Pseudoriffic

The assumption is that scientists dislike what is often called "pseudoscience." But, as Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder explains in a post from earlier this month, they may develop more of an appreciation for it than you would think.

Pseudoscience is something that has the patina of science. Those explaining it might use scientific words or claim that experimental data confirms what they say. Some fields of pseudoscience use scientific tools and language in their discipline. Astrology, for example, is bunk. But astrological predictions are based on the motions of planets and stars and those are determined by math and astronomical observation. 

Hossenfelder says that one effect of pseudoscience is that skeptics often develop real scientific information in refuting it. She highlights how the common experimental techniques of single- and double-blind research studies came about from attempts to disprove pseudoscientific claims.

In this sense, pseudoscience is a specific form of incorrect information, and the scientific process is about checking into information to see whether it is accurate or not. Scientists can also use that process to demonstrate that widely-held pseudoscience is inaccurate.

Of course, lots of people keep hold of their disproven beliefs in spite of evidence to the contrary. But science hasn't found a solution for that.