Improper collection of evidence Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment (See also: Falsifiability). Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict. Scientific claims that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best "conjectures", or at worst "pseudoscience" (e.g., ignoratio elenchi).Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy Vol. 3, "Fallacies" 174 ff, esp. section on "Ignoratio elenchi" Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must therefore be true, and vice versa (See: Argument from ignorance).Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy Vol 3, "Fallacies" 174 ff esp. 177–178 Over-reliance on testimonial, anecdotal evidence, or personal experience: This evidence may be useful for the context of discovery (i.e., hypothesis generation), but should not be used in the context of justification (e.g., statistical hypothesis testing). Use of myths and religious texts as if they were fact, or basing evidence on readings of such texts. Use of concepts and scenarios from science fiction as if they were fact. This technique appeals to the familiarity that many people already have with science fiction tropes through the popular media. Presentation of data that seems to support claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with those claims. This is an example of selection bias or cherry picking, a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect. Repeating excessive or untested claims that have been previously published elsewhere, and promoting those claims as if they were facts; an accumulation of such uncritical secondary reports, which do not otherwise contribute their own empirical investigation, is called the Woozle effect. Reversed burden of proof: science places the burden of proof on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g., an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than on the claimant.Lilienfeld SO (2004). Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology Guildford Press Appeals to holism as opposed to reductionism to dismiss negative findings: proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the "mantra of holism" .
Improper collection of evidence Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment (See also: Falsifiability). Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict. Scientific claims that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best "conjectures", or at worst "pseudoscience" (e.g., ignoratio elenchi).Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy Vol. 3, "Fallacies" 174 ff, esp. section on "Ignoratio elenchi" Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must therefore be true, and vice versa (See: Argument from ignorance).Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy Vol 3, "Fallacies" 174 ff esp. 177–178 Over-reliance on testimonial, anecdotal evidence, or personal experience: This evidence may be useful for the context of discovery (i.e., hypothesis generation), but should not be used in the context of justification (e.g., statistical hypothesis testing). Use of myths and religious texts as if they were fact, or basing evidence on readings of such texts. Use of concepts and scenarios from science fiction as if they were fact This technique appeals to the familiarity that many people already have with science fiction tropes through the popular media. Presentation of data that seems to support claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with those claims. This is an example of selection bias or cherry picking, a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect. Repeating excessive or untested claims that have been previously published elsewhere, and promoting those claims as if they were facts; an accumulation of such uncritical secondary reports, which do not otherwise contribute their own empirical investigation, is called the Woozle effect. Reversed burden of proof: science places the burden of proof on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g., an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than on the claimant.Lilienfeld SO (2004). Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology Guildford Press Appeals to holism as opposed to reductionism to dismiss negative findings: proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the "mantra of holism" .