Why Pseudoscientific Claims are Relevant
My dissertation is on conspiracy theories, and one chapter of that dissertation concerns the demarcation line between science and pseudoscience. My dissertation topical defense will be within a month from now and I am working on fixing the written defense for the oral presentation of it. The demarcation chapter is, admittedly the weakest part, mainly because the connection between science-pseudoscience and conspiracy theory-theory of conspiracy isn't that clear. Also because the crux of the argument is based on a legal argument that is related to a court case regarding intelligent design in the classroom. Essentially, my fix of this chapter is to make a large justification for why it matters, which to me, is one of those things that is so obvious that I have trouble writing it down.
The issue at large is that pseudoscientific thinking is conspiracy thinking. We just don't usually frame it that way. Conspiracy theories are typically thought of in stereotypes of shadow organizations assassinating presidents, fixing elections, and staging false flag massacres. What we need to realize is that by adopting the counter-factual: if the pseudoscience claims were true, they necessarily need a conspiracy theory to hold up. They are not overt conspiracy theories wherein the individual spouts off about the illuminati, but rather implied conspiracy theories where very little is spoken about anything other than the claim being made by the believer.
Let's, however, take a look at one particular claim: the water engine. The claim here is that an individual has invented a vehicle that runs on water, in lieu of gas or electricity. They say that by adding their device to the fuel tank, it will separate water into its constitute parts of hydrogen and oxygen, use the hydrogen as a fuel and then the only waste products will be oxygen. One part hydrogen car and another part magic.
We know this type of technology doesn't work because the several times that it's been attempted the person can either never produce a working prototype, they have a prototype that is revealed to be a fraud, or they will not allow anyone to examine the prototype themselves. A lot of conspiracy theories surround these types of inventions. Stanley Meyer, claimed to have a working water powered engine, and then died in 2004. The conspiracy is that he was killed by Big Energy interests in order to protect their profit, though the medical reason is a brain aneurysm.
The conspiracy surrounding these pseudoscientific claims are all about suppression. It is the suppression of the pseudoscience that is the conspiracy rather than the pseudoscience itself. Considering this, it makes sense to discuss it in the conspiracy framework because it is not the usual definition, nor does it obviously meet the definition that I propose. What pseudoscience does require though is a unique address because the claims are different enough to warrant a separate approach.
Prima facie pseudoscience claims are incorrect science that are objectively false. The laws of thermodynamics prevent perpetual motion machines from working, the lack of biological mechanisms prevent alternative medicine claims, etc. Yet the same underlying support that gives conspiracy theorists their beliefs. Anti-vaccination beliefs are not simply an alternative medicine position they are a complete conspiracy theory given that they are not merely making the claim that vaccinations don't work but that the entirety of medical science is lying about their efficacy, purposely injecting people with diseases, and then attacking those that are trying to reveal the truth. However, the conspiracy is not overt enough that it would repel those who would not normally agree to a conspiracy theory. The denial of anthropogenic climate change is not merely a science denial, it requires the belief that a group of individuals, in positions of authority, have pushed a false story on the public in order to effect some kind of change. The conspiracy theory uses irrelevant and errant data as well as fallacious argumentation to push these theories.
Pseudoscience claims are unique in that the overt claim that they are making is separate from the conspiracy claim. The overt claim is testable, readily so, but the other claim is the actual belief. Otherwise, why would the individual deny the science? What's needed is a two pronged analysis that allows us to push aside the scientific claim while at the same time addressing the implied claim. This is how pseudoscience is relevant to conspiracy theories.
The issue at large is that pseudoscientific thinking is conspiracy thinking. We just don't usually frame it that way. Conspiracy theories are typically thought of in stereotypes of shadow organizations assassinating presidents, fixing elections, and staging false flag massacres. What we need to realize is that by adopting the counter-factual: if the pseudoscience claims were true, they necessarily need a conspiracy theory to hold up. They are not overt conspiracy theories wherein the individual spouts off about the illuminati, but rather implied conspiracy theories where very little is spoken about anything other than the claim being made by the believer.
Let's, however, take a look at one particular claim: the water engine. The claim here is that an individual has invented a vehicle that runs on water, in lieu of gas or electricity. They say that by adding their device to the fuel tank, it will separate water into its constitute parts of hydrogen and oxygen, use the hydrogen as a fuel and then the only waste products will be oxygen. One part hydrogen car and another part magic.
We know this type of technology doesn't work because the several times that it's been attempted the person can either never produce a working prototype, they have a prototype that is revealed to be a fraud, or they will not allow anyone to examine the prototype themselves. A lot of conspiracy theories surround these types of inventions. Stanley Meyer, claimed to have a working water powered engine, and then died in 2004. The conspiracy is that he was killed by Big Energy interests in order to protect their profit, though the medical reason is a brain aneurysm.
The conspiracy surrounding these pseudoscientific claims are all about suppression. It is the suppression of the pseudoscience that is the conspiracy rather than the pseudoscience itself. Considering this, it makes sense to discuss it in the conspiracy framework because it is not the usual definition, nor does it obviously meet the definition that I propose. What pseudoscience does require though is a unique address because the claims are different enough to warrant a separate approach.
Prima facie pseudoscience claims are incorrect science that are objectively false. The laws of thermodynamics prevent perpetual motion machines from working, the lack of biological mechanisms prevent alternative medicine claims, etc. Yet the same underlying support that gives conspiracy theorists their beliefs. Anti-vaccination beliefs are not simply an alternative medicine position they are a complete conspiracy theory given that they are not merely making the claim that vaccinations don't work but that the entirety of medical science is lying about their efficacy, purposely injecting people with diseases, and then attacking those that are trying to reveal the truth. However, the conspiracy is not overt enough that it would repel those who would not normally agree to a conspiracy theory. The denial of anthropogenic climate change is not merely a science denial, it requires the belief that a group of individuals, in positions of authority, have pushed a false story on the public in order to effect some kind of change. The conspiracy theory uses irrelevant and errant data as well as fallacious argumentation to push these theories.
Pseudoscience claims are unique in that the overt claim that they are making is separate from the conspiracy claim. The overt claim is testable, readily so, but the other claim is the actual belief. Otherwise, why would the individual deny the science? What's needed is a two pronged analysis that allows us to push aside the scientific claim while at the same time addressing the implied claim. This is how pseudoscience is relevant to conspiracy theories.
Comments
Post a Comment