Examples of Pseudo Science

I chose horoscopes for my example of pseudoscience ( http://www.horoscopes.com/t/cn.html ). This website just includes brief daily horoscopes for each period. I reviewed horoscopes based on the handout we were given on Tuesday and came to the following conclusions.

Even though horoscopes change daily, they really have not changed over the years. Horoscopes still provide the same type, quantity, and quality of information that they did 20 years ago. Also, horoscopes often claim that you will be feeling a certain sort of "energy" and should behave in certain ways to release that energy. These horoscopes fail to either clearly define energy or describe the consequences of "releasing" it. Accepting what a horoscope says can often encourage readers to behave irrationally. Horoscopes make assertions that really can only be based on scientifically tested evidence. These assertions often encourage people to behave in an irrational manner that abandons physical laws. Horoscopes NEVER include any references ... unless dates count! They are provide information and “evidence” that is purely anecdotal and nature, rather than being based on psychological research or scientific evidence.

I chose to investigate the pseudoscience of phrenology. As we discussed in class, this school of thought was brought about by Franz Joseph Gall (1758-1828) and was later supported by Johann Spurzheim. Spurzheim was the person who actually coined the term phrenology. Over time, Gall and others supposedly identified 37 different moral “organs” in the brain. Most of these organs were represented by different personality traits and he theorized that the greater the trait, the bigger that area of the brain, causing a bump in the skull.

There were actually a few good things Gall theorized, even though he was largely wrong. The idea that the brain was the organ of the mind was correct. Also, the concept that certain parts of the brain had localized function is correct. However, the localized functions that Gall described were incorrect. Many of the personality traits described, such as benevolence and self esteem are too abstract to be placed in one tiny area of the brain. I think Gall was also wrong in assuming that a large structure meant a smarter or better skill. As we learned in the child development video, more than enough neurons are present at birth, but the development of a skill creates a more efficient and insulated signal, not more neurons. Lastly, he assumed that the growing brain would cause bumps in the skull and this is also wrong. They really don’t have a lot to do with each other. The skull is mostly made of calcium carbonate and this stuff is hard (basically like limestone rock)!!

A pseudo science I chose to investigate was parapsychology. Parapsychology is basically a “science” that studies psychic abilities and the afterlife (ghosts, paranormal activity, etc.). Parapsychology is a pseudo science because the experiments are rarely controlled. Furthermore, if they are controlled, they no longer produce any paranormal results. This pseudo science was actually studied at Princeton in the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab (PEAR), in which they conducted research to see if humans could manipulate machines with their thoughts. The scientists claimed to have seen successful results, but the supposed paranormal activity was only seen by one observer who worked for the lab. Their experiments did not follow the scientific method because only one person witnessed the “events,” and since this one person was working for the lab, he or she may have had a biased interpretation of the results. This experiment is also unreliable because it was never reproduced, another requirement for an actual science as compared to a pseudo science. Also, the simple fact that they call their results “events” or “effects” illustrates that the experiment does not follow the scientific method. Better descriptions and terms should be used to describe the results of a scientific experiment. I think that people like to study parapsychology because it is mysterious and unknown, which spikes their interest. Also, many people are uncomfortable with the concept of death, and so if they can believe and prove that some people’s spirits never really die, that may help them cope more easily with the death of a loved one, or even their own death. I’m not quite as sure about why people are interested in the psychic ability aspect of parapsychology, but I believe it may be similar to why we study astronomy or deep trenches of the ocean – it is so unknown. The mind is a complicated piece of equipment that is not completely understood, which only makes people want to understand it more.

This assignment was fun! I found so many fascinating “junk sciences” to analyze, but the one that tops the list is rumpology. Rumpology is also known as butt reading, and it is the art of reading the lines, crevices, dimples, and folds of the buttocks to understand the butt owner's character and “get a glimpse of what lies ahead by analyzing what trails behind.” One of the leading American rumpologists, Jacqueline Stallone, described in an article how rump reading is an art that was practiced in ancient Babylon, India, Greece, and Rome. She also claims that the ancient Greeks thought that the butt was the key to health and fidelity. She says the Romans used butt prints to determine potential talents and future success.
Stallone does rump readings by mail—you can send her a digital photo of your buttocks and she analyzes it for you for a fee of $125. The article also includes the fact that she even takes major credit cards and paypal! She also has a website that “includes examples of appropriate rump shots.” She is also a very nice lady—not only does she give you a butt reading for the $125, but she also sends you an “8 1/2 x 11 glossy color print of your butt, suitable for framing.”
The supposed methodology behind rumpology, according to Stallone, is that the left and right butt cheeks reveal a person's past and future, respectively. She thinks that the right buttocks represents the left cerebral hemisphere of the brain, while the left buttocks represents the right hemisphere.
Another rump reader, Ulf Buck, lives in Germany. He's blind, but claims he can read people's futures by feeling their naked buttocks. He claims that he spent many years training his fingers to do the reading. Buck says the rumps "have lines like those on the palm of the hand, which can be read to reveal much about character and destiny. An apple-shaped, muscular bottom indicates someone who is charismatic, dynamic, very confident and often creative. A person who enjoys life. A pear-shaped bottom suggests someone very steadfast, patient and down-to-earth."
Clearly, rumpology is a “junk science.” It is based on observations and untestable theories. It does not reflect the attributes/characteristics of real science, and there is no way to empirically test this “load of crap.” However, it is an amusing topic to read about, even though it has no potential to advance and better our society or our knowledge and theories.

Here is the link to the website I got the rumpology information from: http://skepdic.com/rumpology.html

Here is a link that lists a wide variety of junk sciences—you can click on them to get a detailed description: http://skepdic.com/tijunk.html

First of all, I must say that Traci's post on rumpology was probably the funniest post I have read this entire semester.

My post will most likely not be as humorous. I found a site about the controversial topic of global warming. I'm going to preface the rest of the post by saying that I really do not know a whole lot about global warming. The site was talking about how global warming has become so prevalent today in our society. I think this is one questionable aspect on the topic. Global warming has become so popular, so quickly, and yet we mostly hear about global warming from the media and Al Gore. I personally have not heard of any of the specific studies done about global warming. And the topic seems to present very conflicting views, and so it is hard to know what to believe.

The article then went on to talk about how Obama is continuing on with the global warming idea. He plans on stimulating the economy partially by creating jobs so that we can have sources of renewable energy. The authors of this site believed that this will just play on the fears and misunderstandings that people have about global warming. Perhaps it is easier for people to believe something as well, when they are fearful of what may happen. This may be a tactic used with global warming- if people put out a bunch of scary "studies," perhaps people will do something. And Americans are looking for anything with the poor economy. If there are job openings, I believe people will be there.

However, the site then went on to give a couple of examples of studies that have been done on trees and bird migration patterns that have been affected by patterns. Honestly, I'm not sure I understand what these examples were trying to get across, or if I can believe them. I think this shows though, too, that these were only one study done on each of the problems. One study is not near enough to come to any sort of conclusions. And, I don't think the second one could even be replicated, it's more of an observation that an individual made.

I'm guessing most of us don't believe in magic. Even so, I think it's still pretty cool to watch magic tricks/illusions performed. One that immediately comes to mind is the trick where Copperfield made that 747 "vanish" into thin air (I'd still like to know how that was done!). Anyway, here's Criss Angel explaining how he does a simple levitation. Seems pretty obvious once he explains it step by step, but the example right at the end still looks pretty cool! Even though when I'm watching these types of performances I examine them with a careful eye, most times I'm still amazed and wonder "is this for real?" It really speaks to the skill of these performers, and even with all the scrutiny put upon them they are able to fool us into believing their stunts are legit.

As I said before, most times we know stunts like these are fake, but it's still really cool to see behind the scenes and see how things are performed. If only a demonstration like this came for every trick of the trade...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co29n_xdq-o

I was clicking around online and stumbled upon a website completely dedicated to “Personology.” (Which, by the way, is automatically underlined in red as a spelling error on my computer. Although I know there are newer, up-and-coming sciences that probably show up as incorrect as well, this is always an indicator for me to double-check my facts. My Microsoft program is pretty up-to-date, and tends to hold me accountable.) So anyway, Personology is a “science” that analyzes the structure of a body and features of a face in order to construct a personality profile. “Experience It For Yourself.” Once a personality profile is created, it’s an immediate insight into oneself. It “applies to everyone” and can help one in his career, his parenting, and yes, even his sexual relationships. Throughout this website, they make claims as to “being a science,” but there are no legitimate doctors or researchers cited, only “certified Personologists.” Red flag. There was only one cited article relating to the Personology Research & Development Center, Inc., they are focused around pairing one up with a certified trainer and building a solid personology foundation and there are listed registration fees and class costs. “Scientific” self-discovery for sale, anyone? My favorite section of the website was that “Student Testimonials.” Here’s one just for kicks: “I was looking for new insight on my personality and a proper career and life path. I was previously a soprano for ten years but had lost my voice due to health reasons. I am so excited about how my Integrated Personality Profile sessions revealed that I may take my clients into an area of tutoring music in a whole new way, something I’d only dreamt of in the past.” –Sonja O., San Jose, CA.

You have got to be kidding me. The developers of this website most likely have degrees in marketing or advertising, and there is no scientific support for Personology at all.

This is really fun to read all of these junk sciences!

After watching Friends a couple nights ago where they were talking about what gender the new baby was going to be, I decided to research the pseudoscience and real science behind gender prediction. First, I stumbled across

www.babygenderprediction.com

which was full of gender prediction myths that have been used as a 'real science' for many years. Some are as simple as noting the mother's age at the time of conception paired with the month of conception on a Chinese Gender Chart. Others are more dangerous including one that used Drano. You are supposed to put 2 Tablespoons of crystal Drano in to a cup and pee on it, first thing in the morning. The color of the chemical reaction that takes place determines which gender you will have. HOWEVER, there is a big disclaimer on the bottom of the pgae that though this has been used repeatedly, Drano could cause toxic fumes which, of course, is not good for neither the mom nor the baby. (To me, this is the first clue that it is a junk science!)

My favorite myth that I found is actually from a scientific study completed in 2008. I found the link on WebMD.com

http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20090114/is-moms-diet-a-key-to-her-babys-sex

It states that a baby's gender is determined by what the mother eats for breakfast before conception takes place. The study was completed in the U.K. and found a correlation of 59% of women who ate breakfast cereal around conception time gave birth to boys and 46% who did not eat breakfast cereal or didn't have breakfast at all at this time gave birth to boys. The study was quickly debunked by several doctors in the U.S. saying that the correlation does not prove cause/effect.

According to our standards of junk science, this final study is especially relevant. It was one solidary study, not accepted by others in the field, and concentrated on correspondence not casuality. Plus, I would hope that if gender determination were as simple as eating cereal each morning, we would have figured that out by now.

I chose to look at Astrology as a pseudoscience. The actual definition I found on Google for astrology is "a pseudoscience claiming divination by the positions of the planets and sun and moon." I had discussed this is one of my classes previously and we determined that astrology is a pseudoscience because it is not based on empirical evidence and it cannot be tested.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_astro_sci_pseudo.htm

This website goes over really well why astrology isn't an actual science. It covers that astrology is based upon "extraordinary claims" that larger things outside this universe, that can obviously not be tested, determine who we are, what we do, and why things happen. Astrology is not based on experiments and it is not falsifiable.

However, in my research of astrology I have come to pose a question about whether religion is a pseudoscience. I guess religion doesn't claim to be scientific, (some do) but most actually disassociates themselves from science, but could religion be considered this since it follows "extraordinary claims" to define itself?

I chose to look at graphology. I first heard about graphology in my industrial psychology class, where graphology was discussed as a potential predictor (not a good one) of job performance. Graphology is the study and analysis of handwriting in relation to human personality and psychology. It is also called handwriting analysis. Supporters of graphology use anecdotal evidence, however, empirical studies fail to show any evidence for this pseudoscience.

I found a rather entertaining website, stating that graphology as a predictor of personality was 80-90% accurate. For some reason, I find this doubtful. According to the website, the materials needed to perform a graphology analysis are a magnifying glass, a plastic ruler showing millimeters, and a protractor for assessing the slant of the writing.

This website also provides a few meanings of certain characteristics of handwriting. Supposedly, people who have handwriting slanting to the left are closer to their mothers; people with a right slant are said to be impatient and in hurry; and people with an "upright slant" are said to be independent.

I think it is pretty ridiculous to think that handwriting can consistently provide accurate results regarding human personality. But hey, after hearing about rumpology, handwriting analysis dosn't seem quite as weird!

Rumpology, that's great. Nice Traci, haven't heard that one before! I decided to look at palmistry, since it seems to be something you think of when you think about fortune tellers and hocus pocus.
Apparently palmistry is supposed to date back many many years. For example, many ancient civilizations created images of hands in some way, whether by painting or creating hands out of wood or stone, Hippocrates used palmistry as a clinical aid, and the emporer of China in 3000 B.C. used his thumbprint to seal documents.
The color of your hands alone are supposed to indicate health. Hands that look dead white have poor circulation, pink is good health, red hands are high blood pressure, and blue hands show your blood flow is slow. (But, really, isn't that more like common sense?)
Palmists usually examine your more active hand, the one you write with is the most dominate. It is supposed to show your current and future trends. If you want to know something about your childhood, have the palmist examine your non-dominate hand. The lines on your hand are called the fate, life, heart, and head line. A palmist will examine these lines, how close they are to each other, their length, their curve, and how deep they are to tell you about yourself and your future. People go to palmists (and of course, pay them) asking things about love, career choice, etc.
But, I found it funny how I found on one website that even if the palms indicate you may not be good for a certain career, if you are totally dedicated to succeeding at that career you will. Kind of funny. Also, the website said those with an earth shaped hand will be good at farming or gardening! The earth shaped hand was not described...
But, palmistry cannot be a science. It cannot be tested and is non-falsifiable. There is no way to disprove or prove that reading lines on your hands can accurately predict your future. Maybe by some weird coincidence it will happen to somebody, but, as Kim said before, an anecdote does not make it science. There is no way to test it. I couldn't even find anything on what a "normal" palm would be to set some sort of control.
Oh, a sidenote on intelligent design. The book that it first appeared in was when creation was first ruled to not be taught in schools. The editors of the book Of Pandas and People just went through and replaced creation with intelligent design and god with an intelligent agency. It is basically another creationism theory with a different name on it (claiming some beings, like humans, are too complex to not have been designed), yet a Harris poll in June 2005 claimed that 55% of American adults believe, evolution, creationism, and intelligent design should be taught in school. (Poll info from http://skepdic.com/tijunk.html) Just thought that'd be fun to point out. Intelligent design is not a science because is also non-falsifiable, there is nothing that can be tested to prove whether it is wrong or not.

Pseudoscience can be fun! I decided to consider the TV show "Ghost Hunters" as a pseudoscience and look at it from an objective perspective.

Ghost Hunters attempts to use science in order to catch paranormal activity. They use things like infrared cameras, voice recorders, electrospectrometers, temperature gauges, and various other scientific media to capture evidence of paranormal activity. The science behind many of their ideas seems to be sound. On the surface, it seems to make sense somehow that ghosts would create cold spots. What happens is that the ghost uses up the energy in the area that it occupies, and therefore the spot is colder. For this same reason, the absorbtion of heat into the entity becomes a warm spot on an infrared camera. And sound recordings are taken, and then the entity is asked questions, and they answer in sonic waves that cannot be picked up by the human ear initially, but can be picked up by a recorder.

It seems like it might make sense. In theory, it's possible that these entities exist and that they really do behave in such ways as to be captured by these media. The other thing about Ghost Hunters is that they really do try to "debunk" the presence by taking into account other factors that might be causing the ghostly sounds or visions or temperatures. It makes it feel a little bit more like it's science.

But it definitely isn't. In the end, you really can't prove any of it. The ghost isn't going to pop out for real and say (in a voice that human ears can hear) "You caught me - here I am!" They might find something on their devices (or create some findings... like very eerie voices, shadows, object movements, temperature readings...) and cry ghost, but we can never really know if that's what it is. It can't be science unless it is testable, and we can't test this, it's purely conjecture.

However, if there's one thing that Ghost Hunters can actually prove, it's that people love it regardless. It doesn't matter that it's not science, and I'll readily admit that if it's on, I usually watch it, and even though I intellectually know that it's a giant crock, sometimes it makes me almost believe in ghosts... just a little bit! In this way, I think it's probably a little bit dangerous, because people tend to care more about being entertained than being confident that it is founded in intellectual thought and science.

Perhaps one of my favorite examples of Pseudoscience (and sadly an example that is dying out) is the Flat Earth Society. Their base claims are that the earth is a flat plane which does not spin. Moreover, they assert that modern astronomical science is a in fact the pseudoscience! They've claimed that photos prove nothing, and in the past Newton and Copernicus had incorrect theories, so why exactly should we believe modern astronomical data?

Samuel Rowbotham started the modern Flat Earth movement in the mid 1800s, publishing pamphlets based on certain biblical passages. His movement, called the Universal Zetetic Society enjoyed setting up debates with scientists (and often resorting to lawsuits of libel).

The movement slowed after WWII, and in 1956, Samuel Shenton founded the new Flat Earth Society. Charles K. Johnson took over in 1971 and started the new believes of the society. Basically, (to quote wikipedia) this is the foundation of the society:
"humans live on a disc, with the North Pole at its center and a 150-foot (45 m) high wall of ice at the outer edge. The resulting map resembles the symbol of the United Nations, which Johnson used as evidence for his position. In this model, the sun and moon are each a mere 32 miles (52 km) in diameter." They often site the following examples of confirmation bias as evidence,

If the earth is traveling at thousands of miles per hour, in a sphere and
*if person jumped into air and stayed there for only one sec, etc.
*if object dropped from tower, etc
*if earth traveling through space nothing could stay in place.
Then,
Everything would blow away.

However, they have no real explanation for season changes, lunar eclipses, or that very pesky problem of the sheer distance between Chile and New Zealand.

Like most pseudoscience, there are nearly no data to back up their claims. (This isn't helped that a fire in the 1990s literally destroyed nearly all of the society's data!)

The society does have a forum* to discuss their theories here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/, which is always an interesting read. Start out with their FAQs (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11211.0) which is a prime example of pseudoscience, vague claims, and the manipulation of data.

*Not to be confused with the parody website here http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

I agree that this was a really interesting assignment, and rumpology was a really funny read.

Anyway, I chose to look into the junk science of Somatyping. The theory of somatyping was orginated by William Sheldon in 1942 and was the last biological theory that tried to explain pesonality before genetics took over as the main theory. The thinking behind somatyping is that a person's personality is determined in part by their body types. Specifically there are three main body types: endomorph (people who are heavy set), mesomorph (people who are muscular and tend to be athletic), and ectomorph (people who are tall and thin).

There is some correlation between personality types and body figure, but the relationships were very small. In the 1950s studies found that endomorphs were relaxed/easy going, ectomorphs were restrained/inhibited, and mesomorphs were bold/assertive. It was also found that a larger precentage of mesomorphs than ectomorphs wound up as delinquent children. Finally, in a study that looked at job preference and body type it was shown that ectomorphs were more likely to wind up in a research-related field, while mesomorphs were more likely to become factory workers.

I think that people still judge the personality and character of others based on their physical body types. There are prejudices about overweight and obese people, as well as extremely thin people. We may not call these prejudices science, but it is very similar to the idea of somatyping.

Dihydrogen monoxide is a chemical which is a component of acid rain, accelerates corrosion some metals, contributes to erosion of our landscape, and has been found in tumors of cancer patients. A student was able to receive 43 signatures from classmates he asked to sign a petition to ban the chemical. Dihydrogen monoxide is water, simple H2O. This example goes to show how easily people can be deceived by what sounds like scientific truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

In 1982 a man in China named Wang Hongcheng who invented a substance he called the Hongcheng Magic Liquid. When a few drops of it was dissolved in water it would turn the water into a fuel as flammable as petrol. He founded the Hongcheng Magic Liquid company in the early 90s and raised $37 million dollars from the Chinese government and other supporters.

Wang Hongcheng was a bus driver with no scientific background and only an 8th grade education. This should have tipped people off to begin with. He was able to demonstrate his invention but didn't allow it to be verified by others. Articles about the invention made it into major newspapers but the articles had inconsistent information about the water to additive ratio. It turned out that he was actually just adding a small amount of fuel to water at the demonstrations and it was only the fuel that was burning, not the water.

He was sent to prison for fraud but for many years people still believed that his invention was real and there is a big cover up despite the lack of any real scientific evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongcheng_Magic_Liquid

I found 2 interesting examples of pseudoscience. I found an ad in a magazine for a face cleanser that used a lot of science-y words and images. It had a picture of a woman's face with part of it zoomed in to microscopic magnification. It claimed to clean so well that is was classified "micro-clean." They didn't have any statistics or facts or research claims to back it up. It just said that it was guaranteed to make your face "micro-clean." I also found more ads for skin creams and make-up making similar claims. They all had some science-y images and words incorporated into the ads. The backgrounds of almost all of them was completely plain and white. One even had an old glass and mercury style thermometer stuck into the pot of cream. They used words like micro-clean, micro-sculpting, minerals, antioxidants, certified, clinical, scientists, proven, repair, hydrarelease etc.. . First of all, some of those aren't really even real words, but more importantly not one of these words was ever defined or explained. They didn't have any references or provide any information about any of the scientists or studies that were referred to in their claims. Some of the studies are probably not even repeatable because everyone's skin is so different that everyone could have different results when using the cream or cleanser or makeup.
The second interesting example I found revolves around a Pepsi campaign called the Pepsi Challenge. The book Blink by Malcom Gladwell has an entire chapter dedicated to this single study. In his book, he explains Coke's issues with the Pepsi Challenge. The campaign depicted Pepsi reps going around the world and giving people blind taste tests. They drank a small sample of both soda 1 and soda 2. Then they had to choose the one they liked better. In the commercials, of course Pepsi always won! And this was actually true for the most part. So they concluded that people preferred Pepsi over Coke in general. However, the problem is that only one study was done. To determine whether or not their conclusions are actually valid, this study would need to be performed many many times. The other problem is the actual science involved in the experiment. It was found that people almost always prefer Pepsi when given a small sample- but things evened out when they were given a whole can. Pepsi has a sweeter taste than Coke- which some people like, and some people don't. But almost everyone prefers a small sample of something sweet over something less sweet. However, when given a larger sample, some people prefer the less sweet taste. So Pepsi only gave small samples during the Pepsi Challenge.

I found 2 interesting examples of pseudoscience. I found an ad in a magazine for a face cleanser that used a lot of science-y words and images. It had a picture of a woman's face with part of it zoomed in to microscopic magnification. It claimed to clean so well that is was classified "micro-clean." They didn't have any statistics or facts or research claims to back it up. It just said that it was guaranteed to make your face "micro-clean." I also found more ads for skin creams and make-up making similar claims. They all had some science-y images and words incorporated into the ads. The backgrounds of almost all of them was completely plain and white. One even had an old glass and mercury style thermometer stuck into the pot of cream. They used words like micro-clean, micro-sculpting, minerals, antioxidants, certified, clinical, scientists, proven, repair, hydrarelease etc.. . First of all, some of those aren't really even real words, but more importantly not one of these words was ever defined or explained. They didn't have any references or provide any information about any of the scientists or studies that were referred to in their claims. Some of the studies are probably not even repeatable because everyone's skin is so different that everyone could have different results when using the cream or cleanser or makeup.
The second interesting example I found revolves around a Pepsi campaign called the Pepsi Challenge. The book Blink by Malcom Gladwell has an entire chapter dedicated to this single study. In his book, he explains Coke's issues with the Pepsi Challenge. The campaign depicted Pepsi reps going around the world and giving people blind taste tests. They drank a small sample of both soda 1 and soda 2. Then they had to choose the one they liked better. In the commercials, of course Pepsi always won! And this was actually true for the most part. So they concluded that people preferred Pepsi over Coke in general. However, the problem is that only one study was done. To determine whether or not their conclusions are actually valid, this study would need to be performed many many times. The other problem is the actual science involved in the experiment. It was found that people almost always prefer Pepsi when given a small sample- but things evened out when they were given a whole can. Pepsi has a sweeter taste than Coke- which some people like, and some people don't. But almost everyone prefers a small sample of something sweet over something less sweet. However, when given a larger sample, some people prefer the less sweet taste. So Pepsi only gave small samples during the Pepsi Challenge.