Describing something that contradicts or goes against established scientific principles, methodologies, evidence, or theories. This encompasses beliefs, practices, claims, or arguments that are unsupported by, or actively reject, the scientific consensus. It often involves relying on anecdotal evidence, pseudoscience, or supernatural explanations, as well as misrepresenting or misunderstanding scientific findings to promote a particular agenda. The term suggests a deliberate or unintentional opposition to the scientific method and the pursuit of empirically-based knowledge. It highlights a conflict between perspectives that emphasize evidence-based reasoning and those that do not, or that rely on alternative paradigms.
Counter-scientific meaning with examples
- The promotion of 'detox' diets, despite a lack of scientific evidence, is a counter-scientific practice, as the human body naturally eliminates toxins. Proponents often disregard the findings of nutritionists and medical professionals, pushing unsubstantiated claims about cleansing effects based on anecdotal evidence and misleading marketing, and so directly contradicting scientific knowledge of physiology.
- The belief in creationism, which posits a literal interpretation of religious texts, is often seen as counter-scientific because it rejects evolutionary theory and the geological evidence supporting an ancient Earth. The arguments frequently dismiss or selectively interpret scientific data, prioritizing faith-based explanations and dismissing the scientific method's emphasis on testable hypotheses.
- The persistent denial of climate change, despite overwhelming scientific consensus on human-caused global warming, exemplifies counter-scientific behavior. This often involves spreading misinformation, distorting scientific data, and attacking climate scientists to maintain a particular political or economic perspective, prioritizing short-term goals over long-term scientific data.
- Practices like homeopathy, which are based on implausible principles and lack any demonstrable efficacy in clinical trials, fall under the category of counter-scientific treatments. Their advocates often reject double-blind studies as a means of evaluation, opting instead for testimonials, thereby ignoring and opposing the rigour of scientific scrutiny.
- Arguments that reject vaccination based on unfounded claims about links to autism are demonstrably counter-scientific. Such claims disregard the extensive research and clinical trials that have repeatedly refuted such associations. These claims prioritize fear-mongering and disinformation over verifiable scientific facts, leading to public health risks.