Editing Pseudoscience (section)

==Explanations==
In a 1981 report Singer and Benassi wrote that pseudoscientific beliefs have their origin from at least four sources:<ref name="aoycp">{{cite magazine|first1=Barry|last1=Singer|first2=Victor A.|last2=Benassi|title=Occult beliefs: Media distortions, social uncertainty, and deficiencies of human reasoning seem to be at the basis of occult beliefs|magazine=American Scientist|volume=69|issue=1|year=1981|pages=49–55|jstor=27850247}}</ref>
* Common cognitive errors from [[Anecdotal evidence|personal experience]]
* Erroneous sensationalistic mass media coverage
* Sociocultural factors
* Poor or erroneous [[science education]]

A 1990 study by Eve and Dunn supported the findings of Singer and Benassi and found pseudoscientific belief being promoted by high school life science and biology teachers.<ref name="W1g03">{{cite magazine|first1=Raymond A.|last1=Eve|first2=Dana|last2=Dunn|title=Psychic powers, astrology & creationism in the classroom? Evidence of pseudoscientific beliefs among high school biology & life science teachers|magazine=The American Biology Teacher|volume=52|issue=1|year=1990|pages=10–21|url=https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/D_Dunn_Psychic_1990.pdf|doi=10.2307/4449018|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171013224934/https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/D_Dunn_Psychic_1990.pdf|archive-date=13 October 2017|jstor=4449018}}</ref>

===Psychology===
The psychology of pseudoscience attempts to explore and analyze pseudoscientific thinking by means of thorough clarification on making the distinction of what is considered scientific vs. pseudoscientific. The human proclivity for seeking confirmation rather than refutation ([[confirmation bias]]),{{sfnp|Devilly|2005|p=439}} the tendency to hold comforting beliefs, and the tendency to overgeneralize have been proposed as reasons for pseudoscientific thinking. According to Beyerstein, humans are prone to associations based on resemblances only, and often prone to misattribution in cause-effect thinking.<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Beyerstein B, Hadaway P|year=1991|title=On avoiding folly|journal=Journal of Drug Issues|volume=20|issue=4|pages=689–700|doi=10.1177/002204269002000418|s2cid=148414205}}</ref>

[[Michael Shermer]]'s theory of belief-dependent realism is driven by the idea that the brain is essentially a "belief engine" which scans data perceived by the senses and looks for patterns and meaning. There is also the tendency for the brain to create [[cognitive bias]]es, as a result of inferences and assumptions made without logic and based on instinct – usually resulting in patterns in cognition. These tendencies of [[Apophenia|patternicity]] and agenticity are also driven "by a meta-bias called the [[bias blind spot]], or the tendency to recognize the power of cognitive biases in other people but to be blind to their influence on our own beliefs".<ref name="zbHau">{{cite journal|last=Shermer|first=Michael|author-link=Michael Shermer|year=2011|title=Understanding the believing brain: Why science is the only way out of belief-dependent realism |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-believing-brain/|journal=Scientific American|doi=10.1038/scientificamerican0711-85|access-date=14 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160830132644/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-believing-brain/|archive-date=30 August 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>
Lindeman states that social motives (i.e., "to comprehend self and the world, to have a sense of control over outcomes, to belong, to find the world benevolent and to maintain one's self-esteem") are often "more easily" fulfilled by pseudoscience than by scientific information.<!-- <ref name="Lindeman"/> --> Furthermore, pseudoscientific explanations are generally not analyzed rationally, but instead experientially.<!-- <ref name="Lindeman"/> --> Operating within a different set of rules compared to rational thinking, experiential thinking regards an explanation as valid if the explanation is "personally functional, satisfying and sufficient", offering a description of the world that may be more personal than can be provided by science and reducing the amount of potential work involved in understanding complex events and outcomes.<ref name="Lindeman">{{cite journal|vauthors=Lindeman M|title=Motivation, cognition and pseudoscience|journal=Scandinavian Journal of Psychology|volume=39|issue=4|pages=257–265|year=1998 |pmid=9883101|doi=10.1111/1467-9450.00085}}</ref>

Anyone searching for psychological help that is based in science should seek a licensed therapist whose techniques are not based in pseudoscience. Hupp and Santa Maria provide a complete explanation of what that person should look for.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hupp |first1=Stehpen |editor1-last=Santa Maria |editor1-first=Cara |title=Pseudoscience in Therapy |date=2023 |publisher=Cmbridge University Press |location=New York and London |isbn=978-1-009-00510-4 |pages=54–64}}</ref>

===Education and scientific literacy===
There is a trend to believe in pseudoscience more than [[scientific evidence]].<ref name="Matute2015">{{cite journal|vauthors=Matute H, Blanco F, Yarritu I, Díaz-Lago M, Vadillo MA, Barberia I|title=Illusions of causality: how they bias our everyday thinking and how they could be reduced|journal=Frontiers in Psychology|volume=6|pages=888|year=2015|pmid=26191014|pmc=4488611|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00888|doi-access=free}}</ref> Some people believe the prevalence of pseudoscientific beliefs is due to widespread [[scientific illiteracy]].<ref name="xLASt">{{cite web|last=Lack|first=Caleb|work=Great Plains Skeptic|publisher=Skeptic Ink Network|url=http://www.skepticink.com/gps/2013/10/10/what-does-scientific-literacy-look-like-in-the-21st-century/|title=What does Scientific Literacy look like in the 21st Century?|date=10 October 2013|access-date=9 April 2014|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140413130541/http://www.skepticink.com/gps/2013/10/10/what-does-scientific-literacy-look-like-in-the-21st-century/|archive-date=13 April 2014}}</ref> Individuals lacking scientific literacy are more susceptible to wishful thinking, since they are likely to turn to immediate gratification powered by System 1, our default operating system which requires little to no effort. This system encourages one to [[confirmation bias|accept the conclusions they believe]], and reject the ones they do not. Further analysis of complex pseudoscientific phenomena require System 2, which follows rules, compares objects along multiple dimensions and weighs options. These two systems have several other differences which are further discussed in the [[Dual process theory|dual-process theory]].<ref name="aoPN2">{{cite journal|last1=Evans|first1=Jonathan St. B. T.|title=In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning|journal=Trends in Cognitive Sciences|year=2003|volume=7|issue=10|pages=454–459|doi=10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012|pmid=14550493|s2cid=12508462|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661303002250|access-date=15 October 2020|archive-date=21 November 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181121191442/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661303002250|url-status=live}}</ref> The scientific and secular systems of morality and meaning are generally unsatisfying to most people.<!-- <ref name="Shermer"/> --> Humans are, by nature, a forward-minded species pursuing greater avenues of happiness and satisfaction, but we are all too frequently willing to grasp at unrealistic promises of a better life.<ref name="Shermer">{{cite book|first1=Michael|last1=Shermer|first2=Steven J.|last2=Gould|author-link1=Michael Shermer|author-link2=Stephen Jay Gould|year=2002|title=Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time|publisher=Holt Paperbacks|location=New York|isbn=978-0-8050-7089-7|title-link=Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time}}</ref>

Psychology has much to discuss about pseudoscience thinking, as it is the illusory perceptions of causality and effectiveness of numerous individuals that needs to be illuminated.<!-- <ref name="Matute"/> --> Research suggests that illusionary thinking happens in most people when exposed to certain circumstances such as reading a book, an advertisement or the testimony of others are the basis of pseudoscience beliefs.<!-- <ref name="Matute"/> --> It is assumed that illusions are not unusual, and given the right conditions, illusions are able to occur systematically even in normal emotional situations.<!-- <ref name="Matute"/> --> One of the things pseudoscience believers quibble most about is that academic science usually treats them as fools.<!-- <ref name="Matute"/> --> Minimizing these illusions in the real world is not simple.<ref name="Matute"/> To this aim, designing evidence-based educational programs can be effective to help people identify and reduce their own illusions.<ref name="Matute">{{cite journal|vauthors=Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA|title=Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience|journal=British Journal of Psychology|volume=102|issue=3|pages=392–405|year=2011|pmid=21751996|doi=10.1348/000712610X532210|citeseerx=10.1.1.298.3070}}</ref>