Science and Pseudoscience (in Health and Wellness)
Are you a skeptic or denier?
This past week I spent time preparing for a liberal arts/general education/interdisciplinary studies course called Science, Non-science and Pseudoscience. Students also have the option of enrolling in Love and Lust, Visions of the Afterlife, or Prejudice and Discrimination.
The course falls under the “Critical Thinking Core sequence” of the liberal arts offerings and the broader conceptualization of Exploring the Human Condition in which the student is to analyze broader concepts; compare perspectives within and across disciplines; think abstractly; and apply ideas to new situations.
I’m excited to teach the course, not just because of the passing of knowledge, skills and critical thinking to the next generation, but also to challenge my own thinking in this area as well - and over the last several years, I’ve been doing some thinking (and re-considering) related to the process and nature of science.
Lessons in Science (and Pseudoscience)
As a professor of exercise and sports science, I’ve taught many of the lessons of this course several times, either directly or indirectly. I’ve also taught a full semester course in research methods, of which I will draw upon, as many of the underlying principles of science are at the heart of research methods.
The following topics will be explored in the first half of the semester:
Ways of Knowing: Intuition, Authority, Rationalism, Empiricism, The Scientific Method
What is science? what is pseudoscience? what is the Truth?
Demarcation of science and pseudoscience: Karl Popper
Application of The Scientific Method (practical, hands-on activity)
The peer-review process / Original research study, review papers, meta-analysis, consensus statements
Levels of Evidence
Communication of results - the role and influence of the media and social media
Locating and Reading Scientific Literature
Reliability/Validity + Replication/Generalizability of Research
Beliefs, Bias, Critical Thinking and Decision Making
The goal is to provide some understanding of the nature and process of science (and pseudoscience) and skills to be able to apply to real-life information. This then leads to the application of this knowledge and skills to the following topics within Health & Wellness (because that’s what I know best plus see additional rationale below): CTE and football; Fad diets; Alternative medicine; Wearable tech; and Big Pharma. Students will be given time to locate, gather, read, evaluate and synthesize data, information and evidence to be used in a short presentation and argument. My hope is that given the given all the information and misinformation of snake oil salesman, social media influencers, scientists, physicians, aunts and uncles making extraordinary claims about a quick-fix product, etc., students (people) will be able to make evidence-based and informed decisions about health, wellness, fitness, and perhaps medical care.
Skeptics and Deniers
I’m including another lesson following these case examples on Skeptics and Deniers.
What about you? Are you a skeptic or denier?
Let’s first back-up and define science and pseudoscience. Science is both a body of knowledge and a process. It is defined in the Oxford dictionary as “the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.”
On the other hand, pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.
Here is a great infographic from mysportscience comparing science and pseudoscience.
This leads us to ‘what is meant by being a skeptic when it comes to science?’ As stated in the Skeptical Inquirer, “Skepticism is not a cynical rejection of new ideas, but rather an attitude of both open mind and critical sense.”
The article also states:
“Public discussion of scientific topics such as global warming is confused by misuse of the term “skeptic.” A Nov. 10, 2014, New York Times article incorrectly referred to Sen. James Inhofe as “a prominent skeptic of climate change.” Two days later NPR’s Morning Edition called him “one of the leading climate change deniers in Congress.” These are not equivalent statements.
There is a concern that “skeptic” and “denier” have been conflated. Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.”
So when that next news article, tweet or office conversation arises about a new study or product, what will your approach be? Will you believe it? Read or think about it critically? Deny it?
I’m just asking you to hone your understanding of the process and nature of science, and check your belief systems, heuristics and decision making. And to also raise awareness and attention with students, colleagues, friends and neighbors - because pseudoscience (and bro science) is everywhere.
P.S. Don’t forget to check your cognitive bias at the door …
P.S.S. I’m hoping to add more detailed blogs about the nature and process of science in the upcoming months.
Check out a leader in the science and pseudoscience of health and wellness, Dr. Nick Tiller.
🖥️Website: https://www.nbtiller.com/
📲Social Media: @NBTiller
📘Book: The Skeptic’s Guide to Sports Science: Confronting Myths of Health and Fitness Industry
📰Article: Baseless claims and pseudoscience in health and wellness: A call to action for the sports, exercise, and nutrition-science community. Tiller NB, Sullivan JP, Ekkekakis P. Sports Medicine, 2022
📺Talk: Science and Pseudoscience in Health and Wellness
Your article tackles the critical challenge of distinguishing science from pseudoscience in the complex field of health and wellness, a space flooded with both rigorous research and unfounded claims. This is precisely the context where a more nuanced model of evaluation is most needed.
I find the "Science Spectrum Theory" to be an invaluable tool for this task. This perspective, aligned with certain philosophical views, holds that we should evaluate claims based on a set of virtues like testability, methodological rigor, and theoretical coherence, rather than a simple binary label
. This allows us to dissect why a seemingly "scientific" wellness trend may actually be pseudoscientific.
We can apply this to popular concepts like "frequency healing" or "DNA repair" through sound
. A spectral analysis would show that while the core phenomenon (sound waves) is physically real and testable, the specific health claims often lack explanatory power, contradict basic biology, and show no predictive success in controlled settings. They may borrow scientific terms but fail to establish a coherent theory, placing them far toward the pseudoscience end of the spectrum
.
Consequently, the "Science Spectrum Theory" is not a way to legitimize pseudoscience, but a diagnostic tool. It empowers practitioners and the public to be more critical consumers of information. Instead of asking "Is this science or not?", we can ask, "How does this claim score on empirical testability? Does it connect with established knowledge?" This methodical approach is a powerful antidote to the vague "science-ploitation" that is so common in the wellness industry.