“The inertia of the human mind and its resistance to innovation are most clearly demonstrated not, as one might expect, by the ignorant mass… but by professionals with a vested interest in tradition and in the monopoly of learning. Innovation is a twofold threat to academic mediocrities: it endangers their oracular authority, and it evokes the deeper fear that their whole, laboriously constructed intellectual edifice might collapse.”

~ Philosopher Arthur Koestler

For decades, inspired by the insightful discourses of Carl Sagan and other prominent skeptics, society has remained vigilant against what is broadly termed pseudoscience. We’ve been alerted to its lurking threat on the fringes of rationality, depicted as a peril ready to ensnare the unsuspecting and lead them astray from the path of reason. We’ve been taught to identify these deceivers, their ideas, and their deceptive practices, ensuring they can never inflict harm. Standing as the self-appointed guardians of science, we find meaning in our lives through the very act of defending it.

But what if this perspective is flawed? What if the true threat to science arises not from its fringes, but from within its very ranks – perpetrated by those cloaked in the mantle of scientific authority? Contrasting sharply with the term pseudoscience, what should we call this internal phenomenon, where practices so fundamentally contravene the principles they claim to uphold?

In the 1950s, Nobel Prize winning chemist Irving Langmuir introduced the concept of ‘pathological science,’ describing it as a phenomenon where scientists become overly committed to a priori hypotheses without adequate empirical support, leading them to interpret ambiguous or minor results as conclusive or confirmatory evidence. He emphasized that such science is characterized by linear thinking, reliance on inductive reasoning, self-deception, and the untestability of claims—factors that not only perpetuate research funding but also fail to adhere to strict scientific verification standards.¹

However, Langmuir also contrasted these scientific shortcomings with the purported virtues of consensus and professional acclaim. In this article, we confront a critical issue arising from Langmuir’s observations: what do we call a science that has made an appeal to popularity and authority its foundation and working mechanism? What if the ‘Zombie Theory’—a theory that refuses to die or is promoted widely as truth despite lacking empirical support—is not just a fringe phenomenon but has become the mainstay conclusion of science itself? What if there exists a pervasive form of science more concerned with wielding power and securing funding than with any genuine pursuit of knowledge?

In those places where direct observation is in short supply, experts will abound.

When virtue-shielded systems fail, those who operate them fail to observe that failure.

If a scientific field refrains from testing its preferred hypothesis, it is petitioning for royal status.

An ideology that cannot be defended by means of evidence and deductive logic, will inevitably be enforced by violence.

These four principles represent a progressive oppressive condition, something far more harmful than mere pseudoscience – what we identify as Syndicate Science.

The Signature Features of Syndicate Science

1. Insufficient Field Investigation: This science is characterized by claims that are based upon popularity alone and lack comprehensive empirical support. Instead of robust field studies or experiments, these claims gain prominence primarily through repeated mention in academic and media circles, rather than through rigorous scientific validation or competition against dissenting research.
2. Corruption of the Scientific Method: The discipline is tainted by practices such as biased funding, conflicts of interest, restricted access to journals, abuse of statistical methods, researcher coercion, and pluralistic ignorance. Research is often shaped by inductive p-hacking and confined within pre-approved theoretical boundaries, undermining the integrity of scientific inquiry (See The Lyin’tific Method).
3. Non-falsifiability and Popularity Bias: Theories are often accepted and propagated based on their popularity (ad populum) rather than empirical validation and rigorous deductive reasoning. This prioritization discourages and often prevents the conduct, peer review, and publication of studies that might falsify or dissent from these popular theories.
4. Anonymous Peer Review Coupled with Pathological Researcher Accountability: The peer review process lacks transparency, with reviewers facing no accountability for their biases or the decisions to reject or accept papers. Concurrently, researchers are held to stringent standards based not on the scientific merits of their work but on the perceived acceptability of their topics, the reputations they hold, or the preliminary plausibility of their arguments.
5. Overreliance on Induction and Statistical Significance: This approach heavily favors inductive reasoning and the use of p-values or Cox hazard tests, focusing on the incremental refinement of established and promoted theories rather than on genuine exploration and discovery. Such methods often reinforce existing beliefs instead of rigorously challenging and testing the null hypothesis, a cornerstone of scientific inquiry.
6. Emphasis on Clout Over Discovery: Academics often extend their authority and credentials into domains where they lack expertise or practitioner experience, influencing or drawing inference without appropriate justification. Research organizations often secure media endorsement for their findings ahead of substantial scientific investigation. This strategy aims to forge a premature consensus, which then guides and possibly constrains subsequent research and verification efforts.
7. Pejorative Framing of Dissent: Any form of disagreement or alternative perspective is quickly labeled as ‘pseudoscience’, ‘conspiracy theory’, or ‘disinformation.’ Methods are promoted in the media by which competing ideas can be screened out of the collective gestalt. Ridicule and trivial critique are often employed as the first lines of defense against new ideas and criticisms within the scientific community. This tactic not only stifles genuine scientific debate but also marginalizes and discredits valid criticisms or novel approaches that deviate from the established consensus.

Ironically, amidst our focus on external threats, a more insidious danger has evolved from within the corridors of science itself. In stark contrast to the relatively minor harms posed by pseudoscience, Syndicate Science represents the primary intellectual stagnation confronting humanity in our era.

LLL

The Ethical Skeptic, “Syndicate Science – The Definition”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 24 Apr 2024; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/?p=84476