In his article “The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science”, which is pretty good, Robert L. Park identifies 7 things which, if encountered, indicate a scientific claim is probably pseudo-science.

In reponse:

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.

One of the reasons this guide to spotting bogus science is useful is because the scientific community generally does a lousy job of communicating with the larger community. Consequently, when the two do come into contact, it’s usually an uneasy and uncertain experience for both sides. More direct publication from scientists to others should happen, and hopefully will in the future. If someone pitches their claim to the media *in exclusion* of presenting it to the peer-review process, that probably is a good sign of sketchiness.

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.

Unfortunatley, that does happen. Scientists do occasionally reject good work that opposes the general paradigm. Such work is rare but not nonexistent. More significantly, with the substantial growth of private funding for science, much good work either never happens because it can’t get sympathetic rich groups to back it financially, or more rarely (think Nancy Olivieri) gets suppressed outright when the findings are against the interests of the funders. If a scientist claims a powerful establishment is trying to suppress their work, it doesn’t mean it’s good work but it doesn’t necessarily mean they are charlatans.

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.

Agree.

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.

If someone is claiming that something should be generally accepted on anectodal evidence, that’s probably bunk, but I frequently here people dismissing an idea outright just because it’s based on such evidence. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t make a claim wrong, it suggests it should be investigated rigorously

5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.

“Ancient folk wisdom, rediscovered or repackaged, is unlikely to match the output of modern scientific laboratories.”

Bullshit. A lot of ancient folk wisdom is superstitious crap, but it seems that often the reason people were willing to accept the crap as genuine is that they are lured into it by the results obtained by some of the none-crap elements. More than half of modern medicines are still synthetic copies of plant-based molecules. Many of those were dug up by “ethnobotanists” who interview groups who have been living in plant-rich areas for centuries.

Summary: much ‘alternative medicine’ is low-effect baloney. Much for-profit pharmacuetical stuff is medium-effect, side-effect laden baloney.

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.

Probably true.

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

99.9999% true.

“A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known.” (emphasis added) is stretching it a bit.