The surest way to distinguish what is real from what is not is to know as much as possible about the real thing. This does not mean memorizing scientific facts, like the distance of the sun from the earth, or formulas and algorithms. Rather it means understanding the true nature o science—the criteria of evidence, the design of meaningful experiments, the weighing of possibilities, the testing of hypotheses, the establishment of theories, and the many aspects of scientific methods that make it possible to draw reliable conclusions about the physical universe.

Distinguishing pseudoscience from real science is extremely important now that we are in the middle of the information age and we are bombarded by information from mass media. We should exercise our critical thinking faculties, and not accept everything that we see, hear or read in newspapers and on television and the radio as gospel truth. Even the internet can lead us astray into believing things that turn out to be untrue.

The following are some tips on how to distinguish pseudoscience from the real thing. These are, however, warning signs that tell you to turn your thinking cap on.

Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation. Let us take a hypothetical example. Joey puts jello on his head and his headache goes away. To pseudoscience, this means that jello cures headaches. To science, this means nothing since no experiment was done. Many things were going on when Joey’s headache went away—the moon was full, a bird flew overhead, the window was open, Joey was on his red shirt, etc.—and his headache would have gone away eventually in any case, no matter what. A controlled experiment would have put many people suffering from headaches in identical circumstances, except for the presence or absence of the remedy it is desired to test, and compare the results which would then have some chance of being meaningful. Consider this. Many people think there must be something to astrology because a newspaper horoscope describes them perfectly. But close examination would reveal that the description is general enough to cover virtually everyone. This phenomenon, called subjective validation, is one of the foundations of popular support for pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none exists, by omitting crucial information and important details. Anything could be “mysterious” by omitting what is known about it or presenting completely imaginary details. The “Bermuda Triangle” books are classic examples of this tactic.

Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all. Listeners are often forced to interpret the statement according to their own preconceptions. For example, what is “biocosmic energy?” or a “psychotronic amplification system?” Pseudoscientists often attempt to imitate the jargon of scientific and technical fields by spouting gibberish that sounds scientific and technical. Quack “healers” would be lost without the term “energy,” but their use of the term has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of energy used by physicists. (Special Thanks to Mr NB Isaga)