Pseudoscience in the science curriculum

Pseudoscience consists of concepts that are intended to look and sound as if they are supported by research, but in reality have no scientific basis. Some of the signs of pseudoscience include: (1) the use of psychobabble – words that sound scientific, but are used incorrectly, or in a misleading manner; (2) substantial reliance on anecdotal evidence; (3) extraordinary claims in the absence of extraordinary evidence; (4) unfalsifiable claims; (5) an absence of connectivity to other research; (6) absence of adequate peer review; and (7) lack of self-correction, frequently persisting despite refutation. Unlike science, which eventually adapts its body of knowledge to assimilate negative evidence, pseudoscience remains largely insulated from contradictory data. The Science Inquiry Skills Strand of the Australian Curriculum includes evaluating claims, investigating ideas, solving problems, drawing valid conclusions and developing evidence-based arguments. In particular, evaluating claims requires students to consider the quality of available evidence and the merit or significance of a claim. At tertiary level, the Academic Standards for Science and for Chemistry require students to articulate the methods of science and explain why current scientific knowledge is both contestable and testable by further inquiry. Most teachers and textbooks avoid discussion of pseudoscience because it is not science. However, it is the contrast between signal and non-signal (noise or background) that results in information. So discussion of the differences between science and pseudoscience can illuminate the true contestable and testable nature of science. Consider the case study of homeopathy, which is a form of alternative medicine, based on the principle that “like cures like”. Homeopathy is also based on the belief that molecules in highly diluted solutions retain a “memory” of the original substance. It is claimed that homeopathic remedies can treat coughs, colds, food poisoning, hangover, travel sickness, skin conditions, hormone imbalances, depression, asthma, arthritis, birth disorders, autism, HIV/AIDS etc. Homeopathy is considered by many to be pseudoscience. The discipline uses terms like “similitude”, “potentisation” and “dynamisation”, and relies on anecdotal evidence, rather than large-scale data-driven studies. Homeopathy is difficult to disprove because remedies depend on personality, lifestyle, hereditary factors, as well as the history of the disease. The one disease or set of symptoms may require different homeopathic remedies for different individuals; conversely, if a remedy does not work, it is because the particular remedy has not been perfectly matched to the patient’s unique combination of factors. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Working Party concluded that the available evidence is not compelling and fails to demonstrate that homeopathy is an effective treatment for any of the reported clinical conditions in humans. Other examples of pseudoscience include alchemy, parapsychology, astrology, numerology, reflexology, and creationism. Why should students learn to evaluate the merit or significance of a claim? One of the key ideas in modern science education is that scientifically literate citizens can interpret and use information critically. Students, who do not continue with further science studies or a science career, should still be able critically evaluate advertising and other claims. For example, what do the slogans “inspired by scientific research”, “98% fat free” or “no added salt” really mean? Furthermore, since previous resources and funding are extremely limited, our students (the citizens of the future) need to be able to judge what is possible and what is not, so that funds are not wasted on procedures and treatments that good science has already shown do not and cannot work (see for example, Rob Morrison, Chemistry in Australia, April 2012, page 36). However, teachers need to be careful when they discuss pseudoscience in their classes, as students might remember the example, but forget that the examples are misinformation. In analytical chemistry, students learn the significance of blank or control measurements, because it is important to be able to distinguish true information from the absence of signal. Many teachers seem to ignore pseudoscience, but the importance of learning about pseudoscience is that students can better discriminate true science from the non-science. We should use the discussion of pseudoscience to teach scientific thinking.