Pseudohistory and Pseudoscience

The dangers of pseudoscience – parapsychology, astrology, creationism, etc. – are widely criticized. Lessons in the history of science are often viewed as an educational remedy by conveying the nature of science. But such histories can be flawed. In particular, many stories romanticize scientists, inflate the drama of their discoveries, and oversimplify the process of science. They are, literally and rhetorically, myths. While based on real historical events, they distort the basis of scientific authority and foster unwarranted stereotypes. Such stories are pseudohistory. Like pseudoscience, they promote false ideas about science – in this case, about how science works. Paradoxically, perhaps, the history of pseudosciences may offer an excellent vehicle for remedying such impressions.

Characteristically, textbooks of science contain just a bit of history, either in an introductory chapter or, more often, in scattered references to the great heroes of an earlier age. From such references both students and professionals come to feel like participants in a long-standing historical tradition. Yet the textbook-derived tradition in which scientists come to sense their participation is one that, in fact, never existed.

—Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions