--- description: Ask yourself: is it testable? title: This Is the Difference Between Science and Pseudoscience image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt0e60a5aedbdb68b1/69887b37cd1bbab13f6ff2cd/beakers-science-lab-shelf.jpg?branch=production&width=3840&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  * [Ideas](/section/ideas/) ## Ideas Update your preferences in [Account Settings](/account/preferences/) Close # This Is the Difference Between Science and Pseudoscience ## Video: 97 Seconds of Stunning Scenes From the Space Station [Watch (HLS stream): 97 Seconds of Stunning Scenes From the Space Station](https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/VRpZQJEv.m3u8) (1:37)  _Published 2015-10-31. See sights from the orbiting outpost that's been circling earth for a decade and a half_ by [Shane Parrish](/author/shane-parrish/) ## Shane Parrish Update your preferences in [Account Settings](/account/preferences/) Close Feb 1, 2016 1:00 PM CUT  Beakers with solution on shelf in lab Beakers with solution on shelf in labGetty Images by [Shane Parrish](/author/shane-parrish/) ## Shane Parrish Update your preferences in [Account Settings](/account/preferences/) Close Feb 1, 2016 1:00 PM CUT It’s not immediately clear, to the layman, what the essential difference is between science and something masquerading as science: [pseudoscience](https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2015/11/cargo-cult-science/ "undefined"). The distinction gets at the core of what comprises human knowledge: How do we actually know something to be true? Is it simply because our powers of observation tell us so? Or is there more to it? Sir **Karl Popper**, the [scientific philosopher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl%5FPopper "undefined"), was interested in the same problem. How do we actually define the scientific process? How do we know which theories can be said to be truly explanatory? He began addressing it in a lecture, which is printed in the book [Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415285941/ref=as%5Fli%5Fqf%5Fsp%5Fasin%5Fil%5Ftl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0415285941&linkCode=as2&tag=farnamstreet-20&linkId=6SUQJB3QRMTRMNDF "undefined") (also available [online](http://xxsy.library.nenu.edu.cn/pluginfile.php/1066/mod%5Fresource/content/1/%5BKarl%5FPopper%5D%5FConjectures%5Fand%5FRefutations%5FThe%5FGro%28Bookos.org%29%20%281%29.pdf "undefined")): --- > “” --- Popper saw a problem with the number of theories he considered _non-scientific_ that, on their surface, seemed to have a lot in common with good, hard, rigorous science. But the question of how we decide which theories are compatible with the scientific method, and those which are not, was harder than it seemed. \*\*\* It is most common to say that science is done by collecting observations and grinding out theories from them. Charles Darwin once said, [after working long and hard](https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2016/01/charles-darwin-thinker/ "undefined") at the problem of the [Origin of Species](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0451529065/ref=as%5Fli%5Fqf%5Fsp%5Fasin%5Fil%5Ftl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0451529065&linkCode=as2&tag=farnamstreet-20&linkId=GHZAE7BSIU7KIVKV "undefined"), --- > “” --- This is a popularly accepted notion. We observe, observe, and observe, and we look for theories to best _explain_ the mass of facts. (Although even this is not really true: Popper points out that we must start with some _a priori_ knowledge to be able to generate new knowledge. Observation is always done with some hypotheses in mind–we can’t understand the world from a totally blank slate. More on that another time.) The problem, as Popper saw it, is that some bodies of knowledge more properly named **pseudosciences** would be considered scientific if the “Observe & Deduce” operating definition were left alone. For example, a believing astrologist can ably provide you with “evidence” that their theories are sound. The biographical information of a great many people can be explained this way, they’d say. The astrologist would tell you, for example, about how “Leos” seek to be the center of attention; ambitious, strong, seeking limelight. As proof, they might follow up with a host of real-life Leos: World-leaders, celebrities, politicians, and so on. In some sense, the theory would hold up. The observations could be explained by the theory, which is how science works, right? Sir Karl ran into this problem in a concrete way because he lived during a time when psychoanalytic theories were all the rage at just the same time Einstein was laying out a new foundation for the physical sciences with the concept of relativity. What made Popper uncomfortable were _comparisons between the two_. Why did he feel so uneasy putting [Marxist](https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2015/12/the-effect-of-scale-on-values/ "undefined") theories and [Freudian psychology](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1484156803/ref=as%5Fli%5Fqf%5Fsp%5Fasin%5Fil%5Ftl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1484156803&linkCode=as2&tag=farnamstreet-20&linkId=ZPTDKKMAIDYGRHD3 "undefined") in the same category of knowledge as Einstein’s [Relativity](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691166331/ref=as%5Fli%5Fqf%5Fsp%5Fasin%5Fil%5Ftl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0691166331&linkCode=as2&tag=farnamstreet-20&linkId=GIKOTKJGPWAE7CR5 "undefined")? Did all three not have vast explanatory power in the world? Each theory’s proponents certainly believed so, but Popper was not satisfied. --- > “” --- Here was the salient problem: The proponents of these new sciences saw validations and verifications of their theories everywhere. If you were having trouble as an adult, it could _always_ be explained by something your mother or father had done to you when you were young, some repressed something-or-other that hadn’t been analyzed and solved. They were [confirmation bias](https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2011/08/mental-model-confirmation-bias/ "undefined") machines. What was the missing element? Popper had figured it out before long: The non-scientific theories could not be _falsified_. They were not _testable_ in a legitimate way. There was no possible objection that could be raised which would show the theory to be wrong. In a true science, the following statement can be easily made: “If _x_ happens, it would show demonstrably that theory _y_ is not true.” We can then design an experiment, a physical one or sometimes a simple thought experiment, to figure out if _x_ actually does happen_._ It’s the opposite of looking for verification; you must try to show the theory is _incorrect_, and if you fail to do so, thereby _strengthen_ it. Pseudosciences cannot and do not do this–they are not strong enough to hold up. As an example, Popper discussed Freud’s [theories of the mind](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067960166X/ref=as%5Fli%5Fqf%5Fsp%5Fasin%5Fil%5Ftl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=067960166X&linkCode=as2&tag=farnamstreet-20&linkId=CMT6RJQDMVH22UFU "undefined") in relation to Alfred Adler’s so-called “[individual psychology](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1578989841/ref=as%5Fli%5Fqf%5Fsp%5Fasin%5Fil%5Ftl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1578989841&linkCode=as2&tag=farnamstreet-20&linkId=ENE46IVNFYR3HMHC "undefined"),” which was popular at the time: --- > “” --- Popper contrasted these theories against Relativity, which made specific, verifiable predictions, giving the conditions under which the predictions _could be shown false_. It turned out that Einstein’s predictions came to be **true** when tested, thus verifying the theory through attempts to falsify it. But the essential nature of the theory gave grounds under which it could have been wrong. To this day, physicists seek to figure out where Relativity _breaks down_ in order to come to a more fundamental understanding of physical reality. And while the theory may eventually be proven incomplete or a special case of a more general phenomenon, it has still made accurate, testable predictions that have led to practical breakthroughs. Thus, in Popper’s words, science requires testability: _“If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted.”_ This means a good theory must have an element of **risk** to it. It must be able to be proven wrong under stated conditions. From there, Popper laid out his **essential conclusions**, which are useful to any thinker trying to figure out if a theory they hold dear is something that can be put in the scientific realm: --- > “” --- Finally, Popper was careful to say that it is not possible to prove that Freudianism was _not_ _true_, at least in part. But we _can_ say that we simply don’t _know_ whether it’s true, because it does not make **specific testable predictions**. It may have many kernels of truth in it, but we can’t tell. The theory would have to be restated. This is the essential **“line of** **demarcation**,**“** as Popper called it, between science and pseudoscience. **_This piece originally appeared on_** [**_Farnam Street_**](https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2016/01/karl-popper-on-science-pseudoscience/ "undefined")**_._** _You do want to get smarter, don’t you? Connect with Farnam Street on_ [_Facebook_](https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/fbtime "undefined") _and_ [_Twitter_](https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/ttime "undefined") _for more insight._ **Join over 70,000+ readers and get a free weekly update via email** [**here**](http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/newsletter/ "undefined")**.** ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/4198966/pseudoscience/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/4198966/pseudoscience/"},"headline":"This Is the Difference Between Science and Pseudoscience","datePublished":"2016-02-01T13:00:34.000Z","dateModified":"2026-03-31T09:09:32.083Z","description":"Ask yourself: is it testable?","url":"https://time.com/4198966/pseudoscience/","keywords":["Science topic"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt0e60a5aedbdb68b1/69887b37cd1bbab13f6ff2cd/beakers-science-lab-shelf.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Shane Parrish","jobTitle":"","url":"https://time.com/author/shane-parrish/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt0e60a5aedbdb68b1/69887b37cd1bbab13f6ff2cd/beakers-science-lab-shelf.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"beakers-science-lab-shelf","caption":"beakers-science-lab-shelf","creditText":"Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/4198966/pseudoscience/","name":"This Is the Difference Between Science and Pseudoscience"}}]},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"VideoObject","name":"Challenger: The Science of a Shuttle Disaster","description":"TIME's Senior Editor Jeffrey Kluger explains the science behind the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster","thumbnailUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/v2/media/bnipliOt/poster.jpg?width=720","uploadDate":"2016-01-28T09:23:35.000Z","contentUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/bnipliOt.m3u8","embedUrl":"https://time.com/4198966/pseudoscience/","duration":"PT3M26S","potentialAction":{"@type":"SeekToAction","target":"https://time.com/4198966/pseudoscience/?jw_start={seek_to_second_number}","startOffset-input":"required name=seek_to_second_number"}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"VideoObject","name":"97 Seconds of Stunning Scenes From the Space Station","description":"See sights from the orbiting outpost that's been circling earth for a decade and a half","thumbnailUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/v2/media/VRpZQJEv/poster.jpg?width=720","uploadDate":"2015-10-31T20:48:48.000Z","contentUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/VRpZQJEv.m3u8","embedUrl":"https://time.com/4198966/pseudoscience/","duration":"PT1M37S","potentialAction":{"@type":"SeekToAction","target":"https://time.com/4198966/pseudoscience/?jw_start={seek_to_second_number}","startOffset-input":"required name=seek_to_second_number"}}] ```