Bioresonance

Introduction
The standards for determining of any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice as nonscience vary, but often include lack of empirical evidence, unfalsifiability, or failure to comply with scientific method or apply a heuristic such as Occam's Razor. A number of attempts have been made to apply philosophical rigor to the notion with mixed results. These include Karl Popper's criterion of falsifiability and the historiographical approach of Imre Lakatos in his Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Other historians and philosophers of science (including Paul Feyerabend) have argued, from a sociology of knowledge perspective, that a clear philosophical distinction between science and pseudoscience is neither possible nor desirable.

The term "pseudoscience" often has negative connotations, implying generally that things so labeled are false and deceptive (though a strict interpretation of the term would not necessarily have it mean either). As such, those who are labelled as practicing or advocating a "pseudoscience" almost always reject this classification, and often the distinction itself.

Some critics of pseudoscience consider some or all forms of pseudoscience to be harmless entertainment. Others, such as Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan, consider all forms of pseudoscience to be harmful, whether or not they result in immediate harm to their followers. These critics generally consider that advocacy of pseudoscience may occur for a number of reasons, ranging from simple naïveté about the nature of science and the scientific method, to deliberate deception for financial or political benefit.

The concept of pseudoscience as an antagonist to bona fide science appears to have emerged in the mid-19th century. The first recorded use of the word 'pseudo-science' appears to have been in 1844 in the Northern Journal of Medicine I. 387 "That opposite kind of innovation which pronounces what has been recognised as a branch of science, to have been a pseudo-science, composed merely of so-called facts, connected together by misapprehensions under the disguise of principles".


Classifying pseudoscience
Pseudoscience fails to meet the criteria met by science generally (including the scientific method), and can be identified by a combination of these characteristics:

by asserting claims or theories unconnected to previous experimental results; 
by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability); 
by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results; 
by failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results; 
by failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference") 
by claiming a theory predicts something that it does not; 
by claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict; 
by violating Occam's Razor, the heuristic principle of choosing the explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible; or 
by a lack of progress toward additional evidence of its claims. 
Pseudoscience is distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it claims to offer insight into the physical world by "scientific" means. Systems of thought that rely upon "divine" or "inspired" knowledge are not considered pseudoscience if they do not claim either to be scientific or to overturn well-established science. There are also bodies of practical knowledge that are not claimed to be scientific. These are also not pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience is also distinguishable from misleading statements in some popular science, where commonly held beliefs are thought to meet the criteria of science, but often don't. The issue is muddled, however, because it is believed that "pop" science blurs the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public.

The term "pseudoscience" is often used by adherents of fields considered pseudoscientific to criticize their mainstream equivalents. Hence, for instance, supporters of creationism often characterize evolution as a pseudoscience, as do supporters of Dianetics with respect to psychiatry. Such criticisms are, however, generally regarded as fringe viewpoints.


Pseudoscience contrasted with protoscience
Pseudoscience also differs from protoscience. Protoscience is a term sometimes used to describe a hypothesis that has not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method, but which is otherwise consistent with existing science or which, where inconsistent, offers reasonable account of the inconsistency.

Pseudoscience, in contrast, is characteristically lacking in adequate tests or the possibility of them, occasionally untestable in principle, and its supporters are frequently strident in insisting that existing scientific results are wrong. Pseudoscience is often unresponsive to ordinary scientific procedures (for example, peer review, publication in standard journals). In some cases, no one applying scientific methods could disprove a pseudoscientific hypothesis (that is, untestable claims have been made) and failure to test and disprove these claims is often cited as evidence of the truth of the pseudoscience.

The boundaries between pseudoscience, protoscience, and "real" science are often unclear to non-specialist observers. They can even be obscure to experts. Many people have tried to offer objective criteria for the term, with mixed success. Often the term is used simply as a pejorative to express the speaker's low opinion of a given field, regardless of any objective measures.

If the claims of a given pseudoscience can be experimentally tested it may be real science, however odd, astonishing, or intuitively unacceptable. If they cannot be tested, it is likely pseudoscience. If the claims made are inconsistent with existing experimental results or established theory, it is often presumed to be pseudoscience. Conversely, if the claims of any given "science" cannot be experimentally tested it may not be a real science, however obvious or intuitively acceptable.

In such circumstances it may be difficult to distinguish which of two opposing "sciences" are valid; for example, both the proponents and opponents of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming have recruited the help of scientists to endorse contradictory positions, because of differing political goals. This enlistment of science in the service of politics is sometimes called "junk science".

Other examples of modern scientific pursuits that some consider protoscience include both the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) and Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI) research projects. However, these fields are not considered protoscientific by most scientists; they are genererally considered real science, albeit subjects that may offer only a low probability of revealing significant results.

The difference between these subjects as science and pseudoscience may be seen by these examples: Scientists involved in SETI and CETI do not claim that they know for certain that intelligent extraterrestrials exist, although most consider the possibility likely (see Drake equation). They test their beliefs against available data.

Ultimately, whether something is pseudoscience or not has less to do with the ideas under study than the approach used to study or justify them. Acupuncture, for instance, while it involved a prescientific system, is not inherently pseudoscientific. This is because most of the claims can be tested scientifically so acupuncture can be viewed as a protoscience. Of course, a scientific investigation might fail to support the claims of acupuncture. In the presence of a number of tests that successfully falsify a particular claim, insisting that the claim is still scientifically supported becomes pseudoscience.


The problem of demarcation
Main article: Demarcation problem

After more than a century of active dialogue, the question of what marks the boundary of science remains fundamentally unsettled. As a consequence the issue of what constitutes pseudoscience continues to be controversial. Nonetheless, reasonable consensus exists on certain sub-issues. Criteria for demarcation have traditionally been coupled to one philosophy of science or another. Logical positivism, for example, espoused a theory of meaning which held that only statements about empirical observations are meaningful, effectively asserting that statements which are not derived in this manner (including all metaphysical statements) are meaningless. Later, Karl Popper attacked logical positivism and introduced his own criterion for demarcation, falsifiability. This in turn was criticised by Thomas Kuhn, who illustrated with historical examples that falsification did not play a largely causative role in changes between scientific theories, and also by Popper supporter Imre Lakatos, who proposed his own criteria that distinguished between progressive and degenerative research programs.

Many supporters of both science and pseudoscience have called into question whether there is a rigorous way to tell the difference, especially since, historically, many disciplines currently thought of as "science" exhibit trends which are often cited as those of pseudoscience, such as lack of reproducibility (due to the necessity of large, expensive, and specially created instruments), or the inability to create falsifying experiments. Because of the heterogeneous nature of the scientific enterprise itself, it is increasingly difficult to create a set of criteria which can apply to all disciplines at all times.


Fields often associated with pseudoscience
Main article: List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories

Examples of theories and fields of endeavor that are considered pseudoscientific in the consensus opinion of mainstream science include:

Acupuncture (the traditional theory behind it) 
Alchemy (pre- or proto-scientific rather than pseudoscientific) 
Astrology 
Biblical scientific foresight 
Chakra theory 
Characterology 
Clairvoyance 
Context speaking budgies 
Creation science and its offshoots and many of the theories invoked in its defense: 
Baraminology 
Creation biology 
Creationist cosmologies 
Flood geology 
Intelligent design 
Specified complexity 
Dianetics (The pseudoscience of Scientology.) 
Eugenics 
Essentialism 
Folk psychiatry 
Graphology 
Götaland theory 
Homeopathy 
Lunaception 
Megalithic yard and other pseudoscientific metrology 
Melanin Theory 
Modern geocentrism (see also Flat Earth Society) 
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) 
New Chronology 
Novelty Theory (aka "Timewave Zero") 
Orgonomy 
Palmistry 
Parapsychology 
Schemes for Perpetual motion 
Personology 
Phrenology 
Physiognomy 
Precognition 
Pseudoarchaeology 
Pyramidology 
Spiritualism 
Time Cube (also see Gene Ray) 
Explanations of Telekinesis 
Explanations of Telepathy 
Vedic science 
Pseudoscientific science and medical practices are often quite popular. Medical pseudosciences even sometimes show notable therapeutic benefits, possibly due to the placebo effect or observer bias.

Many pseudosciences are associated with the New Age movement and there is a tendency to improperly associate all practices of the "New Age" with pseudoscience.

Certain "watchdog" groups, such as CSICOP, have released statements expressing concern about the apparent growing popularity of pseudoscience, especially when it applies to scientific fields that are intended to save people's lives. A number of self-proclaimed alternative medicine treatments have been designated pseudoscience by critics, largely because some of these methods inspire false hope in terminally ill patients, and end up costing large amounts of money without actually providing any real benefit, treatment, or cure for various ailments.


Pseudomathematics
Pseudomathematics is a form of mathematics-like activity undertaken by many non-mathematicians - and occasionally by mathematicians themselves. The efforts of pseudomathematicians divide into three categories:

attempting apparently simple classical problems long proved impossible by mainstream mathematics; trying metaphorically or (quite often) literally to square the circle 
generating whole new theories of mathematics or logic from scratch 
attempting hard problems in mathematics (for example, the Goldbach conjecture) using only high-school mathematical knowledge 

Criticisms of the concept of pseudoscience
The term "pseudoscience" removes the legitimacy afforded by the category "science"; leaving such a labeled body of theory to try to obtain legitimacy on other grounds.

Such attempts at attaining legitimacy include:

claiming all theories are equally scientific 
some are just politically incorrect 
some have more evidence, others less; but that doesn't make them not science 
peer review has no value 
for really new ideas 
for politically incorrect ideas 
theories rise and fall in scientific community support.