Читать книгу The Research Experience - Ann Sloan Devlin - Страница 21

Pseudoscientific thinking involves reference to a theory or method that is without scientific support. What we are thinking about may be called science, but it may have no scientific basis, and it is not based on the scientific method. Shermer notes, “Scientific language does not make a science” (p. 49). It is tempting to use words that sound impressive and appear in a discipline, even when no convincing explanation of their meaning or importance is provided. What’s better than coming up with a new term, especially with your name linked to it? Social science is replete with such terms. The use of scientific terms is not necessarily incorrect, but what is a problem is the use of terms without an explanation of their meaning in everyday language.

Pseudoscientific thinking: Involves reference to a theory or method that is without scientific support.

Furthermore, using such words without supporting evidence and confirmation is an example of pseudoscientific thinking. In the area of health care research, for example, many architects now use the term evidence-based design to describe their work. Without a clear understanding of what that terms means, and what qualifies as credible evidence (e.g., subjective measures such as patients’ self-reports? Objective measures such as vital signs, levels of pain medication, and recovery time?), simply using that phrase makes designers sound more authoritative than they actually are. The use of a term in a discipline without an explanation of its meaning or clear indication of how the term is operationalized (i.e., how it is being measured) creates misunderstanding.