Scientific arguments against pseudoscience are often dismissed with a familiar claim: scientists reject paranormal ideas simply because they are not profitable for them.
This argument sounds convincing for two reasons. Firstly, it is intuitive: we all know the story of Galileo, so pseudoscientists quickly cast themselves as unrecognised geniuses. Secondly, it neutralises any scientific evidence – if pseudoscience is supposedly unprofitable for scientists, then failed experiments can be written off as part of the conspiracy.
But would pseudoscience really be disadvantageous to scientists if it actually worked? If we think about it, wouldn’t working pseudoscience offer scientists personal, collective and existential benefits?
Personal benefits
School simplifies the biographies of geniuses. Great writers write books because they are great writers; artists paint because how else could it be. We habitually think that scientists live according to the pattern “born, discovered, died” – and forget about personal (and not always attractive) motives. Yet it is precisely these motives that show that working pseudoscience could be beneficial to scientists.
A person who discovers that homeopathy really works will end up TikTok famous and part of the school curriculum. Scientists are not immune to normal human vanity – they want to be the faces in the textbooks that slackers of the future draw moustaches onto. And the more radical your scientific conclusion, the higher the probability it could be your face getting the doodle treatment.
The pioneer of scientific palmistry would become the leading expert in the field, and earn money from corporate courses for HR managers on determining diligence by the line of life. They might even take part in a state programme for the preventive fight against poverty along the “line of destiny.”
Astrology has undergone plenty of scientific testing. For example, researchers have studied “astrological twins” – people born at the same time in the same place – to see whether their lives show any meaningful similarities. Alas, none were found – because if they had been, scientists would have been the first to announce it. All the while continuing to mock pop-astrologers – after all, any “new scientific astrology” would have to distance itself from amateurs.
Of course, there are examples where personal ambitions hinder science. Hugh Everett’s many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics was not recognised by many physicists for a long time simply because it seemed implausible to Niels Bohr. But the situation with the many-worlds interpretation is quite different from ignoring any proof we found of Bigfoot. The question of interpretation matters far more to the public than to most scientists. Many quantum physicists follow the “shut up and calculate” principle – conducting research without trying to force the quantum world to match the logic of the everyday world we experience.
Also, notably, despite Bohr’s criticism, the many-worlds interpretation eventually took root without any involvement from Everett, who, feeling overlooked, left science. Everett’s “pseudoscientific according to Bohr” idea was later defended by other physicists – because, in addition to personal benefits, scientists also gain collective benefits from anomalous ideas.
Collective benefits
Anyone who has opened Google Scholar knows that science reaches new heights by standing on the shoulders of giants of the past. As soon as the first scientific “giant” appears in hypothetical astrology, followers will immediately climb onto their shoulders – not out of a desire for truth, but for purely mercantile reasons.
It is not individual scientists but the scientific community that holds the monopoly on interpretation. If the existence of ghosts is proven, it will be scientists, not YouTube ghost hunters, who build careers on explaining the phenomenon. If pseudosciences work, their recognition would lead to rapid institutional growth. Astrological departments, journals and conferences would appear. Researchers would seek grants to study the influence of zodiac signs on drug tolerance. If the lines on the hand can predict fate, perhaps they can also predict a tendency toward criminal behaviour. If homeopathy works, it would require state certification – and trained specialists.
Politicians are not particularly interested in the world’s oceans at the moment. But if it turns out that a megalodon is swimming along the route of a cruise ship carrying voters, it would be far easier to convince them that not only the shark, but also other marine species that make up its potential prey, need study. And let’s not forget about patents. If bio-fields really exist, the first company to develop a device to measure them would become richer than OpenAI.
Of course, the main goal of a true scientist is the search for truth. And recognising pseudoscience that works would fully align with that goal. But even if we leave noble motives aside, scientists know how to turn anomalies into money.
Yet even these benefits pale in comparison to deeper – and equally self-interested – motives.
Existential benefits
Existential benefits are the kinds of benefits that can make even highly educated people support pseudoscience. When we watch a horror film about a resurrected killer who hunts teenagers, we forget that if the killer returned from the afterlife, it means the afterlife exists at all. In the film adaptation of Stephen King’s ‘1408’ – this is not in the original story – John Cusack’s character stays in “haunted hotels” not only to write another exposé bestseller. His daughter has died. He is a skeptic, but he longs to encounter the paranormal because it would give him hope for an afterlife.
Scientists are people too. Scientists don’t want to die, either. If convincing reasons to believe in ghosts appeared, there is no reason why scientists would not cling to that hope, just like everyone else.
But death is not the only existential problem that pseudoscience helps to solve. Many young people do not know what to do with their lives. Believing that the fate of your rock band is determined by a fortune-teller may lead to disappointment later – but here and now it makes it easier to choose a direction and believe it is the right one. We meet many people in our lives – and if horary compatibility worked, scientists would trust their personal lives to the stars in exactly the same way.
We are all doomed to freedom – and the “predictive power” of pseudoscience reduces existential anxiety. It helps us feel that we are on the right path, even if we are not. It gives us the very self-confidence that psychologists say we desperately lack. And if pseudoscience worked, scientists would not miss the opportunity to use it to fill the God-shaped hole that, as Pascal described – though not in those exact words – lies in each of us.
