It is easy to be duped by advertisements broadcasting the next big scientific remedy to all life’s problems — the pitch can sound so convincing.
The trouble comes when this convincing pitch has no factual evidence to back it up.
When science is proposed without legitimate facts as support, it can be referred to as pseudoscience, or alternative science.
These alleged fixes have been around for centuries, but only in these days of more publicized scientific research have people been able to separate the legitimate from the hoaxes.
Dr. Joe Schwarcz, director of McGill University’s Office for Science and Society, brought up a popular instance of repeated pseudoscience: the alleged “cure for cancer.”
Schwarcz explained that in the Middle Ages, tumours were thought to resemble a crab, so doctors would place one directly on the tumour, leave it for a while, then remove and kill it.
The thought was that the tumor would have formed an interdependence with the sea creature, and thus be killed with it.
Some would think such remedies would have been ruled out since then, but it is easier to be fooled into alleged scientific advancements than one would think.
David Harpp, one of Schwarcz’s colleagues in McGill’s science department, said, “If you or I had chronic pain, we might surprise ourselves as to what quackery we might try.”
It is important to research these so-called discoveries thoroughly before giving them merit to avoid being misled.
“When controversial issues arise, people are left to flounder in a sea of media accounts, buffeted back and forth between reassurances of safety and prophecies of doom,” Schwarcz said.
The result is confusion as to who to trust and what is real, which is then capitalized on by people selling simple “solutions” at a high price.
A modern example of this false science is iridology, which claims to be able to diagnose a variety of diseases by examining the coloured (iris) part of the eye, according to Schwarcz.
The problem is that these supposed diseases are only curable through nutritional supplements sold by the iridologist.
Schwarcz said most wrongful beliefs are fairly harmless, “but beliefs about diagnosing disease by looking into the iris of the eye, or avoiding cooked food because it has been robbed of its enzymes, or curing cancer with coffee enemas, are not harmless.”
But there is hope for those without mounds of scientific knowledge.
There are organizations out there working to unveil inaccuracies.
The Association for Science and Reason, active in Toronto, works to reveal and discuss claims of little evidence and reason that attempt to masquerade as science.
Similarly, there is the Sense about Science organization, centered in the United Kingdom., whose goal is to stop the “well-funded bullies who want to silence criticism,” according to managing director Tracy Brown.
It is important to view the media with an inquisitive eye to avoid such scams as those found in pseudoscience.
“Familiarity with science allows us to look at the world in a different light. It allows us to be logical in our convictions, rational in our fears, realistic in our hopes and reasonable in our decisions,” Schwarcz said.