Pseudoscience is older than science itself. Astrology, fortune telling and various magical healing processes were practiced long before inquisitive people began to formulate theories about the workings of the world based on reproducible experiments. Today, aided and abetted by the Internet, pseudoscience is enjoying a golden age. But pseudoscientific ideas have consequences for society and for individuals. Scientifically unsupported claims about risks in our lives can raise undue alarm and therapeutic interventions that are not science-based can offer patients false hope and can even steer them away from proven conventional treatments. Pseudoscience takes on many forms, but one of its hallmarks is cherry-picking data.
There are many cherry pickers. Environmentalists, industry representatives, activists of all sorts, and even government officials are in on the harvest. At issue is highlighting, or "cherry picking," data that support a particular position, usually a controversial one, while ignoring relevant contradictory evidence. Of course, these days there is no lack of scientific controversies. Concerns over the safety of plastic components, cosmetic ingredients, medications, pesticides, genetically modified organisms, cell phones, microwave ovens, drinking water and food are very much in the public eye. People search for guidance in tackling these issues, and they look for dispassionate, unbiased answers. In theory, that is just what scientific research should be able to deliver.
In the best of all possible worlds, scientists would all be competent, they would have no preconceived biases, would not be driven by monetary gain, would have access to plentiful funding from unbiased sources, and would have their egos safely tucked away. Alas, we do not live in Utopia. Indeed, the only uncontestable remark that can be made about current scientific research is that is it plentiful. Actually, that is an understatement. Its sheer volume is mind-boggling. Thousands of peer-reviewed research papers are published every week, obviously not all of equal quality. Contradictory findings are not uncommon, even in the absence of any bias. As a result, scientific publications can be found to support almost any point of view. And of course there are numerous non-peer reviewed books, articles and websites that produce questionable but seductive arguments. Mash it all together and you can end up with an unhealthy dose of pseudoscience.