The term "pseudoscience" refers to doctrines that try to disguise themselves as "science" despite having little or no scientifical basis at all. The term "state pseudoscience" (often incorrectly called "scientism") is used to refer to those forms of pseudoscience who are widely promoted and supported by mainstream media and institutions for political and/or economic purposes. As such, state pseudoscience is several order of magnitude more dangerous than ordinary pseudoscience, since it can rely on massive amounts of economic resources, manpower and propaganda outlets that an average pseudoscientist has no way to obtain.
How to recognize state pseudoscience: the main features that set it apart from actual science.
SCIENCEDefinition: Methodology of understanding of the physical world based on the rational analysis of empirical evidence. | STATE PSEUDOSCIENCEDefinition: Religious doctrine based on revealed dogmas and blind faith on authority, disguised as "science" by mediatic propaganda. |
| Abstract Presents itself as *something* to follow and apply: an abstract concept, a methodology. | Metaphysical Presents science as *someone* who "says" things to believe and obey: a methaphysical being akin to a divinity. |
| Impersonal Recognizes scientists as mere human followers, not immune to human errors or corruption. | Personal Sees scientists as living "incarnations" of science itself, an anointed chaste of infallible and incorruptible prophets. |
| Rigid Proceeds according to a fixed set of rules who are followed rigorously and consistently, regardless of the subject at hand. | Elastic Adopts double standards; proceeds on a loose set of rules who are only invoked when convenient, and disregarded when they aren't. |
| Dualistic Has two components: an empirical one (concerned with making observations) and a rational one (concerned with establishing connections); both of them are equally indispensable. | Monistic In theory, it only aknowledges the empirical component, completely disregarding the rational one; in practice, often disregards both. |
| Proof-based Logic and evidence have always the precedence over consensus and authority. | Authority-based Authority and consensus have always the precedence over logic and evidence. |
| Substance-focused Concerned with the intrinsical validity of observations and arguments. | Appearance-focused Concerned with esterior features like terminology, titles, credentials, etc.. |
| Forward Starts with verifiable premises and uses them to arrive at a conclusion. | Backwards Starts from a pre-conceived thesis, and works backward to construct premises based on whether they fit the thesis or not. |
| Open-minded Welcomes doubts and contradictory as a way to either corroborate or correct its views. | Closed-minded Fears doubts and contradictory as a threat to its authority. |
| Honest Deals with critics by addressing their key points with rational rebuttals. | Dishonest Deals with critics by means of defamation, slandering and name-calling. |
| Educative Promotes itself by means of explainations, demonstrations. | Manipulative Promotes itself by means of propaganda, psychological trickery and emotional manipulation. |
| Open-ended Always keeps the method separate from its results, leaving them open to eventual refinements or contrary proofs. | Closed-ended Forgets the method and identifies with the results, turning them into unquestionable dogmas. |
| Fair Changes its views when it's necessary to deal with new evidence. | Fickle Changes its views in order to accomodate economic convenience and/or political agendas. |
| Apolitic Never interferes with politics, nor allows politics to interfere with it. | Politic Heavily influenced by politics, while also influencing them in return. |
| Neutral Only deals with descriptive statements (how things are) not prescriptive ones (how things should be). | Moralist Acts as a moral authority; not content with just stating what people should believe, but also how they should act. |
| Cooperative Sees debates as a way for both parties to advance towards the truth. | Competitive Sees debates as battles to defend "allies" of the orthodoxy and defeat "opponents". |
| Universal and anarchic Everyone has to rely on its own senses and reason to decide on what's true and what's false. | Elitarian and oligarchical Demands the existence of an authority with the last word about what's true and what's false. |
State pseudoscience can be divided into 2 cathegories: a "deep" one and a "superficial" one.
1st degree pseudoscience: it is based on the fallacy "the scientific community believes X, therefore X is science" (see "appeal to authority" and "appeal to people"), where most of the scientific community agrees with the mainstream thesis, and only a very small number of scientist disagree with it; consensus can arise either because of corruption, or simple conformism and fear of losing reputation; because of the inherent difficulty of keeping a large number of scientists under control, this kind of pseudoscience affects mainly very niche subjects like advanced theoretical physics or astrophysics, and as such it can be hard to debunk unless someone has the proper competence in that specific field. A large part of contemporary theoretical physics belongs to this cathegory.
2nd degree pseudoscience: it is based on the same exact fallacy (scientific community = science) but, different from the above, the fallacy is not even backed by a strong scientific consensus but only on the illustion of its existence; it can be qualified as "2-fold pseudoscience", since it is paradoxically pseudoscientific even according to its own pseudoscientific definition of "science"; as such, superficial pseudoscience is very easy to debunk, since is even more detached from actual science, and qualifies as little more than popular superstition; the main actors of this kind of pseudoscience are not the scientists themselves, but the mass-media and the journalists, who are much easier to control and also much more powerful in their ability to shape public perception. A typical example of this kind of pseudoscience is vaxism.
The 2 steps of state-pseudoscience:
How state pseudoscience is born and how it works.
Step 1: Redefining "science"
Tacitly change the meaning of "science", equating it with the consensus of the scientific community instead of scientific method; this turns science from a rational discipline (where facts and logic are at the center) into a political/religious doctrine (where authority and consensus are at the center)
Step 2: Manufacturing consensus
Now that consensus has been enthroned in place of reason, if the consensus already agrees with what governments/corporations intends to promote, the requirements are already met; however, if such a consensus does not exist, it is necessary to create one, or even just the illusion of its existence. This can be done in various ways:
A) Corrupting scientists: Pay scientists in order to promote your agenda instead of actual scientific evidence
B) Selective reporting: Pay mass-media to selectively report only the portion of scientific community that agrees with your agenda, and completely ignore the rest.
C) Equating silence with consent: Include into the alleged "consensus" *every* scientist who does not openly disagree with the mainstream, as if their silence automatically implied an agreement.
D) Equate agreement with research: Treat *all* favorable voices as if they were equally valid, without differentiating between those who are derived from actual scientific research, and those who are derived from mere conformity/hearsay, or obtained through corruption/threatening.
E) Selective referencing: In case a reputable scientific source that goes against the dominating view gets reported by someone with no credentials, use this as an excuse to dismiss the former, as if he were the primary source.
Step 3: Discriminate dissenters
Now that the intended agenda is falsely set in stone as "settled" science, any opposing view can be easily dismissed as inherently "anti-scientific" without the need for any actual rebuttal, and their promoters ridiculed and ostracized (and, in extreme cases, even persecuted by law). This discourages from voicing their dissent in fear of backlash, triggering a feedback mechanism that constantly reinforces the dominating narrative.
