sciuniverse

When someone decides to be a scientist and do science, he must from the very beginning understand what science is. Unfortunately in the philosophy of science there have been many (and now known to be false) definitions of what science is and what is the scientific method employed by the working scientists. One such example is the suggestion of the induction principle as a characteristic ingredient of the scientific method. Nowadays one can find numerous versions of Karl Popper's proof that nothing like the induction principle is needed for one to do science. Instead one creates bold hypotheses, and then tries to falsify them via experiment. This conclusion arises from the logical asymmetry of singular vs. universal statements. For example, a single negative fact/statement can disprove given universal law/statement, however no finite number of positive facts/statements can prove a universal law/statement. Although this is a first step in the right direction of defining what science is, it does not provide insight of how and what you should do to be scientist, because Popper's thesis is dealing with the correspondence between a formal system and the reality, and skips an essential step for testing of the formal system for logical consistency. This is critical because in most cases pseudoscience manifests itself with inherent inconsistencies!

Fortunately in modern physics (and philosophy of science) the answer of what is a scientific method is known, and it has been suggested by the rapid axiomatic development of mathematics itself. Simply science is "to try to construct consistent axiomatic models (toy models) and then test them experimentally if they correspond to physical reality or logically investigate them for unnoticed inconsistencies".

 

Do we really need such a radical definition? And isn't it possible once and for all to prove that a given axiomatic system is consistent? The answer to questions No.1 is "Yes!" and to question No.2 is "No!". As a consequence of a series of incompleteness theorems proved by Kurt Gödel in 1930 it comes out that there exists no universal algorithm that provides answer whether a given statement within a given formal system is provable or not! As a consequence there cannot be a proof of the consistency of a given formal system within the formal system if the system is to be consistent. Thus after the construction of a formal model it is possible to be discovered logical inconsistency of the model, yet it can never be proven that the model is consistent if it is indeed consistent. So this new logical asymmetry requires that one not only tests a constructed toy model by experiment in order to find out its physical applicability, it is also necessary to put the toy model on logical tests for consistency, which will end in a finite time with falsification of the model if the model is inconsistent, yet will never end in case of consistency of the model.

 

Therefore the working scientist must keep these two guidelines in mind:

Guideline 1: The experimental testing of a toy model never ends in case when the model is physically correct, yet it may end in a finite time only if critical falsification occurs.

Guideline 2: The logical testing of a model for logical inconsistencies never ends if the model is mathematically consistent, yet it may end in a finite time if one mathematically proves an inconsistency within the model.

Thus some scientists/experimentalists might produce pseudoscience, if they ignore the mathematical requirement for consistency. Once this is done, and the experimentalist (putative scientist) goes over the limits of consistency, a perpetual vicious circle is originated. Due to the inconsistency of the proposed model the putative scientist can prove/disprove any statement (from inconsistency follows everything). When additionally the experimentalist/pseudoscientist (who is not sensitive for the whole issue of consistency) is not critical for his own work, and he appears within an inconsistent model, it becomes very easy for him to disprove the opponents within his inconsistent model, and inversely “prove” any of his "pet theses". Thus the uncriticality of the pseudoscientist for his own work might lead to fueling of a belief that the others are “provably” wrong, and he is “provably” unappreciated. The future discussion then becomes person oriented, and not science oriented. All irrelevant factors as the social status of the opponent, his personal qualifications, notability in the scientific community, etc. now play a central role in the arguments of the pseudoscientist.

Concluding this discussion with concise answer to the initially posed question might be done in the following fashion: "pseudoscience should be recognized by its proved logical inconsistency, its frequent usage of irrelevant arguments for the main topic, never directly answering to posed questions, and claiming other positions to be wrong without being able to provide answers for the very questions that the alternative theories have failed".

It is worth for a scientist to study in depth what is this thing called mathematical consistency, and if he or she does not feel like studying or reading mathematics, then a good advice is: "Better find yourself another hobby!"
.