Scientific Thinking: Its History, Methods, and Advantages

  • C. S. Wallis
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 546)


Philosophers and scientists often dismiss complementary and alternative medicine as “pseudoscience.” In applying the pseudoscience moniker they often intend to suggest that the beliefs and practices of complementary and alternative medicine are as irrational as a fear of flying, as effective as a rabbit’s foot, and as pretentiously deceptive as a mongrel in a dog show. Many people in western society have come to think of science as the deity of reason and pseudoscience is its doppelganger. In this paper I wish to offer a less bipolar view of science and pseudoscience wherein one sees science and pseudoscience as sometimes overlapping partitions on a continuum between utopic rational inquiry and chaotic irrationality. My thesis does not represent a diminution of science, nor an exultation of pseudoscience. Rather, I portray pseudoscientific beliefs and practices as resulting from human, but nevertheless unacceptable, hypotheses, evidence standards, and innate judgment mechanisms. Likewise, science while striving towards laudable intellectual standards should not be thought of as an epistemic authority before which one must unthinkingly genuflect.


Scientific Theory Placebo Effect Scientific Thinking Scientific Misconduct Placebo Control Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R. Giere, Understanding Scientific Reasoning. 4th ed. 1996, New York, NY: Holt Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Arbuthnott, An Argument for Divine Providence, Taken From the Constant Regularity Observ’d in the Births of Both Sexes. 1710.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. Hacking, Logic of Statistical Inference. 1965, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Mill, A System of Logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive. 1843.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Gavarret, Principes Généraux de Statistique Médicale. 1840.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Venn, Comment. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1888. 82: p. 130–131.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. Hogben, Statistical Theory: The Relationship of Probability, Credibility, and Error; An Examination of the Contemporary Crisis in Statistical Theory From a Behaviourist Viewpoint. 1968, New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Beaven, Discussion on Dr. Neyman’s Paper. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 1935. Supplement 2: p. 159–161.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Fisher, Statistical Methods for Research Workers. 1925, London: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Neyman and E. Pearson, On the Problem of the Most Efficient Tests of Statistical Hypotheses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 1933a. 231: p. 289–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Neyman and E. Pearson, The Testing of Statistical Hypotheses in Relation to Probabilities A Priori. Proceedings of Cambridge Philosophical Society, 1933b. 20: p. 492–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Neyman and E. Pearson, The Use of the Concept of Power in Agricultural Experimentation. Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, 1933c. 9: p. 9–17.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Poincaré, La Science et L’hypothèse (Science and Hypothesis). 1905, Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Poincaré, La valeur de la Science (The Value of Science). 1907, Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Poincaré, Science and Méthode (Science and Method). 1914, Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Poincaré, Dernières Pensées (Mathematics and Science: Last Essays). 1963, Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. Popper, Logik der Forschung (The Logic of Scientific Discovery). 1935, Vienna: Julius Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Gould, The Mismeasure of Man. 1981, New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Watson, Psychology as the Behaviorist Views it. Psychological Review, 1913. 20: p. 158–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Shapiro and E. Shapiro, The Powerful Placebo: From Ancient Priest to Modern Physician. 1997, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    W. Jevons, The Principles of Science: A Treatise on Logic and the Scientific Method. 1874, New York, NY: Macmillian.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    H. Beecher, The Powerful Placebo. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1955. 159: p. 1602–1606.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. Dodes, The Mysterious Placebo. Skeptical Inquirer, 1997. 21: p. 44–45.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    G. Kienle and H. Kiene, The Powerful Placebo Effect: Fact or Fiction? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1997. 50: p. 1311–1318.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    National_Sleep_Foundation, 2002 Sleep in America Poll. 2002, National Sleep Foundation: Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    C. Hart, The Mysterious Placebo Effect. Modern Drug Discovery, 1999. 2: p. 30–40.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    D. Price and H. Fields, The Contribution of Desire and Expectation to Placebo Analgesia: Implications for New Research Strategies, in The Placebo Effect: An Interdisciplinary Exploration, A. Harrington, Editor. 1997, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. p. 117–137.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    I. Kirsch, Specifying Nonspecifics: Psychological Mechanisms of Placebo Effects, in The Placebo Effect: An Interdisciplinary Exploration, A. Harrington, Editor. 1997, Harvard University Press: Cambrdige, MA. p. 166–186.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    D. Cherkin, et al., A Review of the Evidence for the Effectiveness, Safety, and Cost of Acupuncture, Massage Therapy, and Spinal Manipulation for Back Pain. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2003. 138: p. 898–906.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    A. Leuchter, et al., Changes in Brain Function of Depressed Subjects During Treatment With Placebo. American Journal of Psychiatry, 2002. 159: p. 122–129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    L. Ross, M. Lepper, and M. Hubbard, Perseverance in Self-Perception and Social Perception: Biased Attributional Processes in the Debriefing Paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975. 32: p. 880–892.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    I. Lakatos, The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Volume 1 : Philosophical Papers, ed. J. Worrall and G. Currie. Vol. 1. 1980, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    P. Gold, L. Cahill, and G. Wenk, Ginkgo Biloba: A Cognitive Enhancer? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2002. 3(1): p. 2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    D. Buzzelli, The Definition of Misconduct in Science: A View from NSF. Science, 1993. 259: p. 584–585, 647–648.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    E. Staff, Conduct Unbecoming. New Scientist, 2002. 176: p. 3.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    E. Staff, Learning From Scientific Misconduct. Nature Medicine, 1997. 3: p. 1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    D. Radner and M. Radner, Science and Unreason. 1982, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    T. Gilovich, How We Know What Isn’t So. 1993, New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    C. Jung, The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, ed. G. Adler and M. Fordham. 2000, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Healing_Touch_International. 2003, Healing Touch International.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    R. Schafer, ed. Basic Chiropractic Procedural Manual. Fourth ed. 1984, American Chiropractic Association: Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    M. Piattelli-Palmarini, Inevitable Illusions : How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds. 1996, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    G. Sparks and M. Pellechia, The Effect of News Stories About UFOs onRreaders’ UFO Beliefs: The Role of Confirming or Disconfirming Testimony From a Scientist. Communication Reports, 1997. 10 (2): p. 165–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. S. Wallis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyCalifornia State University, Long BeachLong BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations