How to Spot Pseudoscience: A Practical Science Guide

It often feels like we’re being swamped with “science” these days — but much of it is not real science. Genuine science follows the scientific method, uses sound reasoning and robust experimental evidence, and makes testable predictions. Pseudoscience, by contrast, borrows the language of science while ignoring its methods and safeguards.

Sadly, many sensational claims exploit curiosity and the desire for the extraordinary, sometimes for profit. It’s nearly impossible to browse the web without encountering examples such as “Stargate” conspiracies, “immortality” scams, alien-abduction stories, “Elvis is alive” myths, Atlantis claims, and creationist arguments — all masquerading as good science. I even see ads for educational toys that claim “When science works like MAGIC,” implying (falsely) that science doesn’t usually work.

Example video on pseudoscience and skepticism

How can you tell good science from bad?

How can you distinguish deliberate deception from genuine attempts to understand the world? This short guide offers a practical, though not exhaustive, checklist. I am intensely skeptical of the items listed above; if you disagree, that’s fine — but blurring the line between truth and falsehood weakens the power of science.

Without further ado, here are some basic rules and warning signs to help you evaluate claims more critically. Remember: every claim must be seen in context and examined on its merits.

Fundamental rules of science

• A claim or theory should be treated as provisional until compelling evidence shows otherwise.
• Extraordinary claims require proportional, independent evidence; going against established understanding demands stronger proof.

Common warning signs of pseudoscience

1. Personal attacks

Example: “Einstein was a plagiarist.”

In science, you should argue about the theory and the evidence, not attack the person. Whether a particular individual is good or bad does not determine the truth of a claim. At most, you can question an author’s objectivity, but ad hominem attacks do not substitute for evidence.

2. The invincible theory

Example: “Perpetual motion is possible — you just have to be infinitely far from all sources of gravity.”

A valid scientific theory makes testable predictions and can be falsified. A theory that is constructed so it cannot possibly be disproved is not scientific; it is a conjecture. The burden of proof rests with the person making the claim.

3. Quotes or authority as evidence

Example: “Many NASA scientists believe Martians exist, so Martians must exist.”

There are no ultimate “authorities” in science. Experts can guide us, but facts rest on evidence and logic, not on who said them. Evaluate the reasoning and data, not just the speaker’s reputation.

4. Railing against authority

Example: “A scientific establishment dismissed my idea because they felt threatened.”

The idea that a monolithic scientific establishment suppresses all new ideas is largely a myth. Science rewards correct, testable ideas. Even if bias exists in places, the proper response is to present reproducible evidence and sound reasoning — not conspiracy claims about suppressed brilliance.

5. Appeals to irrationality or faith

Example: “This wonder treatment only works if you throw away all doubts and have faith.”

Science relies on evidence and reproducible results, not faith. Claims that require abandoning critical thinking or invoking mystical explanations fall outside practical, testable science.

6. Abuse of scientific language

Example: “Relativity logically proves God.”

Pseudo-scientists often use scientific terms out of context. If an argument depends on misapplied jargon or loose analogies, check original sources and authoritative explanations before accepting it.

7. Lack of evidence or theoretical consistency

To count as good science, a theory should meet two criteria: (a) it must be supported by valid evidence, and (b) it must be logically consistent with other well-established knowledge (or provide extraordinary evidence to overturn it).

If a claim fails either test, it should be suspended until proper evidence or a coherent theoretical framework appears. Evidence must be analyzed objectively; you cannot pick or twist data to fit a hypothesis. A sound theory is a marriage between theory and practice, and independent verification by unbiased parties is essential.

8. Appeal to intuition

Example: “It’s obvious animals couldn’t arise by random chance.”

Human intuition evolved for survival, not for understanding quantum mechanics or deep time. What seems “obvious” is not proof. Intuition can guide hypotheses, but claims require empirical support — intuition alone is insufficient.

9. Confusing open-mindedness with gullibility

Being open-minded means evaluating new evidence objectively and weighing possibility against probability. It does not mean accepting every claim. Both proposers and skeptics can be closed-minded; good skepticism is productive, not dismissive.

Conclusion

Guarding against pseudoscience requires a critical, evidence-based approach. I rely on credible sources such as peer-reviewed journals and reputable institutions, scrutinize study methods for repeatability and statistical soundness, and remain skeptical of extraordinary claims that depend on anecdotes or logical fallacies. Learning to spot common fallacies, emotional appeals, and confirmation bias helps separate genuine science from pseudoscience. Finally, I value open debate and peer review — science advances by challenging and retesting ideas.

Further reading

• Crackpot Bingo
• John Baez — The Crackpot Index (archived)
• Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder
• Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time