Currently, the promotion of pseudoscience has become more intense on various social media platforms. These platforms have become a channel for the dissemination of many pseudoscientific theories, attracting a great deal of attention and generating heated discussions. However, even in an era of highly developed information, there are still many people who believe in and actively spread these scientifically unproven ideas.

 

Part of the popularity of pseudoscience on social media can be attributed to the "appeal" of the theory. Pseudoscience is often packaged in a glamorous, mysterious, and novel way that appeals to people's curiosity about miracles and the unknown. They often offer quick and easy explanations without the need for complex reasoning or rigorous experimental proofs, which attracts many eager Internet users.

 

In addition, the algorithmic recommendation and filtering mechanisms of social media contribute to the spread of pseudoscience to some extent. These platforms tend to push relevant content to users based on their preferences and browsing history, which may also include pseudoscientific content. This personalized filtering of information leads to the formation of information cocoons, making it more difficult for users to access content about the scientific method, evidence, and critical thinking, which in turn increases the risk of believing in pseudoscience.

 

The distinction between science and pseudoscience can have both theoretical and practical utility. From a theoretical point of view, the question of the distinction is a rather illuminating one, and it contributes to the philosophy of science in the same way that the study of fallacies contributes to the study of non-formal logic and rational argumentation. From a practical point of view, the distinction is important for all sorts of decisions in both personal and public life. As science is our most reliable source of knowledge in all fields, we need to distinguish scientific knowledge from its similar but different counterparts. Because of the high status of science in today's society, attempts to exaggerate the scientific status of various non-scientific claims, doctrines, and theories are widespread, making the issue of differentiation in areas such as health care and education urgent.

 

The term pseudoscience dates back to 1796 when historian James Andrews referred to alchemy as a "fantastic pseudoscience". Subsequently, the term gained widespread acceptance and became popular after the 1880s. However, throughout its history, it is clear that the term "pseudoscience" does have a distinctly pejorative connotation. The concept is often used to describe theories and ideas that have not been scientifically validated and are not supported by reliable evidence. These ideas are often attracted by their glamorous packaging, mysterious appearances, and novel claims, and people are mesmerized by them. However, they lack empirical validation and the scientific method and therefore do not have credibility or scientific value.

​

Many scholars of pseudoscience emphasize that pseudoscience is a non-scientific activity masquerading as science. According to Brian Baigrie, "What is objectionable about these beliefs is that they masquerade as genuine scientific beliefs." He, as well as other scientists, believe that to call an activity or teaching pseudoscience, both of the following two criteria must be met:

 

(1) The activity or teaching itself is not consistent with scientific theory and lacks scientific validation and rigor.

 

(2) Its main proponents try to convince people that it is scientific, masking its unscientific nature through careful packaging and propaganda.

 

The overly broad definitions of (1) and (2) create problems because some phenomena may meet both criteria but are not usually referred to as pseudoscience. An obvious example is scientific fraud, although it is highly disguised as science and does not meet scientific criteria. However, fraud in the general branch of science is rarely characterized as "pseudoscience".

 

The following three cases will help us understand:

(a): A biochemist conducted a sloppy experiment that turned out to be an experimental error rather than a correct experimental result.

(b): the same biochemist who conducted sloppy experiments but insisted on interpreting them as conclusions that ran counter to the prevailing view.

(c): this biochemist conducted several experiments, including the one in (a), but she did not promote any particular unorthodox theory.

 

According to common parlance, (a) and (c) are considered bad science, and only case 2 is considered pseudoscience. This is because there is heresy in (b), i.e., adherence to a theory that is different from the views that had scientific legitimacy at the time. Whereas a simple violation of scientific requirements would not normally be considered pseudoscience.

 

Pseudoscience is the antithesis of science in the sense of individualization, and there is no unified pseudoscientific corpus that corresponds to a scientific corpus. For a pseudoscientific phenomenon, it must belong to one or another specific pseudoscience. To satisfy this characterization, the above definition can be modified by replacing (2) with the following:

​

(2′) It is part of a non-scientific doctrine whose main proponents try to give the impression that it is science.

Most scientists prefer to think of science as consisting of methods of inquiry rather than particular doctrines. (2′) There is a clear conflict with this traditional view of science. This is because pseudoscience often describes science as a closed, completed doctrine rather than a methodology of open-ended inquiry.

 

Sometimes the term "pseudoscience" is used in a broader sense than that contained in the definition consisting of (1) and (2'). In this sense, pseudoscience is considered to include not only what is presented in the name of science as contrary to science, but also what is contrary to science, even if it is not presented in the name of science. To cover pseudoscience in this broader sense, (2′) could be modified as follows:

(2′′) It is part of a doctrine whose chief proponents seek to give the impression that it represents the most reliable knowledge on its subject.

 

Common usage seems to hesitate between defining (1)+(2′) and (1)+(2″); this is an interesting phenomenon: in comments on the meaning of the term, pseudoscientific critics tend to endorse definitions close to (1)+(2′), but they tend to be closer to (1)+(2″) when they use it.

​

The following example illustrates the difference between these two definitions:

(a) A creationist book correctly describes the structure of DNA.

(b) A reliable chemistry book misrepresents the structure of DNA.

(c) A creationist book denies that humans have a common ancestor with other primates.

(d) A preacher who denies that science is credible also denies that humans share a common ancestor with other primates.

​

(a) does not satisfy (1) (because the DNA structure is correct) and is therefore not pseudoscience by either definition. (b) satisfies (1) but not (2′) and not (2″) and therefore is not pseudoscience by either definition. (c) satisfies all three criteria, (1), (2') and (2''), and is therefore pseudoscientific by both criteria. Finally, (d) satisfies (1) and (2"), and is therefore pseudoscientific according to (1) + (2"), but not according to (1) + (2'). As the last two examples show, pseudoscience and anti-science are sometimes difficult to distinguish. Some advocates of pseudoscience (especially homeopathy) tend to drift between opposing science and claiming to represent the best science.

​

Pseudoscience is not without countermeasures. To combat pseudoscientific propaganda, we need to strengthen science education and improve the scientific literacy of the general public. At the same time, social media platforms and the scientific community should work together to take more effective measures to curb the spread of pseudoscientific content. Users should also remain vigilant, learn to recognize the difference between science and pseudoscience, and refrain from blindly believing and spreading unsubstantiated ideas.

 

Proper knowledge and understanding of science can not only enhance our knowledge of nature and the universe but also provide us with a solid cornerstone of knowledge in the age of information overflow. Let us examine this challenging era with rational eyes, guard the purity of science, and embrace true knowledge.