What is Pseudoscience?" The Skeptical Inquirer 9: 36–46. Ciof!, Frank (1970) "Freud and the Idea of a Pseudo-science," in Robert Borger and Frank Ciof! (eds) Explanation in the Behavioural Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 471–99; reprinted in Frank Ciof! (1998), Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience, Peru, IL: Open Court, pp. 115–41. Derksen, A. A. (1993) "The Seven Sins of Pseudo-science,"Journal for General Philosophy of Science 24: 17–42. Feyerabend, Paul (1975) Against Method, London: Verso. -- (1978) "The Strange Case of Astrology", in Science in a Free Society, London: NLB; reprinted in Patrick Grim (ed.) (1990), Philosophy of Science and the Occult, Second Edition, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 23–7. Gardner, Martin (2001), Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience, New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Glymour, Clark, and Stalker, Douglas (1982) "Winning Through Pseudoscience", in Patrick Grim (ed.) (1990), Philosophy of Science and the Occult, Second Edition, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 92–103. Gordin, Michael (2012) The Pseudoscience Wars, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hansson, Sven Ove (2008) "Science and Pseudo-Science", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/pseudo-science/. Hines, Terence (2003) Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, 3rd edn, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Jones, J. P. (2002) "Ultrasonic Acupuncture and the Correlation between Acupuncture Stimulation and the Activation of Associated Brain Cortices Using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging," Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 22: 362–70. TF33006.indb 477 18/03/2013 15:38 BR ADLEY MONTON 478 Lakatos, Imre (1974) "Science and Pseudoscience," Conceptus 8: 5–9. Laudan, Larry (1983) "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem," in R. S. Cohen and L. Laudan (eds) Physics, Philosophy, and Psychoanalysis, Dordrecht: Reidel; reprinted in Michael Ruse (ed.) (1988) But Is It Science?, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, pp. 337–50. Lilienfeld, Scott (2005) "The 10 Commandments of Helping Students Distinguish Science from Pseudoscience in Psychology," APS Observer 18 (9): 39–40 and 49–51. National Science Board (2006) Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Chapter 7. Available online at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/. Sampson, W. et al. (1991) "Acupuncture: The Position Paper of the National Council Against Health Fraud," Clinical Journal of Pain 7: 162–6. Thagard, Paul (1978) "Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience," in P. Asquith and I. Hacking (eds) Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 223–34. Further reading A number of good popular books have been written about pseudoscience, such as Martin Gardner's Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1981); James Randi's Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1982); Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (New York: Random House, 1996); and Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 2002). My book, Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2009) argues that intelligent design theory is not a pseudoscience, contrary to what many critics argue. Massimo Pigliucci, in Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010), defends the standard view that intelligent design theory is a pseudoscience (and discusses many other topics). Arthur Still and Windy Dryden, in their paper "The Social Psychology of 'Pseudoscience': A Brief History," Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 34: 265–90, discuss some of the social and cultural issues associated with declaring something pseudoscience. TF33006.indb 478 18/03/2013 15: