The Harmful Effects of Pseudoscience

Replicability, in this case, is the process of completing a study numerous times with slight changes each time to see whether the results are consistent. In this specific case, the study was completed by only 250 people in Winnipeg. Having the study conducted in only one place is not a good idea, as the results could vary across the globe. A study pool of 250 may also be too small for such a claim, a bigger study group would allow for more conclusive results. The study should be done in various locations with large participant sizes, as that would allow people with different lifestyles and personalities to be studied, thus providing more diverse results. The study should also be conducted throughout different times of the year. If the experiment is repeated and the results are similar each time, the validity of the experiment increases.

A claim cannot be made simply because there seems to be an association between two ideas. In the article, they mentioned that they had asked people to rate their level of happiness and number of hours spent cleaning. The researchers took the results from two different topics and because there was a similarity between them, made a claim. However, there was no scientific research mentioned that showed a strong relation between the two. The researcher mentions that there is not really an explanation at this point and that maybe cleaning increases serotonin level in depressed individuals. The results could possibly have been an outcome of another factor such as Spring cleaning or any other external factors. To prove that the two ideas have a cause and effect relationship, the researchers should conduct a similar experiment with two groups of participants, where only one group cleans their house for a week. To avoid external factors coming into play, the participants should be as isolated as possible from any factors.

After the week is over, the researchers should record the levels of happiness for participants in each group and if the group that cleaned is happier, then their claim is more justifiable. The participants should be unaware that their happiness will be recorded at the end of the week. Therefore, the study claimed that there was a relation between the two but was not able to scientifically prove it, rather mentioned what ‘might’ relate them.

In order for the claim to be true, there must be a way that could contradict it. In this study, this is possible. This study could be proven false by conducting a similar experiment in which the researchers could study the level of happiness of participants and how messy their house is. If the level of happiness is similar to those who spend more hours cleaning then further research between cleaning and happiness should be conducted. The researchers of this study, however, did not conduct such a study even though it is important as it helps justify the results. Nevertheless, their experimental method was set up in such a way that it is possible to do so in the future.

Pseudoscience can be defined as beliefs or practices that are thought to be scientific but are not supported by any actual scientific evidence. An example of pseudoscience is present in the article as ad hoc immunizing. The study mentions that there was an unexpected finding between those who increased their cleaning by more than 20 hours and those that increased their cleaning by less than 20 hours. However, right after mentioning this, they covered it up by mentioning that it may be a result of the ‘ceiling effect’. It is important to note how quickly the researchers were to justify the reason why their results might have contradicted their claim rather than accepting the possibility of there being no relationship until further research or experiments were conducted. As readers, it is essential to understand what pseudoscience is and realize that it is in fact very harmful as it can lead us to believe what we want to believe rather than believe the truth.