Pseudoscience

Definition:
Claims that appear scientific but don’t follow scientific principles. They lack safeguards against confirmation bias and belief perseverance.

Features of Scientific Scepticism

• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
• Testable predictions
• Generalisability
• Replicability
• Ruling out rival hypotheses

4 Key Principles of Scientific Practice

• Integration of research & practice
• Critical evaluation and application
• Continual learning
• Ethical and effective interventions

Research–Practice Integration

Evidence-based practice:
Every decision, intervention, and therapeutic method must be grounded in scientific evidence.

Real-life example:
HERE.org.au — Online suicide prevention hub for LGBTQIA+ youth
Supported by ACON’s 2022 Scoping Review.

Critical Evaluation of Research

Steps

1. Articulate a clear research question/hypothesis
2. Identify type of data needed (primary vs secondary)
3. Assess data quality (reliability, validity, <10 years old)
4. Evaluate relevance to research question
5. Check consistency across sources and time periods

5 Strategies to Sharpen Critical Thinking

1. Be flexible — avoid confirmation bias
2. Embrace complexity & nuance
3. Practice intellectual humility
4. Check sources
5. Avoid fallacies (strawman, ad hominem)

How to Think Critically

• Question: Who is making the claim?
• Explore: Seek reliable sources
• Assess: Credibility, bias, expertise
• Simplify: Break down arguments logically
• Engage: Consider opposing viewpoints
• Integrate: Combine information for deep understanding
• Conclude: Based on evidence
• Communicate: Clear, logical, evidence-based
• Reflect: On your own bias
• Practice: Strengthen thinking skills over time

Scientist vs Practitioner Mindsets

Scientist:

• Evaluate study design
• Assess quality of measures
• Judge if conclusions are supported
• Check contribution to literature

Practitioner:

• Assess generalisability to diverse groups
• Evaluate real-world relevance
• Determine implications for assessment/diagnosis/treatment
• Consider policy & future research
• Check whether limitations are acknowledged

Science vs Pseudoscience

Science

Real evidence, testable predictions, peer review.

Pseudoscience

Lacks evidence, untestable claims, resists criticism.

Types of Pseudoscience

• Ad Hoc Immunising Hypotheses:
  Excuses added after-the-fact to prevent falsification
• Exaggerated Claims:
  Outlandish, unsupported (e.g., alkaline water cures everything)
• Anecdotes > Evidence:
  Personal stories instead of peer-reviewed data
• Lack of critical examination:
  No connection to broader research

Ethical Practice

• Confidentiality
• Informed consent
• Minimise harm, maximise benefit

Correlation vs Causation

Correlation =/= causation
(We don’t infer cause from simple associations.)

WEIRD Populations

Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic
Psychology over-relies on these samples.

6 Major Theoretical Frameworks

Structuralism

Introspection + structure of consciousness
Wundt, Titchener

Functionalism

Purpose of mental processes
William James

Behaviourism

Observable behaviour; conditioning
Watson, Skinner

Cognitive

Mind as information processor
Neisser, Miller, Piaget

Psychoanalysis

Unconscious conflicts; childhood
Freud

Humanistic

Goodness, free will, self-actualisation
Rogers, Maslow

Levels of Psychological Analysis

• Molecular
• Neurochemical
• Physiological
• Mental
• Behavioural
• Social

Key Challenges in Psychology

• Human behaviour is multiply determined
• Causes interact
• Individual differences
• Reciprocal determinism
• Cultural influences
• Naïve realism

Thin-slice Judgments

5-second impressions often surprisingly accurate

Scientific Theory

Broad explanation integrating findings, generates testable predictions.

Theories vs Hypotheses

Theory → broad framework
Hypothesis → specific, testable prediction

Biases

Confirmation Bias

Seeking info that supports existing beliefs.

Belief Perseverance

Clinging to beliefs despite contradictory evidence.

Warning Signs of Pseudoscience

• Ad hoc immunising
• Lack of self-correction
• Reliance on anecdotes
• No connection to broader literature

Logical Fallacies

• Appeal to authority
• Genetic fallacy
• Argument from antiquity
• Adverse consequences fallacy
• Bandwagon fallacy