The Rogues Gallery

The Different Flavors of Nonsense

Dear Fellow Skeptics: Could you please clarify for me why some forms of quackery are referred to as Pseudo-sciences? For example, the term is used when referring to Ghost Hunters, etc. but not when referring to Voo-doo or psychic surgery. Aren’t they all equal in the quackery department?
Thank you, Raphael Jaimes-Branger Boston

Thanks for the question, Raphael. We do use different terms, somewhat loosely, to refer to different kinds of nonsense. As far as I know, there is no official system of categorization of the types of things that skeptics confront. Different words have different connotations, and sometimes we make a conscious choice of terms based upon such connotations – but it’s very subjective.

So here is my quick categorization scheme (let’s call this the “Novella System of Nonsense” or NSN). I will say up front that the categories are not completely clean, in that specific belief systems may incorporate features of multiple categories.

Pseudoscience

The term “pseudoscience” refers to a belief system that pretends or tries to be scientific but is hopelessly flawed in methodology. Most pseudosciences are actually ideologies masquerading as science or looking to attach the respectability of science to an ideology. Pseudosciences often go to great lengths to cover themselves in the patina of science – using scientific sounding jargon, doing studies, creating institutes and journals, etc., but they lack the authentic methods of science. The primary feature of pseudosciences is that they generally start with an ideologically desired conclusion and then work backwards to fill in justification. “Type specimens” of pseudoscience include ghosthunting, ESP research, cryptozoology, UFOlogy, and homeopathy.

Denial

The denial of science is a subtype of pseudoscience. Deniers attempt to use the critical analysis of science in order to cast doubt upon a specific scientific conclusion or field of study. Denial is a pseudoscience when, as with all pseudosciences, it starts with the conclusion and then cherry picks anything that seems to support their conclusion. The only distinction is that a regular pseudoscience is typically attempting to assert a positive claim, while deniers use pseudoscientific methods to deny a claim that is probably true. Type specimens of denial include creationism/intelligent design (evolution denial), HIV denial, mental-illness denial, and holocaust denial.

Anti-Science

Some beliefs make no pretense at being scientific, and in fact may specifically oppose science as the only way of knowing about the world. While pseudoscientists endorse science but just get it hopelessly wrong, anti-scientists claim other methods of support for their belief and claim that science in too limited to pierce their arcane knowledge. Such alternate methods include intuition, revealed knowledge, or divine or spiritual inspiration. This category includes much of so-called New Age or spiritual beliefs, as well as may traditional religious beliefs. Type specimens include channeling, energy medicine, reincarnation, and prophesy.

Crankery

Crankery most resembles pseudoscience, but is distinct in that there is not necessarily an ideological goal, and the methods used tend to be more legitimate. Cranks themselves are typically highly intelligent and have specialized knowledge, but their fatal flaw is that they cannot see the forest for the trees. They typically become lost in the minutia and detail of what they are studying and come to highly improbable and even absurd conclusions. They seem to be compelled by apparent patterns in the tiny details and then fail to see the big picture – or the huge reasons why their conclusions are probably not true. Typically, they become frustrated by the lack of acceptance of their revolutionary discoveries, which leads them to fantasies about conspiracies of oppression, that their genius is too revolutionary to be recognized by mere mortals, or that their findings are too disruptive to the status quo. While pseudoscientists serve their ideology, cranks seek recognition of their genius and accomplishments. Type specimens of crankery include many free energy claims, Atlantis enthusiasts, and that guy who sent me a thousand page treatise on his revolutionary analysis of the Pyramids at Giza.

Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy theorists are very similar to cranks, but this is an important enough phenomenon to warrant its own category. The grand conspiracy theory is based upon the notion that a vast and dark conspiracy is being perpetrated by powerful and evil persons. Most of the “sheeple” have no idea that their world is under the control of such powers that be, but fortunately there is a small band of those who can see the truth for what it is – an army of light that will fight tirelessly against the conspirators to save the sheeple from their own blindness. Conspiracy theorists are so compelled by this narrative, and their image of themselves as a member of the army of light, that (like the crank) they just can’t see the big picture. Conspiracy thinking seems to be a normal part of the hardwiring of the human brain, but some are more predisposed to such thinking than others. The primary flaw of conspiracy thinking is that it quickly becomes a closed belief system – all evidence becomes confirming evidence for the conspiracy, and evidence that contradicts the conspiracy or any lack of evidence for the conspiracy is interpreted as just more evidence of the conspiracy itself. Type specimens include the JFK assassination, the Illuminati, and the 9/11 “truthers”.

Fraud

Let us not forget that sometimes a claim is made for the purpose of deliberate deception. The person making a fraudulent claim does not need an ideology or a desire for fame, they do not suffer from any flaw in thinking. They usually just want to take your money, and they invent a claim for that purpose. Fraudulent claims can superficially take the form of any of the other categories (fraudulent claims are the great mimicers of nonsense) – they can be pseudoscientific, spiritual, or cranky. They tend to be more deliberately crafted for marketability, and often they specifically target the gullible. Type specimens include psychic surgery, the free energy claims of Dennis Lee and others like him, and the medical quackery of Kevin Trudeau. But it is important to note that sometimes it is difficult to tell genuine nonsense from fraudulent nonsense – meaning whether or not the true-believer really believes or is just running a scam. So fraud can be hiding in any category of nonsense, such as psychics, healers, pseudo-technological device or snake oil salesman, or self-help gurus.

Quackery

I include the term “quackery” in this system because the term is so often used. This is not really a specific type of nonsense so much as any type of nonsense applied to medical or health claims. Quackery can be pseudoscience, spiritual, crankery, or fraud. Some quackery is based upon denial (like vaccine denial) and others on conspiracy theories (such as the whole “hidden cancer cure” conspiracy).

There are other similar labels that are not true categories in terms of the epistemological basis and typical methods used, but are rather based upon the subject matter. Another example would be the self-help movement. Self-help methods, like quackery, can cut across all the categories of nonsense, from pseudoscience to fraud.

The NSN, like all systems that attempt to categorize the complex world into manageable pieces, is not perfect, and it is not meant to imply that each category has pristine borders. Like the different types of autoimmune diseases, the difference between a planet and a dwarf planet, or the Linnaean taxonomic system, the borders are fuzzy and indistinct. A pseudoscience may fall back on anti-science when necessary, or incorporate conspiracy thinking. There is even “pious fraud” or those who commit some fraud in order to support their sincerely held ideological beliefs.

But I do find this system useful in that I believe it is describing something real – a tendency to sort into these different flavors of nonsense, representing different fundamental flaws in thinking and/or basic personality. Conspiracy theorists really are different than new age spiritual gurus.

Finally, (if it weren’t completely obvious) the “NSN” bit is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but not entirely. Systems of categorization should reflect and organize our knowledge about a topic. Typically such systems being as purely descriptive, and then later evolve as our knowledge of the subject become more reductionist and meaningful. At first we describe diseases based upon their signs and symptoms, and then later may change the specific disease labels to match the genetic mutations that were discovered to cause them.

My system is mostly descriptive, although it does reflect underlying methods, philosophy, and intention. It is interesting to speculate if in the future we will develop more of a science of skepticism. Perhaps we will discover a neurological basis of crankery, or a sociological theory of conspiracy thinking. The fundamental elements of this already exist in these disciplines, and there is robust research into the underlying reasons why and how our thinking goes awry. And of course the skeptical literature is mostly about bringing together all such knowledge as it applies to these questions. But I am not aware of any such formal or scientific categorization system for bad science or bizarre beliefs, so I guess the NSN will serve for now.