Drawing a Distinction Between Bad Science and Pseudoscience

[DISCLAIMER]

In a blogpost entitled A Scientific Approach to Mental Health, I outlined a case for Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) serving as a methodological practice of well-being. In that post, I used information from a separate blog entry, entitled The Science, in which I stated:

Simply put, science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

Rather than assuming readers know more than they actually do, it may be useful to outline the scientific method for matters of context. Per one source:

It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.

The scientific method is a process, not an ideologically-driven series of actions to achieve a result. It seems that far more people than I ever imagined could be plagued with ignorance of this fact apparently turned their backs on science during the pandemic and instead adopted the science [scientism].

REBT uses a scientific approach to mental, emotional, and behavioral health (collectively “mental health”) when hypotheses are formulated and tested through use of negotiated homework. All the while, people use the ABC model to refine or eliminate hypotheses.

It’s worth understanding how the process of science functions so that effective practice of REBT can result in a decrease of self-disturbing episodes. Still, over the years, I’ve found that people perhaps honorably (in some cases) hamper science when infusing moral and ethical standards.

A moral is a person’s standard of behavior or belief concerning what is and isn’t acceptable for the individual and other people. As such, morals generally relate to what’s considered good, bad, right, wrong, or otherwise acceptable or unacceptable.

An ethic is a set of moral principles, especially those relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct. Whereas morals relate to what is thought of as pleasing or displeasing behaviors and beliefs, ethics (based on morals) are the social rules by which one pledges to live.

In a recent episode of the DarkHorse Podcast by biologist Bret Weinstein, Weinstein drew what I consider a meaningful distinction between bad science (practices which deviate from established scientific principles, leading to unreliable or misleading results) and pseudoscience (a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific) by stating:

The difference between bad science – well, I’m gonna call, I’m gonna say there are two kinds of bad science. There’s immoral science that is, by its framework, still fundamentally scientific. You know?

You can do a proper hypothesis test—the experiment for which is unforgivable, but nonetheless scientifically valid in terms of what it tells you. You can do bad science that is intended to be scientific, but poorly structured. So that’s two kinds of bad science.

Did you do the experiment incorrectly, or was the experiment that you did unacceptable but correctly done? And then there’s pseudoscience in which you’re not really trying to discover anything. You are trying to give something a veneer of science, but you already have your conclusion for whatever reason.

Using Weinstein’s categories, there is: (1) science which is acceptable, (2) science which is bad due to morals and ethics, (3) science which is bad in regard to poor structure or methodology, and (4) pseudoscience that uses the appearance of science, though with foregone conclusions.

Drawing a distinction between bad science and pseudoscience is important for my approach to addressing mental health concerns. Given Weinstein’s aforementioned four categories, I’ll illustrate why this difference matters.

Suppose client X learns how to properly use the ABC model that illustrates when an undesirable Action occurs and one Believes an unhelpful narrative about the event, it’s one’s unfavorable assumption, and not the occurrence itself, that causes an unpleasant Consequence.

Addressing how people upset themselves with unhelpful attitudes, the ABC model incorporates Disputation of unproductive assumptions in order to explore Effective new beliefs. Thus, homework is negotiated with client X in order to appropriately utilize the scientific method.

Client X wants to determine whether or not letting go of an intimate partner relationship is worth considering. Using Weinstein’s categories, the following four outcomes are likely:

(1) Acceptable science – Client X carefully observes how interactions with partner Y have impacted the romantic relationship. Rigorous skepticism about what client X has observed is applied in the form of disputing irrational beliefs about the matter.

Using inductive reasoning, a hypothesis is formulated. Client X proposes that when using open, honest, and vulnerable communication with partner Y, as has happened virtually countless times before, partner Y will obfuscate the point, and nothing much will change in the relationship.

Homework to test this hypothesis involves having an in-person conversation. For the sake of discussion, let’s suppose partner Y responds as usual. Tested deductions drawn from the hypothesis lead client X to conclude that nothing will change for the better moving forward.

Thus, the hypothesis isn’t invalid. It’s supported by evidence of seemingly countless interactions which have all yielded similar results. Refinement or elimination of the hypothesis isn’t needed, nor is further experimentation necessary, as client X can rationally let go of the relationship.

(2) Immorally and unethically bad science – Client X determines that although a healthy conversation about the relationship with partner Y could lead to a decision about whether to remain or leave the intimate bond, doing so may require discomfort of the discussion.

Rather than tolerating discomfort, client X could slowly poison partner Y. Given this category of science, low versus high doses of arsenic could be applied to food over time in order to prolong or speed up the lethal dose process. (Noteworthy, I’m not advocating this method.)

(3) Poorly structured bad science – Client X foregoes a few steps of category (1). Instead, this individual observes a pattern and forms a Karpman drama triangle by recruiting the attention of friend Z to offer advice about what absolutely must be done in regard to partner Y.

Client X uses unhelpful rationalization – not the same helpful process as rational thinking (that which is in accordance with both logic and reason) – by concluding that another set of eyes and opinions will assist in making a determination about whether to stay or go.

Instead of having a meaningful discussion with the person to whom the problem is related, client X consults with friend Z. A decision is then made to simply leave, giving partner Y no input in the matter. Client X thus considers this a reasonable method of alleviating one’s own discomfort.

(4) Pseudoscience – Not to be confused with the Stephen B. Karpman drama triangle, client X initiates a love triangle with friend Z. The forgone conclusion is that friend Z will make a better romantic partner than partner Y, so client X conducts a hasty experiment to test this proposal.

Meanwhile, client X keeps intact the intimate partner bond with partner Y. This is done just in case the hypothesis regarding friend Z is false. As well, client X uses this pseudoscientific approach despite negotiated homework having been established pertaining to category (1).

Any of the aforementioned four categories is possible, though I maintain that they aren’t all healthy (or even legal). Still, understanding how to draw a distinction between bad science and pseudoscience is necessary so that one can understand benefits of the actual scientific method.

If you’re looking for a provider who tries to work to help understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.

As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to try to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.

At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply trying to help you to feel better, I want to try to help you get better!

Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW

Photo credit (edited), fair use

References:

Clinical Library. (n.d.). Stephen Karpman, MD. The Milton H. Erickson Foundation, Inc. Retrieved from https://catalog.erickson-foundation.org/speaker/stephen-karpman-1037747

Hollings, D. (2025, January 16). A letting go kind of love. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-letting-go-kind-of-love

Hollings, D. (2024, May 24). A scientific approach to mental health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-scientific-approach-to-mental-health

Hollings, D. (2024, July 9). Absolutistic should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/absolutistic-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2024, November 15). Assumptions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/assumptions

Hollings, D. (2024, October 27). Correlation does not imply causation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/correlation-does-not-imply-causation

Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer

Hollings, D. (2025, April 24). Distress tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/distress-tolerance

Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use

Hollings, D. (2024, May 17). Feeling better vs. getting better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/feeling-better-vs-getting-better-1

Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better

Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/

Hollings, D. (2025, January 26). Ignorance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/ignorance

Hollings, D. (2024, September 26). Interpreted reality. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/interpreted-reality

Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching

Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason

Hollings, D. (2022, June 23). Meaningful purpose. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/meaningful-purpose

Hollings, D. (2024, March 4). Mental, emotional, and behavioral health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mental-emotional-and-behavioral-health

Hollings, D. (2024, October 5). Mistaking deductive validity for truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mistaking-deductive-validity-for-truth

Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics

Hollings, D. (2024, September 27). My attitude. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/my-attitude

Hollings, D. (2024, May 17). Open, honest, and vulnerable communication. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/open-honest-and-vulnerable-communication

Hollings, D. (2024, November 18). Opinions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/opinions

Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). Principles. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/principles

Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist

Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt

Hollings, D. (2024, May 19). Rationale for homework. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rationale-for-homework

Hollings, D. (2024, March 4). Rationalization. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rationalization

Hollings, D. (2024, January 20). Reliability vs. validity. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/reliability-vs-validity

Hollings, D. (2024, January 4). Rigid vs. rigorous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rigid-vs-rigorous

Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance

Hollings, D. (2023, April 9). The advice that never was. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-advice-that-never-was

Hollings, D. (2023, August 6). The science. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-science

Hollings, D. (2025, February 28). To try is my goal. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/to-try-is-my-goal

Hollings, D. (2025, January 9). Traditional ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/traditional-abc-model

Hollings, D. (2025, March 13). Unscientific thinking and believing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unscientific-thinking-and-believing

Hollings, D. (2024, September 29). Well, well, well. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/well-well-well

Macrovector. (n.d.). Chemistry icon [Image]. Freepik. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/chemistry-icon_3887185.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=7&uuid=4c318d34-7fa6-4676-a264-0e5cc11f6b15&query=science+drawing

Weinstein, B. (n.d.). Bret Weinstein [Official website]. Retrieved from https://www.bretweinstein.net/

Weinstein, B. [@DarkHorsePod]. (n.d.). DarkHorse Podcast. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/@DarkHorsePod

Weinstein, B. (2025, July 20). The truth about Nazi doctors: A conversation with Dr. Jonathan Hudson and Dr. Michael S. Bryant [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/jhnTc9w6DLU?si=XkTkDtSE2UElXp7O

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Inductive reasoning. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Karpman drama triangle. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Love triangle. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_triangle

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Scientific method. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method