I’m wondering if that is some kind of unscientific thinking masquerading as scientific thinking. Does the thinking appear to be scientific but is, in fact, faithless to science’s basic values and methods? This definition is indebted to Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, p. 13.
Because pseudo-scientific thinking often looks and sounds like real science, it can be quite hard for non-scientists or casual readers to tell them apart. Luckily, there are certain criteria of pseudoscience that any educated person can use to distinguish it from true science, including the following:
· 1. Does it make claims that are not testable?
· 2. Does it make claims that are inconsistent with well-established scientific truths?
· 3. Does it explain away or ignore falsifying data?
· 4. Does it use vague language that almost anything could be counted as confirming it?
· 5. Does it lack of progressiveness?
· 6. Does it involve no serious effort to conduct research using scientific method?
This thread is indebted to William D. Gray, Thinking Critically about New Age Ideas (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1991), chap. 5.