Hoaxes

• A hoax is false information created by the person perpetrating the hoax. It could be just for fun like an April Fool’s Day joke. It can also be for monetary gain or to promote a political agenda. Once a hoax starts to gather media attention, however, it will usually be quickly debunked.
• Hoaxes often cite information from a source that is hard to reach or one that doesn’t exist. In the case of the later, it is usually very difficult to prove that a fictional source doesn’t exist. Hoaxers often cite anonymous sources such as “government insiders” or as someone who needs to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. Look for claims of physical evidence that is not made publicly available. Non traditional news sources are also more likely to feature hoaxes. (Doug: I have to recognize that some of my fellow bloggers fall into this category.)

Pseudoscience

• Deniers often resort to pseudoscience to make and support their claims. Hallmarks of pseudoscience are: lack of scientific method, confusing correlation with causation, lack of control groups,lack of blind subjects and researchers, results that aren’t reproducible, cherry-picking data to a predetermined conclusion, and falsifying data outright. Loren devotes this longest chapter to pseudoscience as it is incredibly varied, potentially complex, and more sophisticated than your average Internet conspiracy theory. He even cites three Noble prize winners who dabbled in it outside of the field where they won their prizes. The areas include: alternative medicine, UFOs, paranormal powers, ghosts and angels, mythical animals, and beliefs than deny evolution and promote a young Earth.

Pseudohistory

• If trying to prove the existence of UFOs is pseudoscience, suggesting that historic events were impacted by UFOs is pseudohistory. Historical revisionism involves the rejection of orthodox beliefs about history in favor of a more novel theory. It can be legitimate scholarship if it is based on new reliable evidence. A prominent example is Holocaust denial.
• When trying to spot pseudohistory, first look at the credentials of the person putting forth a revisionist history. Chances are their academic preparation is not in a field associated with history. In history, the available evidence either supports a certain view or it doesn’t. Claims that rest on conspiracies or coverups are not used by serious historians. The entire swath of evidence needs to be considered and not just an anomaly or a minor point. Pseudohistorians usually have an agenda and it is often on display in a surprising naked manner. Also watch out for ancient historical beliefs that are often cluttered with myths and unfounded beliefs.

Share this: