Using subterfuge to build a case
Pseudoscience proponents may resort to desperate measures to support and preserve a beloved theory – another sure sign that the theory does not qualify on the same level as a scientific one. The public generally falls for various forms of slippery techniques and logical fallacies that are used to promote pseudoscientific claims, such as:
- Falsifying scientific citations or quotes; using well-known scientist’s words out of context, changing them or entirely fabricating a reference;
- Deliberately misleading to a conclusion;
- Laying claim to authority based on special knowledge from inside sources (like the military, religious authorities or the dead themselves);
- Making decisive statements that are unconfirmed, previously discredited, or even outright lies;
- Speculation unsupported by evidence; outright leaps of faith and jumping to conclusions;
- Claims that other knowledge systems are as valued as science.
In the eyes of the public who will trust a knowledgeable-sounding and sincere source, crafty methods can convey the feeling that a reasonable case is being built. The public is not expected to look deep enough to see that hard facts are actually assumptions, rendering the whole field a hollow show . It takes a lot of work, previous knowledge and some special access to discern the truth from falsity and determine which conclusions are valid. It is not reasonable to have to verify everything one hears all day.
 Levitt, N. (1999). Prometheus Bedeviled, Rutgers Univ Press. p. 92
Back to Sham Inquiry contents page.