# Pseudoscience that became Mainstream? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 20, 2009, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473 "2009-10-20T13:04:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473/1 "2009-10-20T13:04:01Z")
Someone had a thread elsewhere denouncing pseudoscience; it got me thinking, what are some historical examples of pseudoscience going mainstream? There must be some. Oddly the one that comes to my mind is the idea that stomach ulcers are caused by an infection. Loudly poo-pooed, it is now accepted. There must be other, better examples. I sure cannot think of any. ---
**Author:** ![muttrox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a8b319/32.png) [@muttrox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muttrox)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473/2 "2009-10-20T13:12:38Z")
Why do you consider that example pseudoscience, as opposed to being merely an idea that didn’t fit in the current paradigm? To my mind, if a theory is truly pseudoscience, then the only way it will be true is by coincidence - finding the right answer by the wrong methodology. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473/3 "2009-10-20T13:15:03Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > Oddly the one that comes to my mind is the idea that stomach ulcers are caused by an infection. Loudly poo-pooed, it is now accepted. Is any theory which is thought not to be true by most scientists for some period of time “psuedo-science”? That seems to be the criteria your using, but I don’t think it fits what most people think of as psuedo-science. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473/4 "2009-10-20T13:18:59Z")
Psuedoscience is the practice of using other-than-scientifically-rigorous methods to reach a conclusion. Did someone use non rigorous methods to deduce that infections cause stomach ulcers? If not, then it’s not pseudoscience. ---
**Author:** ![Speak\_to\_me\_Maddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Speak\_to\_me\_Maddie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Speak_to_me_Maddie)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473/5 "2009-10-20T13:22:05Z")
Tectonic plate geology may fit your question. If I recall correctly Wegener’s ideas on continental drift were not only “poo-pooed” but ridiculed by geologists for decades until later proved. ---
**Author:** ![Busy\_Scissors](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d78d45/32.png) [@Busy\_Scissors](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Busy_Scissors)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473/6 "2009-10-20T13:26:38Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > Someone had a thread elsewhere denouncing pseudoscience; it got me thinking, what are some historical examples of pseudoscience going mainstream? There must be some. > > Oddly the one that comes to my mind is the idea that stomach ulcers are caused by an infection. Loudly poo-pooed, it is now accepted. > > There must be other, better examples. I sure cannot think of any. That wouldn’t be pseudoscience at all to my way of thinking. The bacterial cause of stomach ulcers was a theory well within mainstream scientific thinking and practice - it just wasn’t given much credibility in the face of other explanations. It’s a classic example of a shunned theory eventually proving to be correct, but it’s not pseudoscience. I can’t think of any psuedoscientific theory that was accepted in mainstream science in modern times - it’s sort of a contradiction in terms. There’s plenty that have become accepted in mainstream thought in general of course, outwith science. If you go back hundreds of years then things like the development of alchemy into chemistry might fit the bill - trial and error pseudoscience slowly becoming scientific as understanding in other disciplines developed. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473/7 "2009-10-20T13:30:13Z")
The first thing that comes to mind for me is the theory of [continental drift](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift). The basis for the theory was essentially the observation that the continents can be seen to fit together (such as South America and Africa). However, the theory was not given much credence by mainstream science, because nobody had any idea how continents could plow through solid rock. At the time that [Wegener](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener) presented his work in the 1910s and '20s, his work was widely derided and surely put into the category of “pseudoscience” by the mainstream establishment, because Wegener had no plausible mechanism to explain his observations. Not until the theory was refined into the modern theory of [plate tectonics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics) did the theory become mainstream, and this was not until the 1960s. ETA: And I see that I was beaten to the punch while writing this. See what I get for writing such a detailed post? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473/8 "2009-10-20T14:36:25Z")
This thread is going to go nowhere until everyone accepts that pseudoscience does NOT mean “an idea that many scientist didn’t believe”. Continental drift and ulcers are not and have never been pseudoscience, but are always inevitably the first examples brought up in this type of thread. ---
**Author:** ![furryman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/furryman/32/99_2.png) [@furryman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furryman)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473/9 "2009-10-20T15:17:39Z")
Maybe I misunderstood the Op. but what about chiropracty? According to “Fads and Fallacies” which was published in the '50’s, chiropracty was the worst kind of semi-holistic claptrap ever practiced, but today everybody acts like chiropractors are just like regular doctors. Don’t get me, wrong for all I know chiropractors may have gotten rid of all that snake oil, but it was still considered bunk as late as the '50’s. ---
**Author:** ![muttrox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a8b319/32.png) [@muttrox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muttrox)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473/10 "2009-10-20T15:19:19Z")
> [@furryman](#): > > Maybe I misunderstood the Op. but what about chiropracty? According to “Fads and Fallacies” which was published in the '50’s, chiropracty was the worst kind of semi-holistic claptrap ever practiced, but today everybody acts like chiropractors are just like regular doctors. Everybody does not act like that. Many doctors feel chiropractors are not real doctors because the science does not support it. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473/11 "2009-10-20T15:23:15Z")
Adding to the point made by **Speak to me Maddie** and **robby** , Wegener’s ideas were not only ridiculed but ridiculous – the idea that the comparatively light and fragile continental rocks might hold shape while floating on the denser, stronger oceanic crust was absurd. Continental drift _as proposed by Wegener_ was very much pseudo-scientific, an explanation of coincidental similarities in coastlines that was not supported by geophysics and geotectonics of the time. With plate tectonics, though, what had been a pseudo-scientific idea was revised – the ocean crusts were produced by upwelling, forcing plates on which the continents rode as if passengers apart. , with plate collisions and the resultant subduction producing island arcs and continental-edge orogenies. This was solid geophysics. So it is a near-perfect example of what’s being talked about – an idea ridiculed for good reason that proves out to be correct for theoretical reasons not advanced by the person originally advocating the ‘ridiculous’ idea. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473/12 "2009-10-20T15:45:27Z")
I’d second the idea of Continental Drift, as one of the few modern examples of a genuinely kooky idea, that would certainly be described as “pseudoscience” at the time, and is now part of the mainstream. As opposed to most scientific theories which at one time or other were the dissenting opinion of a minority of scientists. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473/13 "2009-10-20T16:16:15Z")
> [@furryman](#): > > today everybody acts like chiropractors are just like regular doctors Please do not include me (or most of my friends) in “everybody”. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473/14 "2009-10-20T16:19:24Z")
Wegener was a mainstream scientist who used scientific methods and observation to piece together information. He traveled to the various sites he talked about to study their geology. He studied the fossil records of continental edges. At the end he put together a full record of his researches. He postulated a mechanism that couldn’t be substantiated at the time. What did mainstream science give as an answer for the many correspondences they knew existed? Land bridges. Why are they being given a pass for a mechanism that had as serious flaws in it? The better way to look at history is that Wegener was right to insist that the correspondences required one-time proximity and the mainstream was right to insist that a mechanism plausible and workable by the science of the day be required. Neither had enough information to give a full answer in the way we understand today but both were doing science. Chiropracty, conversely, has always used a principle that is entirely unrecognized and undiscovered by mainstream science, [subluxations](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropracty#Vertebral_subluxation). > [@](#): > > Vertebral subluxation, a core concept of chiropractic, remains unsubstantiated and largely untested, and a debate about whether to keep it in the chiropractic paradigm has been ongoing for decades.[6] In general, critics of traditional subluxation-based chiropractic (including chiropractors) are skeptical of its clinical value, dogmatic beliefs and metaphysical approach. While straight chiropractic still retains the traditional vitalistic construct espoused by the founders, evidence-based chiropractic suggests that a mechanistic view will allow chiropractic care to become integrated into the wider health care community.[6] This is still a continuing source of debate within the chiropractic profession as well, with some schools of chiropractic still teaching the traditional/straight subluxation-based chiropractic, while others have moved towards an evidence-based chiropractic that rejects metaphysical foundings and limits itself to primarily neuromusculoskeletal conditions.[29][30] > > A 2003 survey of North American chiropractors found that 88% wanted to retain the term vertebral subluxation complex, and that when asked to estimate the percent of disorders of internal organs (such as the heart, the lungs, or the stomach) that subluxation significantly contributes to, the mean response was 62%.[31] In 2005, the chiropractic subluxation was defined by the World Health Organization as “a lesion or dysfunction in a joint or motion segment in which alignment, movement integrity and/or physiological function are altered, although contact between joint surfaces remains intact. It is essentially a functional entity, which may influence biomechanical and neural integrity.” This differs from the medical definition of subluxation as a significant structural displacement, which can be seen with static imaging techniques such as X-rays.[19] Attorney David Chapman-Smith, Secretary-General of the World Federation of Chiropractic, has stated that “subluxations are not structural entities and cannot be detected on x‑ray.”[32] Chiropracty was, is, and will remain snake oil as long as it adheres to its core concepts. That’s the difference between science and pseudoscience. Pseudoscience starts with concepts wholly outside of science, doesn’t bother to test them, insists on their truth despite foundation, and claims persecution when challenged. That’s why there are no pseudosciences that ever become science. Lack of knowledge can be cured by time and investigation. Militant belief can only become narrower. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473/15 "2009-10-20T16:37:20Z")
Does that mean this is a pseudothread? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473/16 "2009-10-20T16:42:32Z")
Freudian psychology was fairly well pseudoscience. It has now been largely cast aside, but for decades it was practiced as “science”. And of course the same thing with almost all medical knowledge up until the late 19th century. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473/17 "2009-10-20T16:56:18Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Freudian psychology was fairly well pseudoscience. It has now been largely cast aside, but for decades it was practiced as “science”. And of course the same thing with almost all medical knowledge up until the late 19th century. Isn’t this the exact opposite of what the OP is asking for? ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473/18 "2009-10-20T17:00:35Z")
Antioxidants? ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473/19 "2009-10-20T17:13:55Z")
What was ever pseudoscience about antioxidants? ---
**Author:** ![lazybratsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ba8739/32.png) [@lazybratsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lazybratsche)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473/20 "2009-10-20T17:25:30Z")
There is definitely a lot of solid science supporting antioxidants asGood Things For You, though that’s hardly a settled matter. There’s also a good deal of science out there saying that antioxidants by themselves aren’t particularly helpful. However, antioxidant supplements are sold with over-broad claims of health benefits (to be charitable about it), in a manner that’s definitely pseudoscientific. The alternative health movement have seized on antioxidants as cure-alls. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pseudoscience-that-became-mainstream/514473.md?page=2)