how to be a model pseudoscientist
A satirical piece perfectly captures how pseudoscience works and what it sounds like when applied to basic facts no one actually disputes.
Illustration by Victor Rivera
From the 133rd annual convention of the International Denier's Association, the world's premiere group of reality deniers, comes this profound quote as reported by Lewis Grossberger…
"The idea that sex leads to pregnancy is only a theory, not a scientific fact," said Doty, a high school biology teacher from Mobile, Alabama. "Science merely assumes that sex causes pregnancy but never bothered to prove it. Where is the research? Where is the testing? Look, I personally know several women who had sex and didn't get pregnant."
And we must admit, Doty has a point. I too know a number of women who repeatedly had sex and didn't get pregnant. Likewise, I also know women who became pregnant with no tangible proof that a sexual encounter with a male lead to conception, just their claim which is generally accepted on face value by doctors and the lackeys of Big Science. Egads, the deniers are definitely on to something big here! </sarcasm>
In all seriousness though, what Mr. Grossberger's terrific piece of satire so perfectly captured is the key fallacy of any denialist and purveyor of woo, from those who want to equate creationism with the science behind the theory of evolution, to New Ageists and conspiracy theorists.
They appeal to personal experience and use that to push their highly questionable assumptions as fact. When you try to counter them with real science, they simply ignore what you say and go back to their claims of what they have and haven't seen before with their own eyes. In the realm of the denialist, if they can't see it, feel it or understand it, it's either wrong or it doesn't exist.
But the funny thing (and I use the term "funny" very loosely here) about denialists and woo adherents, is that they're often treated by the mass media with the same reverence as subject matter experts, and their beliefs and opinions are reported as factual assertions.
That's exactly how deniers thrive. It's not that they manage to pass any sort fact check. The necessary fact check doesn't happen in the first place as reporters feign objectivity by reporting any opposing view as equal and valid, giving legitimacy to the very people they should be exposing as frauds and ignoramuses.
