1. Pseudoscience
Definition:
Pseudoscience refers to claims, beliefs, or practices that are presented as scientific but lack the hallmarks of legitimate science—such as testability, peer review, reproducibility, or adherence to the scientific method.
Key Features:
- Not falsifiable or testable (e.g., astrology, crystal healing)
- Uses scientific-sounding language without real methodology
- Resistant to change even when faced with contradictory evidence
- Lacks peer review or is supported only by anecdotal evidence
- Often driven by ideology, belief systems, or commercial motives
Examples:
- Astrology
- Homeopathy (at high dilutions)
- Ancient astronaut theories
2. Junk Science
Definition:
Junk science refers to actual scientific research or claims that are flawed, biased, cherry-picked, or misleading. It is presented as valid science but involves the misuse or distortion of legitimate scientific processes.
Key Features:
- Uses real data but in a misleading or incomplete way
- May involve credentialed scientists, but with conflicts of interest
- Cherry-picks studies or misinterprets results
- Often used to support political, financial, or legal agendas
- May appear in court or media with selective expert testimony
Examples:
- Industry-funded studies minimizing the risks of smoking, asbestos, or PFAS
- Misrepresented vaccine safety data
- Misuse of correlation as causation
Key Differences:
| Feature | Pseudoscience | Junk Science |
|---|---|---|
| Claims to be science? | Yes | Yes |
| Uses scientific methods? | No | Yes, but misapplies or distorts them |
| Peer-reviewed? | Rarely or never | Sometimes, but often low-quality or conflicted |
| Motive | Often ideological or belief-based | Often financial or political |
| Can be corrected by science? | No, usually resists correction | Yes, through better studies and critique |
| Real-world influence | Limited (but persistent) | High, especially in courts or policy |
Summary:
- Pseudoscience is not science at all—it just imitates the appearance of science.
- Junk science is bad or corrupted science—it may look legitimate but is methodologically or ethically flawed.
Both are dangerous, especially when used to mislead the public or influence health, legal, or policy decisions.
