In the established scientific community it is considered not good scientific practice to get oneself involved in what is called pseudo-science, such as pyramidology and creation-science. Although everyone with training in 'proper' science seems immediately to recognize pseudo-science, it has turned out to have been not that easy to demarcate the two from the point of view of science philosophy. Many well-known philosophers had a try (Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Thagard; for an anthology see Curd & Cover (16 )) but they seem not to agree on a standard test. The best is probably the falsifiability principle of Popper for a hypothesis. Pseudo-science uses doctrines, not working hypotheses

The disapproval of pseudo-science, such as creation-science, is not alone a question of the absence of progress but also of doubt on scientific integrity of many of its practioners. “Creation-scientists frequently use impropriate or incomplete quotations. They take the words of some eminent evolutionists, and attempt to make him or her say exactly the opposite to that intended”(M. Ruse in (16 ), page 45). And further “The Creation Research Society (with 500 full members, all of whom must have an advanced degree in a scientific/technological area), demands that its members sign a statement affirming that the Bible is literally true. Unfortunately, an organization cannot require such a condition of membership, and then claim to be a scientific organization. Science must be open to change, however confident one may feel at present”.

Strong persistent confidence in a theory also occurs, however, in established scientific fields, which can be disastrous for the progress of science and may be indicated as pseudo-science within science. An example is the great influence which an English researcher (from Cambridge (Eng.)) E. Thomson had on the interpretation of the Maya script (17) since 1922. His deciphering was wrong which in itself is not a shame; scientists can also make mistakes. A Russian worker Y.V. Knorosov published in 1952 in the Russian literature and presented at a congress in Copenhagen (1958) a beginning of a decipherment which is now considered to make sense. But Thomson cannonaded from 1953 the Russian with illogical arguments and created an atmosphere with suspected writings such as “Has Knorosov any scientific honor? The answer is clearly No” [..] “The so called decipherment is a Marxist hoax and propaganda ploy”. Although Knorosov received support from a Swedish linguist, “during Thomson's lifetime, it was a rare Maya scholar who dared to contradict the Grand Panjandrum on this, certainly not in print” (17 page 153). Thomson's dirty writing continued until his death in 1975. Since then the deciphering has gone on and in 1992 was concluded that 85 percent of all texts can be read in Mayan language, with some 20 years retardation. In retrospect it has been analyzed (17) that Thomson's interpretations may have been subject to religious prejudice, which make them pseudo-science. But certainly he lacked self-criticism, a major component of good scientific practice.

–> References