Hard Problem of Science & Pseudoscience

The problem of motivation, not method. Both can use data, jargon, and peer review (see creation "science"). The core difference might be the attitude toward evidence: science seeks to test and potentially disprove its ideas; pseudoscience seeks to defend a preordained conclusion. The hard problem is that this is a psychological distinction about the practitioners, not a methodological one. You can't look at a paper and always tell. A bad scientist (cherry-picking data) is using pseudoscientific tactics, while a clever pseudoscientist can mimic the form of science perfectly. The line is blurred because it's about internal intent, which is invisible.

Example: Flat Earthers run experiments (lasers over water) they claim prove no curvature. Scientists point out flawed methodology. The Flat Earthers dismiss it as part of the conspiracy. The hard problem: Their process looks scientific—hypothesis, test, observation. The breakdown is their refusal to accept counter-evidence as valid. But who decides what "valid" counter-evidence is? The scientific community. So, in practice, science is defined by social consensus of what counts as proper evidence, not by a pure, objective rulebook. Pseudoscience is simply what that consensus excludes. Hard Problem of Science & Pseudoscience.

by Nammugal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Pseudoscience

Not why it's wrong, but why it is so psychologically and socially resilient to correction. Pseudoscience (e.g., flat Earth, astrology, conversion therapy) isn't merely a lack of evidence; it's a self-sealing system of belief that repels counter-evidence by reinterpreting it as part of the conspiracy or as "close-mindedness." The hard problem is that the tools of reason and fact-checking, which work within a scientific framework, often fail catastrophically against it because pseudoscience operates on a different epistemic logic—one of identity, narrative comfort, and opposition to a perceived elite.

Example: You show a flat Earther time-lapse videos of star trails, explaining it's due to Earth's rotation. They say NASA fakes it. You explain gravity with physics; they say "density and buoyancy." You bring in pilots; they're part of the lie. The hard problem: Their framework absorbs all refutations as proof of its own correctness. Debunking strengthens in-group loyalty. Thus, pseudoscience isn't a knowledge gap to be filled, but a rival social epistemology that is functionally immune to the standard remedies of education and evidence. Hard Problem of Pseudoscience.

by Dumuabzu January 25, 2026