Gatekeepers Matrix

This matrix does not contain all of even the bare essentials for the discussion of distinguishing science from pseudoscience, but it may nevertheless be helpful in studying the material.

The only proposals listed are those made under the assumption that "science is a race for the Truth, with starters sharply distinguished from non-starters." So Kitcher's proposed criteria in Chapter 2 of his book Abusing Science are not featured in this matrix.

Alleged Pseudoscience Theory, or Branch of Inquiry? Proposed Gatekeeper: "... is a pseudoscience because ..." Fair? Generalizes appropriately? Other Comments

Astrology Theory

it originated in ancient religious beliefs

Yes No, the historical origin of a theory has no necessary connection to its quality. Astronomy must have originated in the same way.

it is stagnant No, astrology did adapt to the discoveries of the telescope. No, a wholly successful theory would not need to change.

there is no known physical mechanism for the influences it alleges No, the idea that weak forces may have profound influences should not simply be dismissed. No, science often pursues the as-yet unexplained

it is not testable No, it is based on observation, makes many clear predictions and is not to blame for its misuse by some astrologers. No, while testability may be a necessary condition for a good explanation, it is clearly not sufficient. See 13. on the Intuition Inventory for an example of an untestable hypothesis.

Phrenology Theory

it lacks the social role definitive of science No, it had such a role in the early 1800's. No, social role is a matter of political, not explanatory, power.

it is not systematic No, it has many of the virtues to at least a modest degree. Yes, but it can't be used yet since it conflicts with the assumption above, which suggests that assumption is incorrect. See Kitcher, Chapter 2, for another way of putting this criterion.

Parapsychology Branch of Inquiry

its subject defining concept lacks clear definition No, paranormal phenomena can be at least partially defined. No, all branches of science suffer from some vagueness in basic concepts.

what it seeks to investigate is known to be physically impossible No, no one has shown paranormal phenomena are inconsistent with the laws of nature. No, showing that something is impossible can be a scientific achievement.

it ignores The Scientific Method No, good inductive and deductive reasoning are expected. No, it seems there are many methods in science and no one method that defines it.

Scientific Creationism Theory

its explanations go beyond the proper domain of science

NA

NA it's circular!

it seeks to investigate the ultimate origins of the universe

Yes No, cosmology seeks this too.

it uses purpose-directed explanations (of extraordinary events)

Yes No, biology and psychology use such explanations, too. The explanatory needs of biology and psychology are discussed in more depth later.

it is not guided by natural law; is unfalsifiable; and is dogmatically held No, it is clearly falsifiable and not always dogmatically held No, science often pursues the as-yet unexplained, falsifiability is too weak a criterion, and how a theory is held by its proponents is irrelevant.

New Age ???

it is based on an absurd misuse of purpose-directed explanation or is often driven by profit motive

Yes! No, the proposal mirrors New Age-ism's incoherence without explaining much. New Age-ism's misuse of purpose-directed explanation is worse than Scientific Creationism's

UFOlogy Branch of Inquiry

we know that it is very unlikely that alien spacecraft have visited Earth maybe - the odds are difficult to determine No, it still raises important questions about the nature of life and its place in the universe.

Sexology Branch of Inquiry

we know that its information sources are highly unreliable ...

Yes No, this just makes doing good science more difficult, not impossible. See Lewontin's comment

Chinese Super-Acupuncture Theory

is science because it makes very accurate predictions in its intended domain and is therefore very useful

Yes

NA presented to refute the idea that utility or predictive accuracy alone make for a good explanation

Chaos "theory" Branch of Inquiry

is science because it is governed by a paradigm

?

? paradigm is too obscure to yield any useful gatekeeper

Alleged Pseudoscience	Theory, or Branch of Inquiry?	Proposed Gatekeeper: "... is a pseudoscience because ..."	Fair?	Generalizes appropriately?	Other Comments
Astrology	Theory	it originated in ancient religious beliefs	Yes	No, the historical origin of a theory has no necessary connection to its quality.	Astronomy must have originated in the same way.
it is stagnant	No, astrology did adapt to the discoveries of the telescope.	No, a wholly successful theory would not need to change.
there is no known physical mechanism for the influences it alleges	No, the idea that weak forces may have profound influences should not simply be dismissed.	No, science often pursues the as-yet unexplained
it is not testable	No, it is based on observation, makes many clear predictions and is not to blame for its misuse by some astrologers.	No, while testability may be a necessary condition for a good explanation, it is clearly not sufficient.	See 13. on the Intuition Inventory for an example of an untestable hypothesis.
Phrenology	Theory	it lacks the social role definitive of science	No, it had such a role in the early 1800's.	No, social role is a matter of political, not explanatory, power.
it is not systematic	No, it has many of the virtues to at least a modest degree.	Yes, but it can't be used yet since it conflicts with the assumption above, which suggests that assumption is incorrect.	See Kitcher, Chapter 2, for another way of putting this criterion.
Parapsychology	Branch of Inquiry	its subject defining concept lacks clear definition	No, paranormal phenomena can be at least partially defined.	No, all branches of science suffer from some vagueness in basic concepts.
what it seeks to investigate is known to be physically impossible	No, no one has shown paranormal phenomena are inconsistent with the laws of nature.	No, showing that something is impossible can be a scientific achievement.
it ignores The Scientific Method	No, good inductive and deductive reasoning are expected.	No, it seems there are many methods in science and no one method that defines it.
Scientific Creationism	Theory	its explanations go beyond the proper domain of science	NA	NA	it's circular!
it seeks to investigate the ultimate origins of the universe	Yes	No, cosmology seeks this too.
it uses purpose-directed explanations (of extraordinary events)	Yes	No, biology and psychology use such explanations, too.	The explanatory needs of biology and psychology are discussed in more depth later.
it is not guided by natural law; is unfalsifiable; and is dogmatically held	No, it is clearly falsifiable and not always dogmatically held	No, science often pursues the as-yet unexplained, falsifiability is too weak a criterion, and how a theory is held by its proponents is irrelevant.
New Age	???	it is based on an absurd misuse of purpose-directed explanation or is often driven by profit motive	Yes!	No, the proposal mirrors New Age-ism's incoherence without explaining much.	New Age-ism's misuse of purpose-directed explanation is worse than Scientific Creationism's
UFOlogy	Branch of Inquiry	we know that it is very unlikely that alien spacecraft have visited Earth	maybe - the odds are difficult to determine	No, it still raises important questions about the nature of life and its place in the universe.
Sexology	Branch of Inquiry	we know that its information sources are highly unreliable ...	Yes	No, this just makes doing good science more difficult, not impossible.	See Lewontin's comment
Chinese Super-Acupuncture	Theory	is science because it makes very accurate predictions in its intended domain and is therefore very useful	Yes	NA	presented to refute the idea that utility or predictive accuracy alone make for a good explanation
Chaos "theory"	Branch of Inquiry	is science because it is governed by a paradigm	?	?	paradigm is too obscure to yield any useful gatekeeper

2001 David F. Austin

Back to: Lessons on Gatekeeping