TL;DR: No single criterion is enough to identify pseudoscience. Philosophers of science use a cluster of signs: a theory that resists testing, does not change when contrary evidence appears, borrows scientific terms outside their meaning, and leans on authority instead of data. When an advertisement says 'energy', 'vibration', or 'quantum', ask: what is the specific mechanism, which prediction could turn out wrong, and what data have been independently repeated.
Why do you need a cluster of criteria instead of one test?
When a course, a product, or a treatment claims to be 'scientifically based', readers often want a tidy answer: is this science or pseudoscience? Philosophy of science shows that the question is harder than it looks.
The demarcation problem, the drawing of a line between science and pseudoscience, is an old puzzle[1]. In Plato's Charmides, Socrates raises the problem of how to tell a real physician from a charlatan. Cicero, in De Divinatione, criticized divination with arguments close to modern criteria: internal consistency, degree of empirical confirmation, specificity of mechanism, arbitrariness in application, and selectivity of data.
But it was not until the twentieth century that Karl Popper offered a clear criterion: falsifiability. For Popper, a theory counts as scientific only if observation could prove it wrong. Yet most contemporary philosophers of science agree that Popper's criterion is not sufficient. Larry Laudan even argued that the demarcation problem is unsolvable, and that philosophers should focus elsewhere[1].
After Laudan's claim, a wave of responses appeared[1]. The collection Philosophy of Pseudoscience, edited by Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry in 2013, marked the return of the demarcation problem. The authors in that volume did not seek a single criterion, but built multi-criteria approaches, acknowledging that pseudoscience is a many-sided concept.
What are the two forms of pseudoscience?
Sven Ove Hansson (2017) distinguishes two forms of pseudoscience. The first is producing fake theory, for example astrology presented as a science of planetary influence on human character and fate. The second is denying settled science, for example denying human-caused climate change, denying evolution, or denying relativity.
What the two forms share is a style of argument: both use strategies to avoid testing, and both create the impression that they represent the most reliable knowledge on their topic.
Hansson also proposes three criteria for identifying a claim as pseudoscientific:
- The claim belongs to a broadly scientific field[1].
- The claim is so unreliable that it cannot be believed[1].
- The claim is part of a doctrine whose own supporters try to create the impression that it represents the most reliable knowledge on its topic.
Signs of pseudoscience and questions to ask
| Sign | Neutral example | Question the reader should ask |
|---|---|---|
| Resists testing | The theory makes no prediction that could be wrong | If this theory were false, what would we observe? |
| Does not change before contrary evidence | When data conflict, supporters explain that the data are not good enough | Is there any evidence that would make supporters change their view? |
| Borrows scientific terms outside their meaning | Using 'quantum', 'frequency', 'vibration' without definition | Is this term used in its proper scientific sense? |
| Leans on authority instead of data | 'Professor X says...' with no study | What research has been published and repeated? |
| Selects data | Telling only the success cases, ignoring failures | How many failure cases go unreported? |
| Vague mechanism | 'Cosmic energy' that cannot be measured or quantified | What is the specific mechanism, measured with what instrument? |
| No independent verification | Results come from only one group, one laboratory | Has another group repeated the result? |
Why do smart people fall for cognitive biases?
Massimo Pigliucci, writing in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, shows that demarcation is not only a matter of logic but also of epistemic virtues and vices. People tend to seek information that confirms existing beliefs, avoid conflicting information, and evaluate evidence asymmetrically: supporting evidence is treated leniently, contrary evidence harshly.
This explains why intelligent people can also fall for pseudoscientific advertisements. Intelligence does not automatically protect against cognitive biases. A highly educated person can still be drawn to a simple, appealing theory that explains everything, especially when that theory fits their beliefs or emotional needs.
Pigliucci also notes that after the philosophy of pseudoscience collection was published, the field saw a revival with many new approaches, including treating pseudoscience as 'bullshit' in Harry Frankfurt's sense, and applying virtue epistemology to the demarcation problem.
What about "energy", "vibration" and "quantum"?
In advertisements about health, spirituality, and self-development, the three words 'energy', 'vibration', and 'quantum' appear very often. The problem is not the words themselves, but how they are used.
'Energy' in physics is a measurable quantity with units (joule, calorie, electronvolt). 'Energy' in advertising usually has no unit, cannot be measured, and is not defined. 'Vibration' in physics is the oscillation of a system, with a frequency measured in hertz. 'Vibration' in advertising usually refers to an emotional or spiritual state that cannot be measured. 'Quantum' in physics is the smallest unit of a physical quantity, and quantum mechanics has very specific features, often misunderstood and misused in spiritual contexts.
The practical question is: if this product or course works through 'energy' or 'vibration', what is the specific mechanism? Is there an instrument that measures it? If so, where have the measurements been published, and has another group repeated them?
It is important to distinguish two kinds of claims. A scientific claim makes a specific, testable prediction. A non-scientific but also non-pseudoscientific claim may be a belief, a tradition, a cultural practice. Pseudoscience is when a claim fails scientific standards but presents itself as science, or is advertised as science.
What real effects come from belief?
One point needs stating clearly: belief can produce real effects. If a person believes a method will help them, that belief can change their behavior, and changed behavior can lead to changed outcomes. This is a real effect, not to be denied.
But a distinction is needed: the effect comes from belief and behavior, not from the mechanism the advertisement claims. If a course says it works through 'quantum energy', but the actual effect comes from learners changing their habits, then the course's explanation is wrong, even if the result may be real.
This is a key point in evaluation: do not deny participants' experience, but also do not accept a mechanism explanation without evidence.
How do you tell belief and heritage from science?
A spiritual practice or cultural tradition is not necessarily pseudoscience. Pseudoscience appears only when there is a scientific claim. If a person practices meditation because they believe it helps them stay calm, that is a personal choice. If someone advertises meditation as a healing method based on 'bio-energy' with a specific mechanism, that is a scientific claim and needs to be evaluated as one.
This distinction matters because it avoids labeling an entire tradition or belief as pseudoscience. The issue is not anyone's belief, but the claim about mechanism and evidence.
Where is the evidence missing?
There is no research on pseudoscientific advertising in Vietnam in this article's reference list. The studies cited here were mostly conducted in North America and Europe, on other groups. One should not infer results for Vietnamese people without research on Vietnamese people.
It is also worth noting that the criteria here are tools for asking questions, not for reaching conclusions on the reader's behalf. A claim may show a few signs in the table and still not be pseudoscience, and vice versa. Evaluation needs to rest on the whole body of evidence and context.
Conclusion: a cluster of questions or one test?
No single test identifies pseudoscience. Philosophers of science from Popper to Hansson, Fasce, and Pigliucci all show that demarcation is more complex than one simple criterion.
Readers can use a cluster of questions: Does this claim belong to a scientific field? Does it make any prediction that could be wrong? Does it change before contrary evidence? Are scientific terms used in their proper sense? What is the specific mechanism? Is there independent verification?
These questions do not replace reading the original research, but they help sort information and decide whether to invest time, money, and trust in an advertisement.
