10 ideas that psuedoscientists wish you would use more

Here at Boys Book of Pseudoscience, we get great ideas from those silly scientists. Scientists are very fond of telling us about how pseudoscientists are perverting science. Case in point is my new source of ideas to help the budding pseudoscience is Io9.

We just found "10 Scientific Ideas That Scientists Wish You Would Stop Misusing" by Annalee Newitz. No spoilers! Go read the article on Io9 (We come from the future).

More on these 10 gems soon(er or later).  Until then, please comment below on your ideas for the pseudoscientist's toolbox. We need more material for the book and maybe a plot suitable for a movies that Oprah is willing to star in.

Experiments for Budding Pseudoscience

Here are a few good experiments for budding Pseudoscientist:

1. Ask people what it would take for them to discard a belief. Then give them what they need and see if they still believe.
2. Compare the IQ of people that believe and not believe in a pseudoscience.
3. Invent a fact and convince people it is real. Then show them it is not real. See how many still believe that the fact is real.

If you have more experiments, let me know!

Any Sufficiently Advanced Science is Pseudoscience

You see it everyday. It is the strongest of arguments. Debaters win every time. What is it? It is simple unashamed denial of logic.

Look at the global warning debate. A graph of CO2 as compared to the average global temperature, the world seems to be warming in lock step with CO2.

The first theories are that CO2, because of its ability to trap more heat as it builds in the atmosphere, it means that the world should indeed warm. End of the argument right?

Ok, here is a little science. CO2, although can cause warming, does not cause a lot of warming. Or at least that is one side of the argument. I can't find much evidence to it being global warmer or a dud.

Back to the data. The data has a correlation between average global temp and CO2. Add in other factors like the Sun and other factors and you still see just a correlation to CO2. So, does it matter that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Not really, because it seems that CO2 makes the world warmer according to the data. How it does it at the specific rate is good science, but rather immaterial to an attempt to reduce atmospheric CO2.

Ok, boring stuff eh? Now the fun part. The facts are easily poked full of holes. Because you can't directly prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas at the current rate of global warming with  repeatable experiments to prove the data, then the global warming must be caused other causes than CO2.

Because we don't know the exact reason, we can say that any other change can cause the same rate of warming. Look at a few things that might also cause global warming at a similar rate to CO2:
1) Growth of lawyers
2) Consumption of dairy products
3) Farming
4) Incidence of nose picking

All of these have grown over time and could, by mathematical gymnastics, be said to cause global warming. Each has grown at a regular pace since the industrial revolution.

Can you disprove that any of these things has no impact on global warming? Of course the rates are not going to exactly follow the world's warming, but that seems a little picky. They grew and the world got hot. Some things we can't explain completely. Life is a mystery and that is no reason for me not to drive an SUV.

Feel better now? Wild speculation makes the science seem like pseudoscience. Of course if the anti-global warmers could argue and examine evidence logically, we would have little room for disagreement. Simply there is no fair argument because one side gets to make up the rules. That is cool and the pseudoscientist's greatest tools.

You don't need to be irrational to win an argument. Just be creative. Dismiss any argument with the fact that there is no 100% proof or undeniable evidence. There is always a margin for error (or margarine if you are buttering them up).


For extra credit, what logical fallacies am I employing? First person to write the correct answer in the comments gets a free copy of the book!

Pseudo Political Science

Pseudo Political Science seems to be a new fad. Look at Sarah Palin. Her pseudo-brain-think is absolutely amazing.

Who cares about her politics, it is the pseudoscience that is absolutely breathtaking. Sarah Palin has all the hallmarks of a high and mighty professor of letters in Pseudo Political Science.

What is Pseudo Political Science (PPS for short)? Well, same old stuff, different wrapper. Think sugar pills but substitute fear in everything but undying love of your favorite beliefs.

Sarah's beliefs are so wild and so unproven and indeed, imaginary, she has garnered probably the biggest book rollout since the Antichrist (Glenn Beck) released his last book. When we see such great stuff as this, we have to stand up and salute! Why is this so great? Simply because there is so much paranoia and irrational faith that every trailer park, shack, or Republican has a copy of her book.

This is all the more amazing given that many folks don't even need to (or can't) read the book because all they need to do is hate Democrats. That is so easy because Fox News has the market cornered on calling Democrats Socialists and Nazis. What more can you do?

But that makes it even more amazing. It is like Holy Water, just wave your hand over it with a prayer and it does everything from christen babies to making vampires smoke. Same thing with everything that comes from Sarah.

Everything is irrefutable and true! Even if there is hard evidence (like Grandma still not in the death camp), then there is a conspiracy! Maybe Grandma is just a hologram or the Democrats are poisoning the denture cream this very moment! It has to be true because Sarah is never ever wrong.

But look at Hillary... She is about to become a convert! Hillary and Sarah are going to have coffee! Sarah is going to meet Hitler's #2 and convert Hillary Clinton! Oh my, it is like James Randi believing in the tooth faire. It could be the end of the world when the Earth stops spinning on its axis in horror.

All hail the queen of Pseudo Political Science!

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, don't follow too close, that duck shit is pretty slippery.

There is no such thing as pseudoscience

There is no such thing as pseudoscience. It is just the messiness of the human mind. We don't believe this stuff because we are delusional, but we are hard wired to be delusional. Self-delusion is inexpensive. It does not waste a lot of energy. We just use authority figures and rules of thumb and that's good enough. Has been since the first primitive brain cells started communicating.

The only real differences between an antivaxer and a doctor is that the anti-vaccination believeer is shooting from the hip, just like you would in the jungle. You don't eat poison plants in the jungle.

The evidence for poison really depends on if it is really a poison or just chance that the fellow died or got sick near the same time they eat a plant. Worse is evidence in front of you or from a celebrity as this hold more weight. Data is not as believable as your neighbor or a playboy model. Either way, a sample of one, as long as it is first hand or from an authority figure (Oprah), the one sample is good enough in the jungle. No need to experiment because that would be freaky dangerous.

We can experiment now. We are beyond the jungle, or at least those that have the time or aptitude. If you don't have the time, have a poor education, attended a California public school, or part of the Left Behind policies, you don't experiment and don't have the experience of what good science proves.

There is a price. It takes energy to do science. You have to have commitment. If you live in a trailer park and work for minimum wage, the biggest experiment you've done is Mentos and Diet Coke.

Real scientists are rare. And that Poor little mice pay a price... Or if you are a do it yourself scientist, get your sister to take a nibble. But others would rather save calories and look to their authority figures in the church, politics, and celebrities.

We have more data. But folks are still wired to live in the jungle... That is of course if you believe in evolution of man.

Oprah - Queen of Pseudoscience?

Is Oprah really the Queen of Pseudoscience? It is a tough call. Here at the "Boys Book of" offices, we asked the question. The mailman wasn't going to talk, but the rest cozied up to the big screen in the break rook to watch a few Tivo'd Oprahs.

The Secret is a good one. It isn't about any 'secret' per say, but the weird stuff you wouldn't think about in a million years. That make The Secret more fantasy or science fiction than science or even pseudoscience.

Indeed, there are things in The Secret that have a of real science. Try not to think of an Elephant.... I'll wait... See, that is all the secret is about. It is placebo and nocebo. It is attention of the mind on a goal. Nothing rocket science. The hoopla around The Secret is the wacky pseudoscience around how it works. Some guys are out there saying you are fiddling with the quantum foam of the universe and that's way out there. 

The Secret is all rather harmless pseudoscience. If you are trailer trash when you watch that episode, you are still trailer trash. If you have good ambition, ability to focus, and brave enough to grab opportunities when they appear, The Secret is just a good motivational self-help book that gets the juice flowing.

But is Oprah the queen of The Secret pseudoscience? You bet! She can bring in the stars! As we all know, scientists are nothing compared to movie stars. It isn't good pseudoscience unless you have good hollywood backing it up.

Ok, what about the antivaxers? Jenny McCarthy is the spokeswoman and recently appeared on the O show. Vaccinations cause autism, that's the cry anyway. 

Well, I have been vaccinated. I don't have autism as far as I can tell. But there are other things vaccination is linked with. For example, egg allergies because most vaccines are grown in chicken eggs. But vaccinations are always with a little danger but it is one in a very large number. Do we really understand the risks? Not sure, but the fact is that death by polio, measles, mumps, and other nasty stuff is a pretty good incentive for vaxination.

Poor Jenny does not have a lot to stand on if she is trying to link vaccinations to autism. There just isn't any evidence. Worse if you are pushing a boycott that has far greater danger.

Is anti-vaccination pseudoscience? I don't see it, sorry. It is just bad math. If Jenny was pushing magnets instead of vaccinations, well, you have my attention then. But no, the crystals and therapy candles are missing.

Is Oprah putting a notch in her pseudoscience belt by putting Jenny on TV? Well, there I go the other way. If you classify pseudoscience as believing in what ever is pushed by a former Playboy model, well... I must admit that you are definitely in crazyville if you think that this is a public service. It reeks of pseudoscience because real science doesn't have women that are that good looking and pose naked for Playboy.

But I don't think this goes all the way. Oprah even posted a response from the American Academy of Pediatrics that poo poos a bit of the show. I am so sorry, but disclaimers on your hokum are ok, unless they are quoted from real scientists. That's not proper pseudoscience and never will be.

So, two examples. You can guess that I am not putting Oprah on the top of the list for best talk show hokum. 

I must admit some bias though. I want to be an Oprah Book of the Month selection. I'm not going to suck up to Oprah and make her Queen of Pseudoscience just to get top billing. I want the book to speak for itself. Maybe then she gets the crown, no sooner. 

What is your opinion? Who is the Queen or King of pseudoscience?