Pseudoscience as an imitation of scientific activity. Ways of influence of pseudoscience

Pseudoscience

Another common definition of pseudoscience is “an imaginary or false science; a body of beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on the scientific method or as having the status of modern scientific truths."

Pseudoscience is often motivated by the same goals as applied science - achieving an immediate, practically useful result, but pseudoscience demagogically appeals to scientific methods, only imitating them.

The question of scientific status is extremely important for representatives of parascientific movements. Due to the fact that over the past 300 years, with the help of the scientific method, impressive successes have been achieved in a variety of fields of knowledge, there is an opinion in society that “science is good and worthy, and what is not science is bad.” Therefore, the terms “pseudoscience” and “pseudoscientific” are often considered pejorative. Pseudoscience figures tend to actively dispute this characterization of their theories.

Pseudoscience is often called “alternative” (“folk”) science by its supporters. As the researchers point out, the sociocultural source of the popularity (and, accordingly, the reason for the ideological support) of pseudoscience is that “it realizes the temptation of simple solutions, serves the social demand for a publicly accessible, understandable to the masses and not requiring special professional training decoding of “opaque” phenomena of nature and culture ".

Origin of the term

The difference between the concept of pseudoscience and normal science in Europe took shape by the middle of the 19th century. So, in 1844 the magazine Northern Journal of Medicine(Vol. I, p. 387) wrote about pseudoscience, “composed solely of so-called facts, united by misunderstandings instead of principles.” In 1843, French physiologist François Magendie called phrenology a "contemporary pseudoscience".

In Russia, this terminology also became widespread in the middle of the 19th century. In 1860, in a translated edition, alchemy and astrology were called pseudosciences. In Russian translation (“pseudoscience”), the term was used to describe homeopathy even earlier, in 1840.

Science and parascience

Some researchers distinguish parasciences from pseudosciences, defining the latter as complexes of practical knowledge of the world, for which the ideal of scientific rationality is not required. These are, for example, “folk sciences” - folk medicine, folk architecture, folk pedagogy, folk meteorology, etc., or modern applied manuals on various topics - “family sciences”, “culinary sciences”, etc. These disciplines teach useful knowledge and skills, but do not contain a system of ideal objects, procedures for scientific explanation and prediction, and therefore do not rise above systematized and didactically designed experience. Many of the parasciences are not pseudosciences until their supporters claim to correspond to the scientific method, to create competition, an alternative to scientific knowledge.

Science and pseudoscience

Some opinions and definitions
V. L. Ginzburg, Nobel laureate in physics: Pseudoscience is all kinds of constructions, scientific hypotheses, and so on, which contradict firmly established scientific facts. I can illustrate this with an example. Here, for example, is the nature of heat. We now know that heat is a measure of the chaotic movement of molecules. But this was once not known. And there were other theories, including the caloric theory, which is that there is some kind of liquid that flows and transfers heat. And then it was not pseudoscience, that's what I want to emphasize. But if a person comes to you now with the caloric theory, then he is an ignoramus or a swindler. Pseudoscience is something that is known to be false. .
V. A. Kuvakin, Doctor of Philosophy Sciences: Pseudoscience is a theoretical construct, the content of which, as can be established during an independent scientific examination, does not correspond either to the norms of scientific knowledge or to any area of reality, and its subject either does not exist in principle or is significantly falsified .
B. I. Pruzhinin, Doctor of Philosophy. Sciences, editor-in-chief of the journal “Questions of Philosophy”: An activity that claims to be scientific can be qualified as pseudoscientific only when there are serious reasons to believe that the real goals of this activity do not coincide with the goals of science, that it generally lies outside the tasks of objective knowledge and only imitates their solution .

Among the main differences between pseudoscience and science is the uncritical use of new untested methods, dubious and often erroneous data and information, as well as the denial of the possibility of refutation, while science is based on facts (verified information), verifiable methods and is constantly developing, parting with refuted theories and offering new .

Distinctive features

The following are considered radical violations of scientific norms by pseudoscience:

neglect of the methodological principles of economy and fallibilism,
recognition as a meaningful characteristic of truth of such subjective elements as faith, feeling, mystical vision or other paranatural forms of experience,
use of non-falsifiable hypotheses.

A serious drawback in the results of the study is the violation of the norms of cognitive coherence, rational coordination of the new hypothesis with established and already substantiated bodies of knowledge.

The characteristic features of a pseudoscientific theory are:

Ignoring or distorting facts known to the author of the theory, but contradicting his constructions.
Non-falsifiability, that is, the fundamental impossibility of conducting an experiment (even a mental one), the result of which could refute a given theory.
Refusal of attempts to compare theoretical calculations with observational results, if possible, replacement of checks with appeals to “intuition,” “common sense,” or “authoritative opinion.”
The use of unreliable data as the basis for the theory (i.e., not confirmed by a number of independent experiments (researchers), or lying within the limits of measurement errors), or unproven provisions, or data resulting from computational errors. This point does not apply to scientific hypothesis, clearly defining the basic provisions.
Introducing political and religious attitudes into the publication or discussion of scientific work. This point, however, requires careful clarification, since otherwise Newton, for example, falls into the category of false scientists, and precisely because of the “Principles”, and not because of later works on theology.
A softer formulation of this criterion: the fundamental and strong inseparability of the scientific content of the work from its other components. In the modern scientific environment, the author, as a rule, must independently isolate the scientific component and publish it separately, without explicitly mixing it with religion or politics.
Appeal to the media (press, television, radio, Internet), and not to the scientific community. The latter is manifested in the lack of publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Claim for a “revolutionary” revolution in science and technology.
The use of concepts meaning phenomena not recorded by science (“subtle fields”, “torsion fields”, “biofields”, “aura energy” and so on);
The promise of quick and fabulous medical, economic, financial, environmental and other positive effects.
The desire to present the theory itself or its author as a victim of “monopoly” and “ideological persecution” by “official science” and thereby reject criticism from the scientific community as obviously biased.

Pseudoscience ignores the most important elements of the scientific method - experimental verification and error correction. The absence of this negative feedback deprives pseudoscience of its connection with the object of research, and turns it into an uncontrollable process, highly susceptible to the accumulation of errors.

Optional but frequently occurring signs of pseudoscientific theories are also the following:

A theory is created by one person or a small group of people who are not experts in the relevant field.
The theory is unprecedentedly universal - it claims to explain literally the entire universe, or at least to explain the state of affairs in an entire branch of knowledge (for example, in the case of psychoanalytic theories, the behavior of any person in any circumstances).
Many bold conclusions are drawn from the basic provisions, the correctness of which is not verified or justified.
The author actively uses theory to conduct personal business: he sells literature on the theory and provides paid services based on it; advertises and conducts paid “courses”, “trainings”, “seminars” on theory and its application; somehow promotes the theory among non-specialists as a highly effective means for achieving success and improving life (in general or in some aspects).
In articles, books, and promotional materials, the author presents the theory as absolutely proven and undoubtedly true, regardless of the degree of its actual recognition among specialists.

Those concepts from the fields of religion, philosophy, art, morality, etc., which do not correspond to modern scientific ideas, but do not pretend to be science, should not be classified as pseudoscience. It is also necessary to distinguish pseudoscience from inevitable scientific errors and from parascience as a historical stage in the development of science.

It should be noted that there are and are constantly emerging many theories and hypotheses that may seem pseudoscientific for a number of reasons:

new, unusual formalism (theory language);
the fantastic nature of the consequences of the theory;
lack or inconsistency of experimental evidence (for example, due to insufficient technological equipment);
lack of information or knowledge necessary to understand;
using the terminology of old, scientifically rejected views to formulate new theories;
conformity of the one who evaluates the theory.

But if the theory really allows for the possibility of it independent verification, then it cannot be called pseudoscientific, no matter what the “degree of delusion” (according to Niels Bohr) of this theory. Some of these theories can become “protosciences”, giving rise to new areas of research and a new language for describing reality. However, it is necessary to distinguish between theories that have been tested and refuted - their active promotion is also classified as pseudoscientific activity.

One of the possible reasons for issuing a verdict of pseudoscience (pseudoscience) is the not always conscious use of scientific methodology to explain what, in principle, cannot be the object of scientific study. So academician L.I. Mandelstam, referring to scientific research, said: “...phenomena that are fundamentally not repeatable, that occur in principle only once, cannot be the object of study.” At the same time, he mentioned the opinion of the English mathematician and philosopher Whitehead, who believed that the birth of theoretical physics was connected precisely with the application of the idea of periodicity to various issues.

Classification

The classification of any branches of human activity as pseudoscience occurs gradually, as humanity develops and moves away from outdated views.

The first group includes some empirical teachings of the past, which achieved certain results, but at the moment are nothing more than elements of the occult, for example:

Pseudoscientific today are attempts, ignoring facts, to use them as an adequate replacement for modern science, using their venerable age as an assessment of their truth, and even more so, their scientific character.

The second group includes “sciences” and “theories” that appeared as incorrect attempts to found a new, alternative science or theory, for example:

Information Science
Supercritical historiography, particularly "new chronology"
New doctrine of language or Japhetic theory

Still others are controversial attempts to link modern scientific theories with religious or mystical teachings, for example:

The fourth are various kinds of outdated or marginal teachings (“health systems,” psychological, occult, religious and other teachings and movements). These include, for example:

These teachings contain both elements that can be accepted by evidence-based science and positions that are accepted by their supporters without evidence (for example, potentiation and “information transfer” in some homeopathic schools).

Fifthly, pseudoscience includes attempts to incorrectly use well-known scientific approaches as a brand or fashionable attribute of the name of a theory, article or work, for example:

Problem of demarcation

Boundaries between science and pseudoscience generally(and not between specific scientific And pseudoscientific theories) are highly controversial and difficult to define analytically, even after more than a century of dialogue between philosophers of science and scientists in various fields, despite some basic agreement on the basics of scientific methodology. The demarcation between science and pseudoscience is part of the more general task of determining which beliefs can be epistemologically justified.

There is currently much more agreement in the philosophy of science on particular criteria than on the general criterion of demarcation between science and non-science. However, with the existing diversity of theories and criteria for pseudoscience in most specific areas, there is a consensus among philosophers of science about their classification as science or pseudoscience. In modern sociology of science (strong program) it is accepted that the problem of demarcation is the prerogative of the scientific community as a whole and, accordingly, as a social problem, the demarcation procedure cannot be fully formalized in once and for all established criteria.

There are well-known cases where concepts that were initially considered pseudoscientific now have the status of scientific theories or hypotheses. For example, the theory of continental drift, cosmology, ball lightning and radiation hormesis. Another similar example is osteopathy, according to Kimball Atwood, “for the most part, it has moved away from its pseudoscientific beginnings and entered the world of rational health care.”

Other concepts, such as phrenology or alchemy, originally considered higher sciences, are now pseudosciences.

Pseudoscience and “official science”

Often such comparisons do not stand up to criticism. Copernicus was not persecuted, and his theory was declared heretical by Rome more than half a century after his death. Bruno's works were not at all scientific, but of an occult-philosophical nature, and Bruno was condemned by the Inquisition not for any scientific work, but for heresies. Galileo was not persecuted by scientists, but by the Catholic Church. In the scientific world of his time, Galileo enjoyed the highest authority, and his results, together with the teachings of Nicolaus Copernicus, were quickly recognized by scientists. As for the persecution of genetics in the 20th century, they were organized not by the scientific community, but by the authorities, as well as by “Marxist philosophers” such as I. Present or E. Kolman. Lepeshinskaya’s complaints in a letter to Stalin about the “obstacles” that were posed to her by “reactionary scientists who take an idealistic or mechanistic position,” as well as “those comrades who follow their lead” are typical of any author of a pseudoscientific theory who complains of “bullying.” "from the side of 'official science'. Lysenko’s fall began during Stalin’s lifetime (in particular, in 1952, his “right hand” I. Prezent was expelled from the party and removed from all positions).

It is not difficult, if you wish, to find real examples of long-term non-recognition of the scientific merits of scientists who were ahead of their time, precisely by the contemporary scientific community (the reasons were very different) or state persecution for raising certain scientific questions (you can, for example, recall the fate of such scientists as Nikolai Lobachevsky and Ludwig Boltzmann ). But the fact is that with such rhetoric and complaints about “bullying by official science,” authors and adherents of pseudoscientific theories often replace such obvious and necessary actions for the development of truly scientific theories as a clear justification of the theory, its critical testing and ensuring the agreement of its results with results of related fields of science that have clear practical confirmation. So, for example, no complaints about the “dominance of supporters of the theory of relativity” will replace in the “new, revolutionary physical theory” the derivation from the equations of the new theory of Newtonian mechanics equations with limiting restrictions on the values of some parameters.

Another common polemical technique is pointing to the example of amateurs who made real discoveries contrary to established opinions in science, such as Columbus, Schliemann. However, firstly, confirmed theories should not be confused with discoveries made by chance during attempts to confirm them. Columbus intended to sail to India, which he believed to be much closer to the West from Europe than it actually is. He misjudged the facts at his disposal and, in fact, was wrong about literally everything. The discovery of a new continent was the result of a coincidence, but by no means a confirmation of his assumptions. As for Schliemann, his discovery of the supposed Troy and the Mycenaean civilization, firstly, did not confirm the theoretical premises about the absolute truth of the Homeric texts from which Schliemann proceeded, and secondly, did not contain anything fundamentally impossible from the point of view of the science of that time and did not contradict previously established scientific facts; and thirdly, it was quickly recognized by the scientific community due to the indisputability of the facts. This is the fundamental difference between the amateur Schliemann, acting within the framework of the scientific method, and the pseudoscientists who, without presenting real discoveries, at the same time lay claim to his laurels. In fact, Schliemann provided a good example (leaving aside the losses due to the unprofessionalism of his excavations) of how a supporter of an unrecognized concept should act: work on it and its scientific evidence, and not complain about misunderstanding.

The emergence of a new scientific theory is often met with hostility in the scientific community. In itself, this is a natural and even necessary “immune reaction”: the new theory must prove its right to exist and its advantage over the old ones, and for this to go through the test of criticism after mandatory presentation at scientific conferences and publication in scientific journals or as a scientific hypothesis , or as reasoned objections to the shortcomings of accepted scientific theories. If theories were accepted only for their “boldness” and “originality”, and not for their correspondence to scientific criteria and facts, science simply could not exist as a science. However, if desired, it is not difficult to imagine such conflicts as “the persecution of a genius by obscurantists.”

At the same time, it is noted that pseudoscientific theories can be put forward by scientists themselves, who are members of the scientific community and have academic degrees and titles, for example, Academician N. Ya. Marr (“new doctrine of language”), Academician A. T. Fomenko (“new chronology”).

Pseudoscience and society

Public criticism

Pseudoscience and religion

Pseudoscience and the State

There are a number of precedents for funding pseudoscientific activities from the state budget. State authorities, including the central government apparatus, allowed authors of pseudoscientific theories to hold positions of responsibility. Scientific institutions, including specialized departmental research institutes, included pseudoscientific developments in their research programs.

Pseudoscience and business

Many people are familiar with such areas of activity as astrology and numerology. Not only in the past, but also today it is a prominent business that is largely based on the claims of pseudoscience.

References to pseudoscientific arguments are sometimes used in the service industry (for example, some dealers of new auto parts claim that parts removed from wrecked cars carry “negative accident energy”). Pseudoscience is no less widespread in other areas of services and trade.

Notes

Kuvakin V. A. Online press conference of a member of the RAS Commission on Combating Pseudoscience and Falsification of Scientific Research.
Non-science posing as science
Finn P., Bothe A. K., Bramlett R. E. Science and pseudoscience in communication disorders: criteria and applications // American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2005 Aug;14(3):172-86.
"Pseudoscience refers to claims that appear to be based on the scientific method but are not."
Oxford English Dictionary (OED) - definition of pseudoscience // Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Smirnova N. M. Review of the book by B. I. Pruzhinin. Ratio serviens? Contours of cultural-historical epistemology // Questions of Philosophy. - 2010. - No. 4. - P. 181-185
Utkina N.V. The phenomenon of deviant science: dissertation. uch. Ph.D. degrees Philosopher Sciences: 09.00.01 [Place of protection: Vyat. state humanitarian University], Kirov, 2009.
Hansson S.O. Science and Pseudo-Science // The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
Andrews James Pettit History of Great Britain, from the death of Henry VIII to the accession of James VI of Scotland to the Crown of England. - London: T. Cadell and W. Davies, 1796. - Vol. II. - P. 87.
Magendie, F (1843) An Elementary Treatise on Human Physiology. 5th Ed. Tr. John Revere. New York: Harper, p. 150.
Vladislav Syrokomlya. History of Polish Literature. Type. V. Gracheva, 1860. P. 103.
S. Volsky. About Hahnemann and homeopathy. // Beacon of modern enlightenment and education: works of Russian and foreign scientists and writers. T. 5. Type. A. A. Plyushara. St. Petersburg , 1840. P. 40.
Kasavin I. T.“Paranscience” // Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary (2004)
“Vitaly Ginzburg: There are a large number of ignoramuses and swindlers”
See for example Gauch H. G., Jr. Scientific Method in Practice. - Cambridge University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-521-01708-4, 435 p.
Migdal A. B. Is truth distinguishable from lies? // Science and life. - M.: ANO “Editorial Board of the Journal “Science and Life”, 1982. - No. 1. - P. 60-67.
Stepin B. S. Science and pseudoscience. Archived from the original on February 2, 2012. Retrieved November 2, 2011.
Mandelstam L. I. Lectures on oscillations (1930-1932). Complete collection of works. T.IV. -L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1955 - p.409
Surdin V. G. Why is astrology a pseudoscience?
Medvedev L. N.“On the phenomenon of PSEUDO-SCIENCE” - Siberian skeptical observer of paranormality
Kitaygorodsky A. I. Renixa. 2nd ed. - M.: “Young Guard”, 1973. - 191 p.
“A hundred years of work on a drop of water?”
Hansson S.O. Science and Pseudo-Science // Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008
Karl Popper called the problem of demarcation between science and non-science (pseudoscience, metaphysics, etc.) “the central problem of the philosophy of science”, see Thornton S. Karl Popper. The Problem of Demarcation // Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006.
Boyer P.S. Pseudoscience and Quackery // The Oxford Companion to United States History. Oxford University Press, USA, 2001. ISBN 9780195082098
“…many late-twentieth-century scholars dismissed demarcating between science and pseudoscience as “a pseudo-problem”.
Laudan, L. (1983), "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem", in Cohen, R.S. & Laudan, L., "Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis: Essays in Honor of Adolf Grünbaum", vol. 76, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 111–127, ISBN 90-277-1533-5
Sorensen R. A. Pseudo-problems: how analytical philosophy gets done. Routledge, 1993. p.40
Nikiforov A. L. Philosophy of science: history and methodology. M., 1998. Chapter 1.6. "Empirical reduction" (unavailable link)
H.Collins. Chapter 20 "Scientific Institutions and Life after Death" // Gravity's Shadow. The Search for Gravitational Waves. - 2004.
H.Collins. Surviving Closure Post-Rejection Adaptation and Plurality of Science (English) // American Sociological Review. - 2001. - T. 65. - P. 824-845.
Williams W. F.(ed.) Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy. Facts on File, 2000. p. 58 ISBN 0-8160-3351-X
Hawking S.W. Quantum Cosmology // The Nature of Time and Space, 2000. Lecture at the Isaac Newton Institute, University of Cambridge (English)
“Cosmology used to be considered a pseudo-science and the preserve of physicists who may have done useful work in their earlier years but who had gone mystic in their dotage. There are two reasons for this. The first was that there was an almost total absence of reliable observations. Indeed, until the 1920s about the only important cosmological observation was that the sky at night is dark. the range and quality of cosmological observations has improved enormously with the developments in technology."
Bauer H. H. Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, p. 60
Radiation Hormesis
Pike J. Can Toxins Lead to Healthier Lives? (unavailable link)// New On The Sepp Web
Hickey R.(1985). “Risks associated with exposure to radiation; science, pseudoscience, and opinion.” Health Phys. 49 : 949-952.
Kauffman M.(2003). "Radiation Hormesis: Demonstrated, Deconstructed, Denied, Dismissed, and Some Implications for Public Policy." J. Scientific Exploration 17(3) : 389–407.
Atwood K.C. Naturopathy, pseudoscience, and medicine: myths and fallacies vs truth. Medscape Gen Med, 2004. 6:e53. Online version
See for example Novella S. Phrenology: History of a Classic Pseudoscience // The New England Skeptical Society, 2000.
Encyclopedia Britannica: Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (English)
Dynich V.I., Elyashevich M.A., Tolkachev E.A., Tomilchik L.M. Extra-scientific knowledge and the modern crisis of the scientific worldview // Questions of philosophy. - 1994. - V. 12. - P. 122-134. - ISSN 0042-8744.
"Eidelman E. D." Scientists and pseudoscientists: demarcation criteria
Science and Pseudoscience // Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006.
How does pseudoscience threaten society? (meeting of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences) 2003 // Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, volume 74, no. 1, p. 8-27 (2004)
Pseudoscience and life // Newspaper “Kommersant” No. 174 (3258) dated September 16, 2005
Kuvakin V. A. A violation of the mind. Preface by the compiler // “Common Sense”, 2001, No. 4 (21), p. 4
“In Ukraine, TV shows with fortune tellers and astrologers bring in billions” // Correspondent Business, 06/04/2010.

How do you feel about pseudoscience? I'm negative. And that's putting it mildly. This is quackery, a play on human gullibility and laziness, which carries with it dire consequences.

The popularity of pseudoscience is easily explained: it is much easier than academic science, does not require serious study, and most importantly, it tells people what they want to hear.

Adherents of pseudoscience only imitate the scientific approach, manipulate facts and ignore the achievements of recognized science, violate logical connections, but wrap their teachings in a beautiful shell, and thereby easily deceive the average person.

And sometimes pseudosciences also act as a means of a certain ideology.

The resource compiled a list of the most famous pseudosciences and explained why they never managed to earn the trust of scientists.

Astrology

Predicting the future, guided by the movements of planets and stars, began in ancient times - the first evidence of attempts to find out the future is found in Sumerian-Babylonian myths, where celestial bodies are identified with gods. Greek astrology adopted the idea of a "divine" star essence and developed it into the forms we are familiar with. The most significant phenomenon of astrology today is horoscopes, which are compiled based on the individual influence of the planets for the 12 zodiac signs.

The methodology of astronomy is incompatible with modern scientific methodology, which has been repeatedly proven by scientists.

Textbook examples of evidence are the debunking of Michel Gauquelin’s statistical hypothesis, called the “Mars effect,” and Bertram Forer’s experiment called the “Barnum Effect.” Gauquelin discovered a relationship between the birth of champion athletes and the phases of Mars, and for a long time insisted on the veracity of the results of his research, until he was caught falsifying the original statistical data.

In turn, Forer proved the inconsistency of astrology with the help of a social experiment: having given students a test to determine the specific traits of their personality, he promised to provide an individual psychological portrait of each on its basis, but instead gave everyone a uniform description drawn up on the principle of a horoscope. Most students appreciated their “personalized” description and were satisfied with the professor's efforts.

However, despite numerous arguments in favor of recognizing astrology as a pseudoscience, horoscopes continue to be updated daily, some people continue to believe in the existence of the mythical planet Nibiru, which is capable of destroying the earth, and the “Flat Earth Society” (according to the postulates of which Antarctica is just an ice wall encircling the world , and photographs of the Earth from space are fakes) has not yet collapsed, so astrology, while remaining a pseudoscience in certain circles, is generally thriving.

Phrenology

Pseudoscience, which became widespread at the beginning of the 19th century, thanks to the research of the Austrian physician and anatomist F.J. Gall, who established a connection between the mental portrait of a person and the physical characteristics of the skull. Gall believed that any internal changes in the brain, especially changes in the volume of its hemispheres, provoke visible changes in the corresponding parts of the skull, and therefore one can judge the development or underdevelopment of a person and the presence of certain skills, abilities and personal characteristics.

Phrenology is familiar to moviegoers thanks to Quentin Tarantino’s film “Django Unchained,” where the slave owner Candy is fond of comparing the skulls of representatives of different races.

This detail is historically determined - many American slave owners really became interested in phrenology in the 19th century and carried out cruel experiments on their slaves. The debunking of phrenology occurred along with the development of neurophysiology, which scientifically proved that the characteristics of the psyche do not depend on the topography of the brain, and even more so on the structure of the skull.

Homeopathy

A pseudo-medical direction in science that calls for taking special homeopathic medicines to prevent the development of diseases in the future. The founder of the direction is the German doctor Christian Hahnemann, who at the end of the 18th century developed an entire system of treatment with homeopathy (he also put forward the so-called “coffee theory of diseases”, according to which almost all diseases known to people are provoked exclusively by drinking coffee).

Homeopathy is based on the principle “like cures like”, which is contrary to modern rational pharmacotherapeutic medicine; therefore, a medicine in homeopathy, in fact, is a catalyst for the development of a milder form of the disease for which the patient is going to be treated. All supposedly effective drugs are diluted in at least twelvefold concentration and, according to the scientific community, are no different from a placebo - a substance that does not contain medicinal properties. At the very least, most studies have not confirmed the effectiveness of homeopathic medicines.

Parapsychology

Parapsychology studies supernatural phenomena such as telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance, teleportation and suggestion. This parascience is trying to convince the public that it is possible to move through time and space, and people endowed with special talents can predict the future, as well as control others with the power of thought. Calling for belief in astral duality, near-death experiences and reincarnation, parapsychologists conduct many experiments and experiments to prove that superhuman capabilities exist.

Telepathy, for example, was for some time explained by scientists using the “wave theory,” which reported the presence of special waves that, when captured by a person, could evoke in him a certain image similar to the image that arose in another person, but this theory did not was proven and found untenable.

In the 1930s, a dice player was tested for superpowers by claiming that he could use his mind to arrange the dice to show the desired total, but more than 650,000 dice rolls disproved his claim, establishing that the matches were purely random. Uri Geller, known for his ability to change the physical form of material objects at a distance, also failed to establish the triumph of anomalous abilities. He was even caught in the fact that he had previously treated his fingers with a special chemical composition, which allowed him to bend spoons only by touching them.

Scientist Ian Stevenson tried to study reincarnation for 40 years, studying 3,000 cases of supposed rebirth, comparing moles and birth defects of children and deceased people who had moles and scars in the same places.

He failed to scientifically prove the fact of reincarnation. In the same way, not a single extraordinary phenomenon has yet been scientifically proven, and the constant emergence of information about new phenomena of parapsychology occurs only because a certain percentage of the planet's population has not yet lost faith in paranormal phenomena.

Ufology

Parascience, mainly studying UFOs, as well as recorded facts and future possibilities of communication between the inhabitants of the Earth and aliens and extraterrestrials, poltergeists and ghosts.

The main subject of study of ufology is paleocontacts - contacts of creatures of extraterrestrial origin with earthlings and even their visits to our planet in the past. As proof of the validity of the theory of paleocontact, ufologists cite signs left by aliens on the earth - crop circles, unidentified floating objects and other very dubious artifacts.

As a science, ufology began only in the 1940s, when the first evidence of “flying saucers” moving at supersonic speeds began to arrive. Such statements were initially taken seriously even by the heads of many states, who immediately created special secret projects to study the phenomenon. In the USA - the “Sign” project and the “Blue Book” project, in Britain - “Room 801”, in France “GEPAN”. However, over the years of research, it was not possible to confirm the main fear of ufologists that the Earth is under the surveillance of other creatures.

Numerology

Parascientific teaching about the mystical meaning of numbers and their influence on people's lives. Numerology received its impetus many centuries ago, thanks to the Hebrew alphabet, in which letters were used, among other things, to write numbers, which is why they had their own numerical values.

The founder of the main principles of numerology is considered to be the philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras, who discovered the relationship between numbers and notes. After his discovery, he established that any object and any phenomenon of reality can be expressed by numbers.

In numerology, any multi-digit number can be reduced to a single-digit number with its own characteristics by adding its components. The number makes it possible to unravel the weaknesses and strengths of a person under its influence, predict the future and describe the patterns of his life. The multiple number of numerological tables and the presence of various tactics for adding numbers does not allow us to come to a unified interpretation of numbers in numerology.

Letters also have an individual numerical equivalent, so numerology willingly reveals the “secrets of names” to everyone. The number makes it possible to unravel the weaknesses and strengths of a person under its influence, predict the future and describe the patterns of his life. The multiple number of numerological tables and the presence of various tactics for adding numbers does not allow us to come to a unified interpretation of numbers, which is always emphasized by opponents of the spread of numerology.

Another compelling argument for those who doubt this parascience is related to women's surnames. If just yesterday a girl was, for example, “Anna Alekseevna Belousova” and her destiny number was considered to be “13,” and today she married a Spaniard and became, say, “Anna Alekseevna Mares,” then her destiny number is no longer “13.” ", and "1".

Cryptozoology and cryptobotany

Related disciplines involved in the search for animals and plants known to us only from legends, myths and eyewitness accounts, as well as the search for animals and plants that, according to scientists, are considered extinct.

Cryptozoologists don't limit themselves to finding dinosaurs, dragons and unicorns; they also study creatures from more modern legends - Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. Scientists themselves involved in cryptozoology or cryptobotany recognize it as pseudoscience, but still consider it a useful discipline and continue to search for lake demons (Ogopogo) and vampire goats (Chupacabra).

Palmistry

A non-scientific method of establishing the relationship between the lines on a person’s palm and his destiny. Palmistry examines the skin texture of the palms, in particular the papillary lines - it is believed that each of the lines is responsible for some direction in a person’s life and, by studying its pattern, one can predict the success of a person’s fate in a particular area.

The patterns on the palms, the shape of the palm and fingers, allow you to understand the inner world: the thumb and the line extending from it is the line of life, the index finger corresponds to the line of the heart, the middle finger - the line of fate, the ring finger - the line of happiness. Additional lines, such as the marriage line and the line of descent, can be used to determine the success of the marriage and the number of children.

However, in numerous manuals on palmistry, the same signs on the palms are explained in different ways, and for predictions it is proposed to use either the left or the right palm, the patterns on which are most often contradictory. Palmistry is not recognized as a science in most countries, but is still considered a serious activity in some countries: the National Indian University still teaches palmistry today, and in Canada there is a “National Academy of Palmistry.”

In contrast to palmistry, a science is actively developing that seriously studies the skin of the palms and makes it possible to determine the predisposition to hereditary diseases - dermatoglyphics.

Socionics

Pseudoscience, built on the basis of Jung’s teachings about typology and archetypes, offering the opportunity, based on a certain test methodology, to identify for each person his personal, so-called type of “information metabolism” - the process of exchanging individual signals with the outside world - and classify it as one of 16 in detail described sociotypes.

Socionics as a separate doctrine arose in the 1970s, thanks to the efforts of the Lithuanian economist and psychologist Aushura Augustinaviciute. The key parameters for determining the type of information metabolism are “sensing”, “thinking”, “intuition”, “feeling” (in the physical sense of the word), “introversion” and “extroversion”: in different combinations they form different socionic personality types. Based on the results of the socionic test (it exists in several versions from different authors), each person is conditionally identified with one of 16 characters named after famous people and literary heroes (for example, Don Quixote, Dumas, Stirlitz or Napoleon) and gets the opportunity to learn about their compatibility with other sociotypes.

Socionics is known mainly in the post-Soviet space and is not considered an official science - it has neither a general scientific theory nor established uniform research methods. It has also been criticized for being too speculative and lacking empirical evidence. In addition, the concept was greatly discredited by crowds of enthusiasts who immediately began to determine the socionic types of strangers, already dead people and even entire countries - while the founders of socionics emphasized that they did not claim to create a universal psychological classification for all occasions.

Physiognomy

An alternative direction in science that tries to prove the connection between a person’s external appearance and his character and spiritual qualities. Physiognomy tries to “read” the face, structural features of the body, the meaning of gestures, postures and the general bodily impression that a person makes, as well as determine the level of a person’s intelligence solely by his appearance and demeanor.

In eastern countries, physiognomy was not separated from medicine and began to develop even before our era, calling for the study of a person based on the principle of the “five peaks”: forehead, nose, chin, cheekbones. In European culture, science also found support; for example, Charles Darwin supported the development of physiognomy, believing that by studying the work of an individual’s muscles, one can understand what his basic personal inclinations are. Based on the shape of the face, hairline, location and shape of natural facial openings and other reliefs on the face, based on the basics of physiognomy, you can create a basic portrait of a person’s inner world.

The modern scientific community does not believe in the amazing possibilities of physiognomy, especially after studies have been conducted on twins, who, despite their external identity, often have diametrically opposed characters.

Folk history

Predominantly the Russian direction of pseudohistory, which is engaged in reshaping historical realities, most often with the aim of publishing books of mass appeal. Alternative history tends toward fiction and falsifications while apparently preserving the scientific form.

The author of a work of folk history pretends that he is revealing a new story to the reader, but in reality he just juggles the facts and, breaking logical connections, creates a “new story” that runs counter to the events that have been established for certain.

Folk history began to actively develop in Russia in the years after the collapse of the USSR, when a single communist ideology ceased to dominate history. The predecessor of the movement is considered to be Lev Gumilyov, who, while offering readers his theory of passionary ethnogenesis, also put forward a very specific “author’s” version of history.

How do you feel about pseudoscience?

VELVET: Savich Anastasia

It's no secret that science is the source of the main achievements of mankind. If there were no science, there would be no progress; it is not for nothing that it is called scientific and technical. But, as always in our lives, there is black and white, there is truth and lies, there is science and pseudoscience. And if the main goal of science and progressive scientists is to move forward for the benefit of humanity, then pseudoscience, like a computer virus, hinders progress and misleads ordinary people.

And many quite rightly compare pseudoscience to a malignant tumor. So what is pseudoscience? And what harm can it cause? These questions are more relevant than ever today, because the Internet is literally littered with pseudoscientific (also called pseudo-, quasi-, para-) works. That is, teachings that imitate scientific knowledge, claiming to be scientific, but not being so. Instead of experiments, they refer to “obviousness” or “common sense”, instead of logical arguments to “authoritative opinion”, and in every possible way suppress critical analysis of their ideas.

The scientific method has revolutionized the life of mankind. It is thanks to science and its discoveries that today “...spaceships plow the vast Universe...”. Remember the spiritually gifted speech of the foreman from the comedy “Operation “Y” and other adventures of Shurik.” Yes, there were times when the main means of transportation was a carriage, then cars, trains and planes appeared. There were times when entire villages died out from epidemics of plague and cholera; today, thanks to progress, many deadly diseases can be cured. And the average human life expectancy has increased. Behind every discovery or invention is the work and genius of a chain of hundreds and even thousands of scientists, engineers and thinkers. Therefore, it is difficult for a person to grasp the immensity: the volume of accumulated knowledge over half a century, even in one very narrow scientific field, is impressive! And, oddly enough, in many ways this has become fertile ground for manipulation by pseudoscientists. If in past centuries astrologers, esotericists and palmists referred to some secret ancient knowledge, then today's fortune tellers, deftly juggling with complex terms, pass off random, and more often completely non-existent effects as “the latest achievements of science.” Some do this out of thoughtlessness, others deliberately deceive gullible “clients”.

Humanity spends enormous resources on such dummies. The annual market for homeopathic “medicines” reaches $5 billion. In the USA alone, people spend 300 million dollars a year on them, in Germany and France - 400 million each. In neighboring Russia, where the Academy of Sciences has a Commission to Combat Pseudoscience and regularly holds conferences on this topic, a satellite was launched in 2008 “Jubilee”, one of the components of which was an engine based on the “unknown phenomenon of interaction of the working fluid with fields” and in violation of the fundamental physical law of conservation of momentum. Of course, the engine didn't work and millions were wasted. This is a clear example of how pseudoscience works.

In matters of health, pseudoscience is even dangerous. Experts from the World Health Organization and volunteer doctors from the Cochrane Project are constantly fighting against pseudoscientific currents in medicine, pointing out that people are risking their lives by relying on the help of aura healers, bioenergy field cleansers or homeopaths to treat illnesses. Pseudoscientific theories, like psychoanalysis, can “dizzy” even experienced specialists, directing the development of science in the wrong direction for a long time. Others, such as the anti-GMO movement or creationism, seriously hinder the progress of science and society.

Science and its method

What distinguishes scientific knowledge from pseudoscientific knowledge? Tools and concepts. It is worth noting that each field of science has its own tools and concepts: historians rely on excavations or written evidence, biologists on the results of chromatography or electrophoresis, astronomers on the spectra of distant space objects, and chemists conduct experiments. But scientists obtain all scientific knowledge using a single approach called the scientific method. It is used everywhere - from a biochemical laboratory to the Large Hadron Collider.

The main principle of the scientific method follows from everyday logic - “prove.” The theory is proven by experiment, and the experiment is performed many times. But in practice it is more complicated, and science takes a complex, cyclical approach to the search for truth. It all starts with observations and experiments that probe for new unknown effects. Then, based on the knowledge already accumulated by humanity, hypotheses are put forward that explain these phenomena. From these hypotheses, new predictions are made, which are tested and refined by other observations and experiments. Next, new experiments are performed, new effects are identified, and the cycle repeats.

A hypothesis that can explain a wide range of phenomena becomes a theory, and if it is constantly confirmed, then a law. It is worth saying that some laws, for one reason or another, continue to be called theories - this happened with the doctrine of evolution or with Einstein’s theories of relativity. This served them badly, and we still often hear statements that “Darwinism is just a theory.”

The scientific method has been comprehensively developed and refined over thousands of years, from the ancient Greek sophists to Galileo. It continues to improve today, creating accurate approaches to statistics or to conducting clinical trials. However, the basis of this method remains the same - “Prove.” Reflecting on this, in the 1930s, the philosopher Karl Popper found another criterion for truly scientific knowledge: falsifiability.

According to this criterion, any statement must be refuted at least in principle, and, as Popper discovered, many views considered scientific do not satisfy this. You can come up with an experiment that will test whether the gravity on the Moon is directed upward from the surface. But it is impossible to make measurements that can refute Freud's psychoanalysis, just as it is impossible to experimentally prove that you or I are not the astral projection of some minor deity.

Real miracles

There are other “complications” of the scientific method, including thought experiments (as with Schrödinger’s cat), theoretical modeling, etc. But the basis remains empirical knowledge - what is obtained in observations, in experience. Therefore, in physics and chemistry, and even more so in medicine, strict requirements are imposed on experiments that guarantee accuracy and reliability, the impossibility of interference by extraneous factors or counterfeiting. Each scientific work is accompanied by a detailed protocol of all manipulations and calculations, and every now and then the scientific world is excited by stories about the discovery of schemers who forged results that were beneficial to them.

The scientific method is a continuous process of obtaining experimental data, constructing and refining theories.

The main strength of science is flexibility, the ability to detect errors, discard false concepts and find new ones. Pseudoscience is inert, motionless, and contradictory facts are discarded and ignored, thereby violating the principle of the scientific method.

The point is not that scientists “hide” especially valuable knowledge from the public for some cunning reasons. If someone managed to demonstrate the influence of the location of the stars at the moment of birth on fate or the possibility of curing cancer by the laying on of hands, the name of such a person would remain for centuries - and it is unlikely that any astronomer or oncologist would refuse such a chance. There are simply no such chances. As one famous geologist noted, it is very easy to bring down the entire edifice of science: just find one rabbit bone in sediments dating back a billion years. So far no one has ever done this.

We tend to regret this, lamenting that science “has left no place for miracles” in life. But that's not true. There were very few miracles in the pre-scientific past - and only progress gave us boxes of players that sing with all their voices, the ability to magically communicate with people on the other side of the Earth, and even - if resuscitation is done on time - to rise from the dead. You just need to understand science, and not take on faith the stories of astrologers and others like them. But if you put in a little effort, miracles will be revealed in her that she never dreamed of.

It is difficult for people to give up their delusions; in some ways this can be compared to weaning off a hard drug. Misconceptions push us towards incorrect treatment methods, waste of money, and quarrels with relatives.

In modern society, there are several teachings, the belief in which is detrimental to both health care and the health and material well-being of the people themselves. Scientists surveyed more than 150 thousand people, asking the following questions: Do you practice these methods? Do you trust him? Do you spend money on practicing and studying this area?

Using the survey results, six values were identified that characterize each of the exercises. Is it easy to get involved in this “teaching”? Is it highly addictive? Has the teaching caused material damage to an individual and how great is it? Has society as a whole suffered financially? Has your personal well-being suffered? How many victims are there from this practice?

Based on the values of these parameters, several of the most common pseudosciences were selected from more than 40 teachings. Our top ten does not include such interesting teachings as clairvoyance, blood type diets and many others.

The research itself was not without flaws, some of the sciences really helped and are helping people, but the place in the proposed ranking is based on the number of negative reviews.

Neurolinguistic programming (NLP). NLP says that a person's worldview is formed through his body and language. Accordingly, a person’s perception, as well as his behavior, can be changed using certain techniques. It should be noted that the ideas of NLP are based on completely scientific things related to human psychology. However, there are no scientific studies confirming the effectiveness of this direction. The NLP classics themselves, John Grinder and Richard Bandler, say directly: “Everything we are going to tell you here is a lie. Since you have no requirements for true and accurate concepts, we will constantly lie to you in this seminar.” NLP researchers believe that the main goal of science is to extort money from followers through seminars and trainings. NLP is easy to get used to and very difficult to give up, however, compared to other teachings, this science is quite harmless both for a person’s life and for his wallet.

Homeopathy. According to this “science,” it is possible to treat a person with a diluted solution of a substance, and it does not matter how much of the diluted substance is contained in the new solution. Followers explain the effect due to “water memory”, “water structure” and other phenomena that for some reason do not correspond to the laws of nature. Scientists have confirmed that homeopathy treats with the effectiveness of dummy pills. And this pseudoscience leads in the number of deceived clients, posing a significant danger to their wallets. The production of homeopathic medicines is quite cheap, there seems to be no research on them at all, and they often cost the same as expensive high-quality medical products. Although there is no denying that these drugs can be beneficial based on the “placebo” effect, so this teaching is a relatively minor evil.

Urine therapy. This science suggests that any disease can be treated by ingesting urine. However, washing wounds outside the hospital is not considered a method of urine therapy. This science does not inspire much confidence among the population. However, its popularity is growing, since for some reason it is promoted by the state-owned Channel One through the program Malakhov Plus and its permanent presenter Gennady Petrovich Malakhov. The healer forgets to mention the possible consequences for the body from such “treatment”. For example, there may be problems with the kidneys.

Healing. Trust in this science is rooted in the deep past, when sorcerers, grandmothers and other healers flourished. Then, in the absence of medicine, it was believed that with the help of the touch of hands, some passes, rituals or spells, people could be treated. The danger of such treatment is that the patient may exchange official medicine for such methods, which can lead to great complications in cases where timely medical attention is required.

Feng Shui. Recently, it has become fashionable again to become interested in everything oriental. One of the manifestations of this interest was the emergence of the science of feng shui, which teaches how to correctly arrange furniture in the house, taking into account all kinds of “energy flows”. It is believed that if furniture is arranged correctly in the house, the home will be saved from misfortunes and illnesses. The experiments demonstrated that each Feng Shui “guru” confidently rearranged the furniture after a visit from his colleagues. Scientists do not see Feng Shui as anything other than the science of design. And the whole touch of the unknown and mysterious is just a reason to make money, which these specialists succeed in better than many others.

Bioenergology. Adherents of this “science” believe that a person has a certain “biofield”. Exposure to it leads to cure for various diseases. It was not by chance that we chose the name of the science instead of the usual “bioenergetics”. The fact is that bioenergetics is part of biochemistry and studies energy processes in biology. Just the same, this direction is not pseudoscience. A huge number of people affected by bioenergy have confirmed the falsity of this science.

Astrology. This science says that by the position of stars and planets one can predict the fate of people and even the course of history. However, a large number of educational works refute any connection between the position of the stars at the time of a person’s birth and his subsequent fate or character. Astrology is on the list of leaders both in terms of the number of people who practice it and believe in it (take, for example, banal horoscopes), and in the number of those who are disappointed. It is easy to believe in this science, the formulations are often vague, and events are pulled by the ears. Practicing it requires large expenses for trainings, seminars or simply consultations. Drawing up an individual star chart from an astrologer is not a cheap pleasure.

Magic. According to this teaching, it is believed that with the help of certain rituals one can bring damage or some kind of misfortune to a person, without coming into direct contact with him. Magic is used to attract the object of attraction to oneself, to acquire wealth. In our impromptu ranking, it is the second place in terms of involving the money of gullible people and the absolute leader in the number of victims of pseudoscience. There is practically no getting used to magic, but the very belief in it is a dangerous delusion.

Prayers. The very ideology of religion is based on the fact that physical ailments can be cured by prayers. Surprisingly, it is on activities related to the purchase of candles, icons, consecrated objects, and donations that people spend the most money. Of the six parameters mentioned above, prayers lead in five, second only to the harm caused to health. Scientists have repeatedly tested the benefits of this pastime and responsibly declare that there is no effect on recovery! There is even the opposite effect - sick people, knowing that they are being prayed for, recover more slowly, as if entrusting their fate into the hands of God, weakening their own strength. This effect is called "nocebo", it is the opposite of placebo in homeopathy. The patient believes that if they pray for him, then there is very little chance of recovery. Belief in prayers is the most dangerous delusion of modern people. For example, in the United States, 41-year-old Leilani Gyuman was convicted, who, when her daughter’s diabetes was complicated, spent precious time in prayer.

The science is a form of spiritual activity of people aimed at producing knowledge about nature, society and knowledge itself, with the immediate goal of comprehending the truth and discovering objective laws.

Knowledge is not limited to the sphere of science; knowledge in one form or another exists beyond the boundaries of science. The emergence of scientific knowledge did not abolish or render useless other forms of knowledge. Each form of social consciousness: science, philosophy, mythology, politics, religion, etc. corresponds specific forms of knowledge. There are also forms of knowledge that have a conceptual, symbolic or artistic basis. Unlike all the diverse forms of knowledge scientific knowledge- this is the process of obtaining objective, true knowledge aimed at reflecting the laws of reality. Scientific knowledge has a threefold task and is associated with description, explanation and prediction processes and phenomena of reality.

When distinguishing between scientific knowledge, based on rationality, and extrascientific knowledge, it is important to understand that the latter is not someone’s invention or fiction. It is produced in certain intellectual communities, in accordance with other (different from rationalistic) norms, standards, and has its own sources and conceptual means. It is obvious that many forms of extra-scientific knowledge are older than knowledge recognized as scientific, for example, astrology is older than astronomy, alchemy is older than chemistry. In the history of culture, diverse forms of knowledge that differ from the classical scientific model and standard are classified as the department of extra-scientific knowledge. The following forms are distinguished extra-scientific knowledge.

Parascientific as incompatible with the existing epistemological standard. A wide class of parascientific (para from the Greek - about, with) knowledge includes teachings or thoughts about phenomena, the explanation of which is not convincing from the point of view of scientific criteria. A broad class of paranormal knowledge includes teachings about secret natural and psychic forces and relationships hidden behind ordinary phenomena. Mysticism and spiritualism are considered the most prominent representatives of paranormal knowledge.

Firstly, the concept of “parascience” expresses the fact that the content of science itself is heterogeneous and some of its elements may not fit into the ideals of scientific rationality corresponding to the dominant theoretical paradigm. Then a new theory that has not yet gained authority may receive the name parascience (cosmonautics by K.E. Tsiolkovsky in the early 20th century or heliobiology by A.L. Chizhevsky in our days), which over time has a chance to enter the sphere of “normal science” ( T. Kuhn). This theory is distinguished by the absence of a developed theoretical scheme against the background of the proclamation of a new scientific picture of the world, as a result of which the theoretical interpretation of empirical material is built directly on the basis of the latter.

Secondly, the concept of “parascience” captures the fact that the ideals of scientific rationality are not required for a number of other types of knowledge (practical and practical-spiritual exploration of the world, in particular). Practical traditions opposed to science often appear in the form of “folk sciences” (“organic agriculture” by R. Steiner, folk medicine, folk architecture, folk pedagogy, folk meteorology and weather forecasting, etc.). “Folk sciences” are usually based on an organismic-mythical picture of the world and are concentrated expressions of practical and everyday experience, adapted to traditional living conditions. Their value is determined by the extent to which traditional customs and knowledge are applicable beyond the boundaries of these traditions. “Folk sciences” can organically complement science and technology or even replace them under certain circumstances (traditional medicine during the Cultural Revolution in China). They often contain knowledge that gives a positive impetus to the development of science and technology (the Pomeranian Koch shape was used in the design of the first icebreakers). Exalting the results of “folk science” leads to its degradation (contrasting Michurin’s experimental selection with scientific genetics).

Pseudoscience as deliberately exploiting speculation and prejudice. Pseudoscience often presents science as the work of outsiders. Sometimes it is associated with the pathological activity of the creator’s psyche, who is popularly called a “maniac” or “crazy.” Symptoms of pseudoscience include illiterate pathos, fundamental intolerance to refuting arguments, and pretentiousness. Pseudoscientific knowledge is very sensitive to the topic of the day, sensation. Its peculiarity is that it cannot be united by a paradigm, cannot be systematic or universal. Pseudoscientific knowledge coexists in patches and patches with scientific knowledge. It is believed that pseudoscientific reveals itself and develops through quasi-scientific.

Pseudoscience /8/- this is a theoretical construction (and, it is possible, the practice corresponding to it), the content of which, as can be established during an independent scientific examination, does not correspond either to the norms of scientific knowledge or to any area of reality, and its subject either does not exist in principle , or substantially falsified.
Meanwhile, all the phenomena identified above have one thing in common - their claim to be truth and have the status of science.

It is possible to classify the goals of pseudosciences in order to more effectively eradicate these teachings, but this division is conditional, since the same teaching can be aimed at any goals depending on the adherents of these pseudosciences and the level of development of these teachings.
Pseudoscience of the first type. Pseudosciences of this type do not directly seek profit. This type includes religious teachings, unpromising concepts, as well as numerous concepts of various self-taught people striving for glorification, or people suffering from mental disorders who create “great ideas” that turn out to be either close to delirium or the product of empty reasoning.
Pseudoscience of the second type. This type of pseudoscience seeks to make a profit from private investors or trade. Making profit from people is done by providing imaginary services and goods that do not have the stated effects to the public, receiving income from these sales. This type of pseudoscience is aimed at creating technologies for industrial applications or teachings that may be of interest to fund managers and private investors. This type also includes scientific falsifications that appear within the framework of official science, in the form of various teachings, often in current areas, they are designed to benefit from grants or other financing of “scientific activities.”
Pseudoscience of the third type– organized (the most dangerous and influential). This type of pseudoscience is aimed at obtaining particularly large profits from government funds, large, private investors and foreign funding. Pseudosciences of this type strive to influence power and science from above, through the highest structure of power (government, ministers) or science (academies, academicians). Pseudosciences of this type are organized into institutes and academies, have stable funding and influence in government policy. In this form, pseudoscience turns into quasi-science.

Quasi-scientific knowledge is looking for supporters and adherents, relying on methods of violence and coercion. As a rule, it flourishes in conditions of strictly hierarchical science, where criticism of those in power is impossible, where the ideological regime is strictly manifested. In the history of our country, periods of “triumph of quasi-science” are well known: Lysenkoism, fixism as a quasi-science in Soviet geology of the 50s, defamation of cybernetics, etc.

Quasiscience /7/- this is an area of \u200b\u200bknowledge in which false and possibly true statements are contained in varying degrees and proportions and which can contain statements of both a factual and falsified nature.

Quasi-science, encountering almost no resistance, much less organized, actively penetrates science, seizes ever new bridgeheads, unlimitedly expands its scope and diverts significant financial resources to itself. The idea that many studies that are frankly quasi-scientific should be considered scientific is actively being introduced into public opinion.

Unjustified expansion by society and the state of the sphere of scientific activity to include quasi-scientific areas and areas that have nothing to do with science devalues the title of scientist in the eyes of the general public and discredits science itself. One gets the impression of a decline and even degradation of science, which, of course, is far from the truth.

The main danger of quasi-science is that it has long become part of officially recognized science. Many studies conducted today in pedagogy, psychology, sociology, economics, and even in technical sciences can easily be classified as quasi-science. It is already difficult to say what is more in pedagogy, psychology, sociology and economics - science or quasi-science.

In addition to what has already been said about quasi-science, one more feature of it can be noted: quasi-science is often an imitation of science, a counterfeit of it.

Signs of quasi-science: mass production, eclecticism (eclecticism is a chaotic way of presenting information about a subject without selecting and systematizing it), scholasticism, low quality and low theoretical and methodological level.

Using the example of pedagogy. “On some undesirable traditions in the work of dissertation councils in pedagogical and psychological sciences.”

“...a certain depressing “fashion” is emerging for a certain stereotype of names, which sometimes come in a plentiful stream. Very often, for example, in the topics of works on pedagogical sciences the word “fundamentals” is used - “pedagogical bases” of something, “methodological bases”, “theoretical and methodological bases”, etc. (in 74 out of 219 doctoral dissertations defended and approved in 2000).

If there are so many different "foundations", how can they be considered as such?

The production of “basics” cannot be in-line. If these are truly the basics, then by definition there cannot be too many of them.”

“...often known things are redesignated with new “gibberish” words. Instead of “methods,” “means,” “technologies,” “multidimensional teacher tools,” etc. appear. When translating such formulations “from Russian into Russian,” their banality in essence becomes obvious.”

“Statistical evaluation and drawing of various kinds of computer diagrams are an optional part of works in psychology and pedagogy. Sometimes they can only play the role of some “bows” that create the appearance of being scientific.”

Quasi-science can also include government pressure on science. Power replaces logic (the ban on genetics and cybernetics in the USSR). (seminar)

Anti-scientific knowledge as utopian and deliberately distorting ideas about reality. The prefix “anti” draws attention to the fact that the subject and methods of research are opposite to science. It's like an "opposite sign" approach. It is associated with the eternal need to discover a common, easily accessible “cure for all diseases.” Particular interest and craving for anti-science arises during periods of social instability. But although this phenomenon is quite dangerous, there cannot be a fundamental deliverance from anti-science.

Pseudoscientific knowledge is an intellectual activity that speculates on a set of popular theories, for example, stories about ancient astronauts, about Bigfoot, about the Loch Ness monster.

Even in the early stages of human history there was everyday practical knowledge, providing basic information about nature and the surrounding reality. Its basis was the experience of everyday life, which, however, had a scattered, unsystematic nature, representing a simple set of information.

7 Can quasi-science be measured? A.M. Galmak About quasi-science in general

8 Abstract in the philosophy of science and technology on the topic: “Pseudoscience and Quasinascience” http://www.masters.donntu.edu.ua/2011/fknt/bazhanova/library/filos.htm