As part of a research project, I looked at the phenomenon of sham inquiry. It’s when pseudoscience or a marketing scheme dresses up to look like science in order to add credibility. The public can be easily fooled – they think if you look like this:
…you must be a scientist.
Well, that’s obviously not true. No one I know looks like that. In public.
In this paper, I looked at three examples of my favorite (to poke) pseudosciences and I was astonished to find one example they ALL used to show how science doesn’t work. (They failed to show this, actually. It’s a bogus argument.)
I hope you enjoy this series beginning with “Sour Grapes”.
- Sour Grapes is the contents page with introduction. Additional pieces are listed below.
- Unorthodox and proud of it
- Fancy jargon and complexity
- Immutable and closed to criticism
- Weak evidence
- Using subterfuge to build a case
- Playing pretend science
- Sham inquiry: Cryptozoology
- Sham inquiry: Ghost hunting
- Sham inquiry: Creationism
- Elbowing in on good science
- The red herring (coelacanth)