Читать книгу Social Work Research Methods - Reginald O. York - Страница 61

Pseudoscience presents the appearance of science but lacks a scientific basis (Thyer & Pignotti, 2015). An assertion of an idea based on pseudoscience may provide tables and charts that are behind the idea presented, but these tables and charts have not been validated by scientific studies. Another characteristic of pseudoscience is the reliance only on anecdotal evidence to support the idea or theory. Anecdotal evidence is the use of single examples that fit one’s theory. But anecdotal evidence is quite weak and is not considered to be a legitimate basis for scientific inquiry. You can find an example to prove just about any point you make. Science is based on the systematic review of many facts, not just a few examples.

Another characteristic of claims based on pseudoscience is a tendency to cherry-pick facts to fit the theory rather than make an objective examination of all facts relevant to the theory. One of the red flags of pseudoscience is a profound claim of effectiveness. You have heard the statement “If something seems to be too good to be true, it probably is not true.” Solutions based on pseudoscience often claim greatness in the absence of scientific evidence of any effectiveness at all.

Advocates of approaches that are in the category of pseudoscience usually are not inclined to engage in serious scientific work to test the approach, and these people will work hard to make excuses when evidence is produced that refutes the theory. The approach of science is to put the burden of proof on the researcher, to prove that an assertion is correct. The approach of the advocate for pseudoscience is to reverse the burden of proof and claim that the new approach should be considered correct until science clearly proves that it is not.

A good source on this topic is the book Science and Pseudoscience by Thyer and Pignotti (2015). You can see in this book a discussion of many treatment approaches that fall into the category of pseudoscience. For example, you will find information on Reiki assessment, thought field therapy, neurolinguistics programming, holding therapy for children, and militaristic boot camps for youth. There are many more. These are just a few examples.

If you see a model of practice that has met the criteria for being pseudoscience, you do not necessarily have evidence that this practice is effective or that it is not effective. Instead, you have information suggesting that there is a lack of evidence of its effectiveness. You also have information suggesting that the basis for the claim of success is not consistent with a scientific basis for decision making. It may be effective but without evidence to prove it. It may be ineffective. In fact, it may even be harmful. We will not know unless we have full evidence.

There have been treatments that have been found, through scientific evidence, to be harmful. An example is the Scared Straight approach to the prevention of delinquency. This program exposes at-risk youth to the perils of prison life by taking them to prison for the day and having them listen to the messages of the prisoners about how bad prison life is. The assumption of this program is that this exposure will scare these youth sufficiently to cause them to avoid a life of crime. The results, however, have shown that it makes things worse. Here is the plain language summary of a review of many studies of this program:

Programs such as “Scared Straight” involve organized visits to prison facilities by juvenile delinquents or children at risk for becoming delinquent. The programs are designed to deter participants from future offending by providing firsthand observations of prison life and interaction with adult inmates. This review, which is an update of one published in 2002, includes nine studies that involved 946 teenagers, almost all males. The studies were conducted in different parts of the USA and involved young people of different races whose average age ranged from 15 to 17 years. Results indicate that not only do these programs fail to deter crime, but they actually lead to more offending behavior. The intervention increases the odds of offending by between 1.6 to 1 and 1.7 to 1. Government officials permitting this program need to adopt rigorous evaluation efforts to ensure that they are not causing more harm to the very citizens they pledge to protect. (Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino, Hollis-Peel, & Lavenberg, 2013)

In Figure 1.2, you can see a graphic depiction of how pseudoscience sometimes convinces people of the credibility of a practice that does not deserve it.

What should you do if you see a claim about a practice that might be based on pseudoscience? You should find evidence with regard to the approach that you see advocated. A quick review of literature databases can reveal if there is such evidence and what the evidence shows. If you fail to find evidence, this should not be interpreted to mean that a given service is not effective. But if there is no evidence, why should you embrace it in view of the fact there are likely many alternatives that have been subjected to scientific testing? And, of course, if there have been a lot of studies with consistent negative findings, you should see this as clear evidence that this is not a good approach to service.

Description

Figure 1.2 ■ Making the Felonious Case for Scared Straight

Keep in mind that science relies on relevant facts, objectively reviewed, on a carefully articulated question. You can review evidence about a particular question through a review of literature databases that will show you articles that have examined the particular question scientifically.