Posts for 'Pseudo Science' Category

Russia's ruling regime doesn't stop for even a day from disseminating propaganda to the Russian people. State television has always been its chief propaganda instrument, but the Kremlin is expanding its network by creating well-funded think tanks. They tirelessly crank out reports on various political, economic and foreign policy topics with the goal of providing a "scientific" foundation for the country's authoritarian model.

One such think tank serving the power vertical and sovereign democracy is the Institute for Social Engineering, headed by Expert magazine editor-in-chief Valery Fadeyev. Several days ago, Fadeyev's think tank published a report on Russia's political system and its current tasks. Like numerous similar pro-Kremlin, pseudo-academic reports, the paper boils down to three straightforward assertions. First, there is no reason to criticize Russia for violating its own Constitution or for the absence of democracy because the definition of democracy is itself unclear these days -- and because the West is also guilty of human rights violations. Second, our leaders are great and do a good, if not outstanding, job on everything they tackle. And third, nothing in the country aside from a few minor details needs to be changed because things are going just fine.

Read the complete story

In pseudoscience literature one frequently encounters the claim that there are some people, called "sensitives" or psychics," who somehow can pick up the thoughts of others and even transmit their own thoughts to people who are not "sensitives."

This direct mind-to-mind communication is sometimes claimed to be instantaneous, and independent of distance. It is also often claimed that all people -- and even domestic animals such as cats, dogs, and horses -- possess this ability to some degree, and that ordinary coincidences are in fact no ordinary, but rather mysterious demonstrations of this supposed ability.

(For example, one suddenly thinks of Uncle Charlie for the first time in years, and then later learns that Uncle Charlie was in a serious accident at about the time he mysteriously sprang to mind.) All such pseudoscientific discussions of ESP or telepathy also claim that it is "proven beyond a doubt" that ESP or telepathy exists.

Read the complete story

Watching "Amnesia Curiosa" inspires an off-kilter state of mind. The performance group rainpan 43 creates a droll, deadpan scientific mood that makes the audience happy to be served banana slices on toothpicks while making believe they're tasting brains.

Or tasting souls, more accurately, or whatever untouchable bit of humanity stores memory and thought. The fleeting nature of consciousness -- remembering, and even existing -- is the wispy subject of this engaging, oddball entertainment, the second of three shows in the rainpan 43 festival this month at the Studio Theatre.

"It really is amazing to be anything at all," one of the two performers says in the early going, which features a physical exam that's almost worthy of the Marx Brothers.

You might call "Amnesia Curiosa" a comedy if it were more traditionally structured. As it is, Trey Lyford and Geoff Sobelle, who devised the piece with director Andrew Dawson, are performing more of an intellectual sideshow. It begins with the audience touring through a small museum backstage at the Studio's Mead Theatre, with artifacts displayed on tables and in cases. The first object you see: string -- as in the thing you tie around your finger to help you remember.

That's typical of "Amnesia's" puckish understatement, although Lyford and Sobelle aren't above pure silliness. Examples: the "shh-shh" sounds they make when opening make-believe sliding doors, and the absurd fun they have with fake mustaches.

Read the complete story

Europe’s new Jules Verne cargo ship made a nearly flawless first docking at the International Space Station on Thursday, carrying tons of needed supplies and expanding Europe’s role in space.

The robotic spacecraft, gingerly approaching the station at one-tenth of a foot per second, docked with the space station at 10:45 a.m. Eastern time while the two vehicles flew more than 200 miles above the Atlantic Ocean. Seven minutes later, a series of clamps firmly secured the vehicles.

“We have contact,” the Russian astronaut Col. Yuri I. Malenchenko said from inside the space station, where he and the American commander of the station, Peggy A. Whitson, were monitoring the operation. The comment brought applause and cheers from the cargo craft’s European control center in Toulouse, France.

The Jules Verne, named after the visionary French science fiction author, is the first of a new class of station supply ships called Automatic Transfer Vehicles. The craft was built by the nations of the European Space Agency as one of Europe’s major contributions to the international station.

Read the complete story

Cassini spacecraft had a deliberate near-miss with Enceladus on Wednesday afternoon, passing about 30 miles above its surface at a speed of more than 32,000 miles per hour. Over the next couple of years, Cassini is to swing by another seven times, scrutinizing this little moon more than all of the 50-odd others circling Saturn, except perhaps Titan.

Then again, no other 310-mile-wide ice-ball moon in the solar system has a geyser of icy particles shooting out of its south pole.

When Cassini first caught sight of this plume during a flyby three years ago, scientists instantly became intrigued. The plume hinted at liquid water somewhere below Enceladus’ surface, and where there is liquid water, there is also a possibility of life. Suddenly, Enceladus became one of the hottest topics in the solar system.

On Wednesday, as it passed through the edge of the plume at a height of about 120 miles — “We’re kind of dipping our toe in a little bit,” said Robert Mitchell, Cassini’s program manager — instruments on the spacecraft caught and sniffed particles directly out of the plume. The size and particles will provide clues as to why water vapor and ice particles about one ten-thousandth of an inch wide shoot off Enceladus’ surface at a speed of 800 miles per hour. The particles are mostly water ice, but the presence or absence of other elements and molecules will tell something about the inside of Enceladus.

Read the complete story

Once a year, Microsoft Research gives outsiders a glimpse of its high-tech frontiers: gizmos that transform your fingers into ghostly digits on the screen, or make you look like a Webcam celebrity ... viewers that let you unravel the inner workings of the cell, or explore the outer depths of the cosmos ... sensor networks that monitor how climate change affects glaciers in the Swiss Alps, or how the chemistry of life works at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.

Even though I work right on Microsoft's main campus, I'm usually counted as one of those outsiders - but today, I finally got my first glimpse at TechFest, a science fair geared for grown-ups.

Microsoft Research TechFest has been around for seven years, but until last year it was meant exclusively for the software company's employees. It's actually a cross between a science fair and a trade fair, with researchers showing their innovations to product developers who might actually use them.

Last year, the company opened up the TechFest displays for one day to potential customers and partners, as well as journalists and dignitaries. The same system was in effect this year.

Microsoft may be a partner (along with NBC Universal) in the msnbc.com joint venture, but we're treated pretty much like other journalists when it comes to press access. So, armed with my press pass, I walked over to Building 33 on the Redmond campus this morning, waltzed in the door and blended in with the crowd - which included representatives from NASA, the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and a host of universities.

Clearer view of virtual telescope
The headliner at the event was the WorldWide Telescope, an astronomy program that we first wrote about last week (when it was demonstrated at the TED conference). Today, researchers at Microsoft and beyond were more willing to talk up-front about the virtual telescope, which is expected to go into free public release late this spring.

Read the complete story

 Nowadays every product in the market is either fake or not long lasting and this is basically due to the upcoming of pseudoscience is what I think.

What is Pseudoscience?

Pseudosciences are practises that masquerade themselves as science but have little or no scientific evidence or cohesion to support them. They claim to be factual and scientific, yet do not adhere to scientific methodology and principles; notably the scientific principle of falsifiability. It can be difficult for the non-scientist to discern whether something being claimed as scientific actually is or not. Fortunately pseudoscience has many recognisable features that are distinct from genuine science. These features are outlined below. Whilst not every feature will be common to every form of pseudoscience, any claimed scientific practise that displays at least some of these features is increasingly likely to be pseudoscientific.

Features of pseudoscience:

It's dogmatic.

A dogmatic belief or position is one that is deemed, by its proponents, to be accepted authority; and as such, not to be doubted or disputed. Pseudosciences tend to have evolved very little, or not at all, since the dogma was first established. Any research or experimentation that is carried out in the field is generally done more to justify the belief than to improve knowledge. In science, observations are made, a hypothesis is formed, data are gathered, testing is done and if the hypothesis is accepted, a theory (provisional conclusion) is formulated. If any evidence comes to light that invalidates the conclusion, the conclusion will be rejected and a replacement theory sought. In pseudoscience, they begin with a solid conclusion (such as 'homeopathy works'), form theories as to why it works, collect data that support the conclusion and reject or explain away data that doesn't; which inevitably results in the conclusion being confirmed. With this system, no evidence is capable of contradicting the conclusion. Challenging the accepted dogma is often considered a hostile act; such challenges will be fought off with attacks on the critic's character or motives rather than embraced as a way of testing claims as in real science. As a consequence, the same arguments and counter-arguments are seen time and again: scientists give reasons why the practise is a pseudoscience; the pseudoscientists respond with excuses and attacks on scientists and/or science itself.

The idea is aimed directly at the public.

Scientific breakthroughs will normally have been published in science journals, scrutinised by other scientists, and only announced to the public once scientists have agreed that the scientific breakthrough is indeed genuine. The progress of the acceptance of the idea will be documented and anyone can reference this information in the relevant journals. Pseudoscientific ideas are sometimes driven by cultural or ideological reasons, but very often they're driven by commercial goals. A company that is trying to sell its products or ideas without having gone through this scientific scrutiny is giving out a telltale sign that their products will not stand up to scientific scrutiny. A new 'miracle breakthrough' healing device, for example, that is being sold directly to the public, but which has no science references to support it, probably doesn't work.

Ideas that are non-testable.

A crucial problem with many pseudoscientific ideas is that they cannot be tested in any meaningful way. This can come about because what is being claimed is so nebulous and vague it is difficult to conceive of how one would test it. Also, such vagueness facilitates a legion of ‘possible’ interpretations where just about anything could be made to fit the outcome to support the original claim. If a claim or theory cannot be tested then it cannot be falsified and thus it violates a central principle of science (that of falsifiability: see Braithwaite, 2006; Carroll, 2004). If a theory cannot be falsified then no evidence can be gleaned that would speak to the issue one way or the other – it is thus scientifically meaningless. Ideas that cannot be tested are no more right than there are completely wrong.

Verbose language and prose.
One reason that theories from pseudoscience are vague and untestable is that the language used by the proponents is far too vacuous itself. This often results in a ‘theory’ that is so conceptually slippery it becomes difficult to identify what is actually being argued – or how one might test it. Due to their nebulous content, such practices also nearly always hide all sorts of circular reasoning errors. Over-complex words, phrases and over-long sentences are employed in an attempt to ‘look’ scientific and intelligent.  Indeed, in pseudoscience the more scientific-type language employed, the more ‘plausible’ it appears to be. However, all this really accomplishes is confusion. Poorly defined terms like ‘energy’ ‘resonance’ ‘quantum’ ‘nano’ ‘dimensions’ are all used with no useful explicit definitions provided. They are meant to look scientific, to look respectable in order to add weight to an idea which is in reality both implausible and improbable. Poor writing often reflects poor thought and poor understanding. Whenever one encounters flowery and verbose language it is likely the authors / speakers do not fully understand what they are talking about. Verbose language is used to fill-in the gaps of knowledge by making it sound as if something profound and insightful is being said, when in fact the sentence rarely goes anywhere!

Conceptual hijacking.
An increasing trend in contemporary pseudoscience is to hijack aspects from mainstream science in an attempt to appear more scientific. This is usually done with very new areas of science where the public's understanding (and that of scientists themselves), is low. Recent examples include areas like quantum mechanics and string theory from the field of Physics. Paranormal theories that hijack these areas (in an attempt to make their poor ideas look more plausible) are riddled with huge misunderstandings over these concepts. Conceptual hijacking plays on the public’s lack of understanding and presents a twisted version of science that bares little reality to the truth.

Confirmation-bias (selective evidence).
Many people report a common perception of thinking about someone, when the phone then rings and the caller is the person they were thinking of. Is this strong evidence for a psychic ability between these people? The answer is no. It reflects a selective bias in memory and reason. Although we can remember the instances when this does happen (as they can be striking) we rarely remember the instances when it is not the person we were thinking of. Our memory is biased to place an emphasis on the ‘hits’ and ignore the ‘misses’. In a similar manner, researchers can sometimes concentrate only on that evidence that is consistent with the argument being developed (the hits) and ignore other evidence which contradicts it (the misses). This is known as the confirmation bias (where we are biased to only notice observations that confirm our assumptions). The confirmation bias relies on a positive biased focus and weighting towards only that evidence which is consistent with the current belief or world-view, and a negative bias to ignore results that challenge the view. It may be impressive to see a dowser find water in a single trial, but this on its own does not mean dowsing works. When we run tests and see that on many trials the dowser failed to locate water the scant and periodic instances when they are successful no longer looks impressive.

Metaphorical / analogy driven thinking.
Metaphors and analogies are essential to science and theory. Complex and more abstract areas of science rely particularly on metaphor and analogy to add clarity to knowledge and to communicate that knowledge. This is perfectly legitimate and indeed, to some extent, unavoidable. In science, analogies and metaphors may emerge as useful ways to think about, describe, and explain objective facts and evidence. For example, psychologists have employed the metaphor of visual selective attention being like a ‘spotlight’ illuminating the relevant information out there in the world from the surrounding darkness of all that we ignore. In many respects this has proved a very fruitful metaphor guiding thinking in this area of study. The problem here is not the use of analogies or metaphor in scientific thinking, but the clear abuse of them. The problem with pseudoscience is its use and over-reliance on metaphor as an argument in and of itself. Rather than employ metaphors and analogies as illustrations of scientific knowledge, pseudoscience employs analogies to deduce new conclusions and propose alternative truths. At this point it no longer becomes a mere illustration; it becomes an argument by analogy  Quite often, the richer and more intuitively appealing the analogy, the more true the claim being made appears to be. This can occur to such an extent that the analogy becomes a potent mind-trap and dominates all thinking on this issue. This is an error. Scientific arguments should be based on evidence, not analogy. The role of analogy in science is for illustration and communication – it is not for basing a claim of provisional truth. All analogies provide a degree of similarity to that which it is being applied to – this is why they are recruited as an illustration. However, there is also much dissimilarity as well and this is often missed (again another form of selection-bias). Ultimately, every analogy and metaphor will cease to work so it is crucial that any argument is not solely dependent on the analogy for its claim as a truth. As Thouless (1968) goes on to point out:

“Even the most successful analogies in the history of science breakdown at some point. Analogies are a valuable guide as to what facts we may expect, but are never final evidence as to what we shall discover. A guide whose reliability is certain to give out at some point must obviously be accepted with caution. We can never feel certain of a conclusion which rests only on analogy and we must always look for more direct proof”

In some cases the analogy has no direct relevance or implication for the case being argued (the fallacy of the argument by irrelevant analogy; a special case of the non-sequitur type of fallacy). For example, modern creationists and advocates of intelligent design use analogies drawn from human design and engineering to argue for similar patterns in nature. The implication by such a comparison is that a designer must have been involved in the creation of the universe. Here the fallacy is to use a metaphor and analogy of a ‘known’ designer (i.e., something humans have designed and built) to prove the case of a divine designer. This type of comparison is an irrelevance. In addition, a closer examination often reveals that most pseudoscientific ideas are almost totally purely metaphorical in nature, form and content. That is to say, there are no reliable data, no firm facts, or evidence – just metaphor. This basically amounts to little more than a nice story – though not necessarily a correct or true one. A good example of an over-reliance on metaphor and analogy is the ‘stone-tape’ metaphor that parapsychologists have used to explain ghostly sightings. According to the stone-tape account, human ‘energies’ and actions are somehow recorded in the immediate atmosphere and stored in the stone of a building or room, which can then be played back ‘somehow’ in ‘someway’ as a ghostly manifestation at a later date. The metaphor here is the notion of the making and playing back of recordings. However, despite its popularity, there is no scientific evidence to support this idea – and there never has been. Indeed, it is not at all clear as to how such recordings could be made by stone, and how they could be played back. All we are told is that it can occur ‘somehow’ in ‘someway’ - even though no plausible physical mechanism exists. This is an example of an over-reliance on a metaphor to support a non-scientific idea. The problem here is the analogy and metaphor itself can blind the untrained mind to the lack of actual facts and evidence present in the argument. “The mere fact that the argument is in the form of an analogy is often enough to force the immediate irrational acceptance. There seems to be no other explanation of the extraordinary extent to which otherwise intelligent people become convinced of highly improbable things because they have heard them supported by an analogy whose unsoundness should be apparent to an imbecile”

Anecdotes as evidence.

Although anecdotal evidence has its place in scientific theory: no theory should be solely dependent on anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is a poor and unreliable source of evidence. For example, it is important that any theory of memory can explain the anecdotal experience of forgetting, but this should not just be based on anecdotes of forgetting, but on empirical demonstrations of the failure to retain information under controlled conditions. This leads to reliable and valid data on which to build a scientific account for the object of study. Similarly, theories of language need to be able to explain tip-of-the-tongue experiences (where we feel as if what we want to say is just failing to reach our ability to actually say it), slips of the tongue experiences (where we say a related word instead of the one we meant). However, the anecdotal experience of these instances does nothing to explain why and how they actually occur. These experiences are the products of psychological processes; however these products do nothing to explain the underlying processes themselves. Knowing that we have the phenomenal experience of consciousness, does not explain what consciousness is, or how it occurs. One major problem with pseudoscience is that it places a strong and selective emphasis on anecdotes, and anecdotes alone, as support for its claims and theories. In reality, personal anecdotes alone are not a viable argument against data, facts, theory, empirical observation, and objective measurement. Lots of anecdotes do not support a case any more than a few anecdotes do. This is because all anecdotes are provided via a process which is itself fallible and prone to many sources of error. Anecdotal evidence has its place in scientific theory - but it is no contender for a source of information which can provide a mechanistic understanding the mental universe. Contrary to the popular saying, data is not the plural of anecdote.

Lack of explicit mechanisms
Pseudoscience is characterised by a complete lack of viable explicit mechanisms of action for the object being studied. Even if we were to accept some instances as fact, there is still no clear idea how these phenomena would work or how they could work. There is no clear and plausible proposed mechanism for how apparitions are supposed to be recorded in stone, no clear mechanism for how astrology is supposed to influence human behaviour, no clear mechanism for how the mind could survive bodily death or how liquids can hold a memory (as is claimed in homeopathy).This lack of explicitness is related to some of the other characteristics listed above. For example, the fact that an idea is nebulous in turn makes it difficult to test such ideas (i.e., cannot be falsified). Furthermore, an idea can be nebulous due to verbose language (see above). However, even when these factors are not a major concern there is still a lack of a workable explicit mechanism. Even the best and clearest explanations of homeopathy, apparitions, alternative health, and psychic phenomena still fail badly at outlining a specific mechanism for how they are supposed to work. Although the lack of any mechanism is not, in itself, evidence against the existence of such phenomena occurring, the lack of any plausible mechanism waiting verification is not particularly convincing evidence for it being genuine either. There are many areas of experimental science where mechanisms of action are not well understood – however, under these circumstances there will be some factual and accepted knowledge that provides a framework for thinking. In addition, although a mechanism may not be known, candidate mechanisms will be well specified to a level that guides future experimentation and thinking. What counts in science is the ability for a provisional explanation to feasibly account for the phenomena via a proposed mechanism that is more explicit than any other. An explicit mechanism should also generate clear predictions and these predictions should be testable (and falsifiable). The mechanism should say why the phenomenon occurs, what the principal components are, how it works, and what it does. In contrast to scientific mechanisms and models, Parapsychology has been actively investigating paranormal and psychic phenomena since the 1940s – and yet despite the decades that have passed, no reliable evidence, or explicit and plausible mechanism has ever been proposed that suggests paranormal phenomena are a real veridical objective event.

Special pleading (elusive evidence).

Proponents of pseudoscience often claim that scientific testing is not the best way to test their claim; there is something special about the claim that makes it different to other disciplines. This special pleading is often accompanied by other fallacious reasoning such as scientists being too 'close-minded' to see the truth or that 'science has been wrong before'.These claims invariably arise because when the pseudoscience is tested by scientists, the claimed results do not occur. One of the hallmarks of science is not only producing results and having those results reviewed by peers and published, but that those results can be reproduced (under controlled conditions) by other scientists independently.This point is an important one. If something is real it will manifest itself regardless of who's doing the testing or whether the testers believe in it or not. If the phenomenon requires special (i.e. non-scientific) conditions or the testers have to believe in it for it to show up then it's highly likely that the phenomenon is not real and is merely a result of wishful thinking and confounding factors introduced by non-scientific testing.Genuine phenomena will stand up to scrutiny (!)

Conspiracy theory.

Pseudosciences are often portrayed as real truths that "they" don't want you to know about. "They", whoever they may be, are accused of suppressing the evidence for their own self-interest. For example, the 'real' cure for cancer is suppressed by 'big pharma' (pharmaceutical companies) so that they can keep making huge profits selling useless drugs whilst people die. Just how the conspiracy theorists come to be aware of this suppressed evidence however, is never explained.

Summary.

The defining feature of science is that hypotheses and theories that are put forward must be capable of being tested and shown to be false should they actually be so - this is the scientific criterion of falsifiability. As our examples above show, the tell-tale signs of pseudoscience are ploys that lead their claims away from being falsifiable.Pseudoscience then, can be described as theories, methodologies or practises that claim to be scientific but which are presented in such a manner that they can not be falsified by empirical testing.
 
 

 If something cannot be explained with the help of science is obviously a pseudo science and people dealing with pseudo science know the real way how to sell a pseudo science product. Every time I read the reports of new pseudosciences in the Skeptical Inquirer or watch the latest "In Search Of"-style television show I have one cognitive response, "how can anyone believe that?" Some recent examples include: " why do people spend $3.95 a minute to talk on the telephone with a 'psychic' who has never foretold the future?" ", why do people believe that an all-uncooked vegan diet is natural and therefore nutritious?" "why would two state troopers chase the planet Venus across state lines thinking it was an alien spacecraft?" " why do people spend millions of dollars each year on subliminal tapes that just don't work?" There are, of course, many different answers to these questions. Conjurers can duplicate pseudoscientific feats and thus show us how sleights of hand and misdirections can mislead. Sociologists can point to social conditions that increase the prevalence of pseudoscientific beliefs. Natural scientists can describe the physical properties of objects to show that what may appear to be supernatural is natural. Cognitive psychologists have identified common mental biases that often lead us to misinterpret social reality and to conclude in favor of supernatural phenomena. These perspectives are useful in addressing the question; all give us a piece of the puzzle in unraveling this mystery.  I will describe how a social psychologist answers the holy cow question. Social psychology is the study of social influence__how human beings and their institutions influence and affect each other. For the past seven decades, social psychologists have been developing theories of social influence and have been testing the effectiveness of various persuasion tactics in their. It is my thesis that many persuasion tactics discovered by social psychologists are used every day, perhaps not totally consciously, by the promoters of pseudoscience. To see how these tactics can be used to sell flimflam, let's pretend for a moment that we wish to have our very own pseudoscience. Here are nine common propaganda tactics that should result in success.

1. Create a Phantom

The first thing we need to do is to create a phantom __ an unavailable goal that looks real and possible; it looks as if it might be obtained with just the right effort, just the right belief, or just the right amount of money, but in reality it can't be obtained. Most pseudosciences are based on belief in a distant or phantom goal. Some examples of pseudoscience phantoms: meeting a space alien, contacting a dead relative at a seance, receiving the wisdom of the universe from a channeled dolphin, and improving one's bowling game or overcoming the trauma of rape with a subliminal tape. Phantoms can serve as effective propaganda devices. If I don't have a desired phantom, I feel deprived and somehow less of a person. A pseudoscientist can take advantage of these feelings of inferiority by appearing to offer a means to obtain that goal. In a rush to enhance self-esteem, we suspend better judgment and readily accept the offering of the pseudoscience. The trick, of course, is to get the new seeker to believe that the phantom is possible. Often the mere mention of the delights of a phantom will be enough to dazzle the new pseudoscience recruit. After all, who wouldn't want a better sex life, better health, and peace of mind, all from a $14.95 subliminal tape? The fear of loss of a phantom also can motivate us to accept it as real. The thought that I will never speak again to a cherished but dead loved one or that next month I may die of cancer can be so painful as to cause me to suspend my better judgment and hold out hope against hope that the medium can contact the dead or that Laetrile works. But at times the sell is harder, and that calls for our next set of persuasion tactics.

2. Set a Rationalization Trap

The rationalization trap is based on the premise: Get the person committed to the cause as soon as possible. Once a commitment is made, the nature of thought changes. The committed heart is not so much interested in a careful evaluation of the merits of a course of action but in proving that he or she is right. To see how commitment to a pseudoscience can be established, let's look at a bizarre case__mass suicides at the direction of cult leader Jim Jones. This is the ultimate "holy cow" question: "Why kill yourself and your children on another's command?" From outside the cult I it appears strange, but from the inside it seems natural. Jones began by having his followers make easy commitments (a gift to the church, attending Wednesday night service) and then increased the level of commitment __ more tithes, more time in service, loyalty oaths, public admission of sins and punishment, selling of homes, forced sex, moving to Guyana, and then the suicide. Each step was really a small one. Outsiders saw the strange end product; insiders experienced an ever increasing spiral of escalating commitment. This is a dramatic example, but not all belief in pseudoscience is so extreme. For example, there are those who occasionally consult a psychic or listen to a subliminal tape. In such cases, commitment can be secured by what social psychologists call the foot-in-the-door technique. It works this way: You start with a small request, such as accepting a free chiropractic spine exam, taking a sample of vitamins, or completing a free personality inventory. Then a larger request follows __ a $1,000 chiropractic realignment, a vitamin regime, or an expensive seminar series. The first small request sets the commitment: Why did you get that bone exam, take those vitamins, or complete that test if you weren't interested and didn't think there might be something to it? An all too common response, "Well gosh, I guess I am interested." The rationalization trap is sprung. Now that we have secured the target's commitment to a phantom goal, we need some social support for the newfound pseudoscientific beliefs. The next tactics are designed to bolster those beliefs.

3. Manufacture Source Credibility and Sincerity

Our third tactic is to manufacture source credibility and sincerity. In other words, create a guru, leader, mystic, lord, or other generally likable and powerful authority, one who people would be just plain nuts if they didn't believe. For example, practitioners of alternative medicine often have "degrees" as chiropractors or in homeopathy. Subliminal tape sellers claim specialized knowledge and training in such arts as hypnosis. Advocates of UFO sightings often become directors of "research centers." "Psychic detectives" come with long resumes of police service. Prophets claim past successes. For example, most of us "know" that Jeane Dixon predicted the assassination of President Kennedy but probably don't know that she also predicted a Nixon win in 1960. As modern public relations has shown us, credibility is easier to manufacture than we might normally think. Source credibility is an effective propaganda device for at least two reasons. First, we often process persuasive messages in a half-mindless state __ either because we are not motivated to think, don't have the time to consider, or lack the abilities to understand the issues. In such cases, the presence of a credible source can lead one to quickly infer that the message has merit and should be accepted. Second, source credibility can stop questioning (Kramer and Alstad 1993). After all, what gives you the right to question a guru, a prophet, the image of the Mother Mary, or a sincere seeker of life's hidden potentials? I'll clarify this point with an example. Suppose I told you that the following statement is a prediction of the development of the atomic bomb and the fighter aircraft: You probably would respond: "Huh? I don't see how you get the atomic bomb from that. This could just as well be a prediction of an in-flight showing of the Dr. Doolittle movie or the advent of night baseball at Wrigley field." However, attribute the statement to Nostradamus and the dynamics change. Nostradamus was a man who supposedly cured plague victims, predicted who would be pope, foretold the future of kings and queens, and even found a poor dog lost by the king's page. Such a great seer and prophet can't be wrong. The implied message: The problem is with you; instead of questioning, why don't you suspend your faulty, linear mind until you gain the needed insight?

4. Establish a Granfalloon

Where would a leader be without something to lead? Our next tactic supplies the answer: Establish what Kurt Vonnegut terms a "granfalloon," a proud and meaningless association of human beings. One of social psychology's most remarkable findings is the ease with which granfalloons can be created. For example, the social psychologist Henri Tajfel merely brought subjects into his lab, flipped a coin, and randomly assigned them to be labeled either Xs or Ws. At the end of the study, total strangers were acting as if those in their granfalloon were their close kin and those in the other group were their worst enemies. Granfalloons are powerful propaganda devices because they are easy to create and, once established, the granfalloon defines social reality and maintains social identities. Information is dependent on the granfalloon. Since most granfalloons quickly develop out-groups, criticisms can be attributed to those "evil ones" outside the group, who are thus stifled. To maintain a desired social identity, such as that of a seeker or a New Age rebel, one must obey the dictates of the granfalloon and its leaders. The classic séance can be viewed as an ad-hoc granfalloon. Note what happens as you sit in the dark and hear a thud. You are dependent on the group led by a medium for the interpretation of this sound. "What is it? A knee against the table or my long lost Uncle Ned? The group believes it is Uncle Ned. Rocking the boat would be impolite. Besides, I came here to be a seeker." Essential to the success of the granfalloon tactic is the creation of a shared social identity. In creating this identity, here are some things you might want to include:

(a) rituals and symbols (e.g., a dowser's rod, secret symbols, and special ways of preparing food): these not only create an identity, but provide items for sale at a profit.

(b) jargon and beliefs that only the in-group understands and accepts (e.g., thetans are impeded by engrams, you are on a cusp with Jupiter rising): jargon is an effective means of social control since it can be used to frame the interpretation of events.

(c) shared goals (e.g., to end all war, to sell the faith and related products, or to realize one's human potential): such goals not only define the group, but motivate action as believers attempt to reach them.

(d) shared feelings (e.g., the excitement of a prophecy that might appear to be true or the collective rationalization of strange beliefs to others): shared feelings aid in the we feeling.

(e) specialized information (e.g., the U.S. government is in a conspiracy to cover up UFOs): this helps the target feel special because he or she is "in the know."

(f) enemies (e.g., alternative medicine opposing the AMA and the FDA, subliminal-tape companies spurning academic psychologists, and spiritualists condemning Randi and other investigators): enemies are very important because you as a pseudoscientist will need scapegoats to blame for your problems and failures.

5. Use Self-Generated Persuasion

Another tactic for promoting pseudoscience and one of the most powerful tactics identified by social psychologists is self-generated persuasion -- the subtle design of the situation so that the targets persuade themselves. During World War II, Kurt Lewin was able to get Americans to eat more sweetbreads (veal and beef organ meats) by having them form groups to discuss how they could persuade others to eat sweetbreads. Retailers selling so-called nutritional products have discovered this technique by turning customers into salespersons. To create a multilevel sales organization, the "nutrition" retailer recruits customers (who recruit still more customers) to serve as sales agents for the product. Customers are recruited as a test of their belief in the product or with the hope of making lots of money (often to buy more products). By trying to sell the product, the customer-turned-salesperson becomes more convinced of its worth. One multilevel leader tells his new sales agents to "answer all objections with testimonials. That's the secret to motivating people," and it is also the secret to convincing yourself

6. Construct Vivid Appeals

Joseph Stalin once remarked: "The death of a single Russian soldier is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic." In other words, a vividly presented case study or example can make a lasting impression. For example, the pseudosciences are replete with graphic stories of ships and planes caught in the Bermuda Triangle, space aliens examining the sexual parts of humans, weird goings-on in Borley Rectory or Amityville, New York, and psychic surgeons removing cancerous tumors.  A vivid presentation is likely to be very memorable and hard to refute. No matter how many logical arguments can be mustered to counter the pseudoscience claim, there remains that one graphic incident that comes quickly to mind to prompt the response: "Yeah, but what about that haunted house in New York? Hard to explain that." By the way, one of the best ways to counter a vivid appeal is with an equally vivid counter appeal. For example, to counter stories about psychic surgeons in the Philippines, Randi tells an equally vivid story of a psychic surgeon palming chicken guts and then pretending to remove them from a sick and now less wealthy patient.

7. Use Pre-Persuasion

Pre-persuasion is defining the situation or setting the stage so you win, and sometimes without raising so much as a valid argument. How does one do this? At least three steps are important. First, establish the nature of the issue. For example, to avoid the wrath of the FDA, advocates of alternative medicine define the issue as health freedom (you should have the right to the health alternative of your choice) as opposed to consumer protection or quality care. If the issue is defined as freedom, the alternative medicine advocate will win because "Who is opposed to freedom?" Another example of this technique is to create a problem or disease, such as reactive hypoglycemia or yeast allergy, that then just happens to be "curable" with whatever quackery you have to sell. Another way to define an issue is through differentiation. Subliminal-tape companies use product differentiation to respond to negative subliminal-tape studies. The claim: "Our tapes have a special technique that makes them superior to other tapes that have been used in studies that failed to show the therapeutic value of subliminal tapes." Thus, null results are used to make a given subliminal tape look superior. The psychic network has taken a similar approach -- "Tired of those phony psychics? Ours are certified," says the advertisement. Second, set expectations. Expectations can lead us to interpret ambiguous information in a way that supports an original hypothesis. For example, a belief in the Bermuda Triangle may lead us to interpret a plane crash off the coast of New York City as evidence for the Triangle's sinister effects. We recently conducted a study that showed how an expectation can lead people to think that subliminal tapes work when in fact they do not. In our study, expectations were established by mislabeling half the tapes. The results showed that about half the subjects thought they improved (though they did not) based on how the tape was labeled (and not the actual content). The label led them to interpret their behavior in support of expectations, or what we termed an "illusory placebo" effect.  A third way to pre-persuade is to specify the decision criteria. For example, psychic supporters have developed guidelines on what should be viewed as acceptable evidence for paranormal abilities -- such as using personal experiences as data, placing the burden of proof on the critic and not the claimant, and above all else keeping James Randi and other psi-inhibitors out of the testing room. Accept these criteria and one must conclude that psi is a reality. The collaboration of Hyman and Honorton is one positive attempt to establish a fair playing field.

8. Frequently Use Heuristics and Commonplaces

My next recommendation to the would-be pseudoscientist is to use heuristics and commonplaces. Heuristics are simple if-then rules or norms that are widely accepted; for example, if it costs more it must be more valuable. Commonplaces are widely accepted beliefs that can serve as the basis of an appeal; for example, government health-reform should be rejected because politicians are corrupt (assuming political corruption is a widely accepted belief). Heuristics and commonplaces gain their power because they are widely accepted and thus induce little thought about whether the rule or argument is appropriate. To sell a pseudoscience, liberally sprinkle your appeal with heuristics and commonplaces. Here are some common examples.

(a) The scarcity heuristic, or if it is rare it is valuable. The Psychic Friends Network costs a pricey $3.95 a minute and therefore must be valuable. On the other hand, an average University of California professor goes for about 27 cents per minute and is thus of little value!

(b) The consensus or bandwagon heuristic, or if everyone agrees it must be true. Subliminal tapes, psychic phone ads, and quack medicine feature testimonials of people who have found what they are looking for.

(c) The message length heuristic, or if the message is long it is strong. Subliminal-tape brochures often list hundreds of subliminal studies in support of their claims. Yet most of these studies do not deal with subliminal influence and thus are irrelevant. An uninformed observer would be impressed by the weight of the evidence.

(d) The representative heuristic or if an object resembles another (on some salient dimension) then they act similarly. For example, in folk medicines the cure often resembles the apparent cause of the disease. Homeopathy is based on the notion that small amounts of substances that can cause a disease's symptoms will cure the disease. The Chinese Doctrine of Signatures claims that similarity of shape and form determine therapeutic value; thus rhinoceros horns, deer antlers, and ginseng root look phallic and supposedly improve vitality.

(e) The natural commonplace, or what is natural is good and what is made by humans is bad. Alternative medicines are promoted with the word "natural." Psychic abilities are portrayed as natural, but lost, abilities. Organic food is natural. Of course mistletoe berries are natural too, and I don't recommend a steady diet of these morsels.

(f) The goddess-within commonplace, or humans have a spiritual side that is neglected by modern materialistic science. This commonplace stems from the medieval notion of the soul, which was modernized by Mesmer as animal magnetism and then converted by psychoanalysis into the powerful, hidden unconscious. Pseudoscience plays to this commonplace by offering ways to tap the unconscious, such as subliminal tapes, to prove this hidden power exists through extrasensory perception (ESP) and psi, or to talk with the remnants of this hidden spirituality through channeling and the seance.

(g) The science commonplaces. Pseudosciences use the word "science" in a contradictory manner. On the one hand, the word "science" is sprinkled liberally throughout most pseudosciences: subliminal tapes make use of the "latest scientific technology"; psychics are "scientifically tested"; health fads are "on the cutting edge of science." On the other hand, science is often portrayed as limited. For example, one article in Self magazine reported our subliminal-tapes studies showing no evidence that the tapes worked and then stated: "Tape makers dispute the objectivity of the studies. They also point out that science can't always explain the results of mainstream medicine either". In each case a commonplace about science is used: (1) "Science is powerful" and (2) "Science is limited and can't replace the personal." The selective use of these commonplaces allows a pseudoscience to claim the power of science but have a convenient out should science fail to promote the pseudoscience.

9. Attack Opponents Through Innuendo and Character Assassination

Finally, you would like your pseudoscience to be safe from harm and external attack. Given that the best defense is a good offense, I offer the advice of Cicero: "If you don't have a good argument, attack the plaintiff." Let me give a personal example of this tactic in action. After our research showing that subliminal tapes have no therapeutic value was reported, my coauthors, Tony Greenwald, Eric Spangenberg, Jay Eskenazi, and I were the target of many innuendoes. One subliminal newsletter edited by Eldon Taylor, Michael Urban, and others claimed that our research was a marketing study designed not to test the tapes but to "demonstrate the influence of marketing practices on consumer perceptions." The article points out that the entire body of data presented by Greenwald represents a marketing dissertation by Spangenberg and questions why Greenwald is even an author. The newsletter makes other attacks as well, claiming that our research design lacked a control group, that we really found significant effects of the tapes, that we violated American Psychological Association ethics with a hint that an investigation would follow, that we prematurely reported our findings in a manner similar to those who prematurely announced cold fusion, and that we were conducting a "Willie Horton"-style smear campaign against those who seek to help Americans achieve their personal goals. Many skeptics can point to similar types of attacks. In the fourteenth century, Bishop Pierre d'Arcis, one of the first to contest the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, was accused by shroud promoters as being motivated by jealousy and a desire to possess the shroud. Today, James Randi is described by supporters of Uri Geller as "a powerful psychic trying to convince the world that such powers don't exist so he can take the lead role in the psychic world." Why is innuendo such a powerful propaganda device? Social psychologists point to three classes of answers. First, innuendoes change the agenda of discussion. Note the "new" discussion on subliminal tapes isn't about whether these tapes are worth your money or not. Instead, we are discussing whether I am ethical or not, whether I am a competent researcher, and whether I even did the research. Second, innuendoes raise a glimmer of doubt about the character of the person under attack. That doubt can be especially powerful when there is little other information on which to base a judgment. For example, the average reader of the subliminal newsletter I quoted probably knows little about me knows little about the research and little about the peer review process that evaluated it, and doesn't know that I make my living from teaching college and not from the sale of subliminal tapes. This average reader is left with the impression of an unethical and incompetent scientist who is out of control. Who in their right mind would accept what that person has to say? Finally, innuendoes can have a chilling effect. The recipient begins to wonder about his or her reputation and whether the fight is worth it. The frivolous lawsuit is an effective way to magnify this chilling effect.

Can Science Be Sold with Propaganda?

I would be remiss if I didn't address one more issue: Can we sell science with the persuasion tactics of pseudoscience? Let's be honest; science sometimes uses these tactics. For example, I carry in my wallet a membership card to the Monterey Bay Aquarium with a picture of the cutest little otter you'll ever see. I am in the otter granfalloon. On some occasions skeptics have played a little loose with their arguments and their name-calling. As just one example, see George Price's 1955 Science article attacking Rhine's and Soal's work on ESP -- an attack that went well beyond the then available data. I can somewhat understand the use of such tactics. If a cute otter can inspire a young child to seek to understand nature, then so be it But we should remember that such tactics can be ineffective in promoting science if they are not followed up by involvement in the process of science -- the process of questioning and discovering. And we should be mindful that the use of propaganda techniques has its costs. If we base our claims on cheap propaganda tactics, then it is an easy task for the pseudoscientist to develop even more effective propaganda tactics and carry the day. More fundamentally, propaganda works best when we are half mindless, simplistic thinkers trying to rationalize our behavior and beliefs to ourselves and others. Science works best when we are thoughtful and critical and scrutinize claims carefully. Our job should be to promote such thought and scrutiny. We should be careful to select our persuasion strategies to be consistent with that goal.

  I surely have heard of nuclear science but never of nuclear Pseudoscience this means that even the scientists have started to add pseudoscience in the logic of science now and then which has created confusion for people at large. After all what is a fact and what is not is the question left to ask the Scientists. Nuclear catastrophes, whether from bombs or reactor accidents, are a major source of pseudoscientific concepts. One popular misconception that seems finally to have died out is the idea that nuclear reactors can explode like atomic bombs. This fear was common in the early years of the atomic age but is rarely heard now even from the most ardent critics of nuclear power. In an atomic bomb, the fissionable material (uranium or plutonium) must undergo a chain reaction in a few millionths of a second. Anything slower will allow the fissionable material to melt or fly apart from the intense heat generated before the reaction is complete. To fulfill these conditions, we need a means of getting a critical mass assembled instantly and holding it together against tremendous heat and pressure for a few microseconds - in short, something specifically designed to be an atomic bomb. The requirements for a nuclear explosion are very stringent and all but impossible to achieve by accident. A related misconception turned up in a TV movie special some years ago. A terrorist had built a basement atom bomb. The hero tried to disarm it but failed. The timer reached zero but the bomb failed to go off. A "bomb expert" advised the hero that the chain reaction had started but would take time to "build up." The hero, knowing he was doomed already by radiation, flew the bomb out to sea in a helicopter before it detonated. No way. The bomb either goes off in microseconds or not at all. Long before a chain reaction could build up to explosive force, the fissionable material would have melted its way through the bomb casing and the critical mass needed to sustain the chain reaction would have fallen apart. A most unhealthy radioactive mess would result, but not a nuclear explosion. Robert Heinlein's story The Long Watch manages to incorporate most of the popular misconceptions about nuclear warheads and radiation. In the story, 21st century nuclear warheads are controlled by an international peace-keeping agency and kept on a space station. A cabal of officers plots to use the weapons to seize power, but a young lieutenant locks himself in the bomb storage area and dismantles the bombs. By the time the plot is broken, the lieutenant is dead from radiation and his body is returned to Earth in great honor in a lead coffin. The first flaw has to do with how the lieutenant stops the plot. How do you keep someone from tinkering with a nuclear weapon? The answer is simple. First, you make sure nobody goes near an atomic bomb alone. This is standard practice for the U.S. and probably all the world's other nuclear forces; the guard would simply not admit an unaccompanied person into the storage area, regardless of his rank or security clearance. Second, you put a lock on the bomb to buy time in case someone does obtain unauthorized access and you make sure the people who have access to the bombs don't have easy access to the keys or combinations. It has been rumored that the U.S. allowed information about its locking devices to be leaked to the former Soviet Union. The Russians could hardly unlock and sabotage every one of our weapons, but they could lock their own more securely. The damage we or they would be likely to do by knowing how the other side's locks work is trivial; the damage a lone psychotic could do with an insecure weapon scarcely bears thinking about. Plutonium is very toxic, and with a half-life of only 24,000 years is a good deal more radioactive than uranium, but most plutonium nuclei give off alpha particles (or helium nuclei) that will not penetrate the skin and only travel a few inches in air. A few plutonium nuclei undergo spontaneous fission and give off neutrons, and it is these particles that Heinlein pictures as killing his hero, but he could hardly have gotten enough radiation in a day or so to be fatal. Heinlein also grossly exaggerates the toxicity of plutonium in his story, as do many anti-nuclear activists. Mere exposure to radiation will not make something radioactive. Neutrons alone of all major types of radiation can interact with atoms to create new, radioactive atoms (the source of fallout and radioactive waste from reactors). Heinlein's lieutenant was only in the bomb vault a day and had to be buried in a lead coffin. The bomb casings and the walls of the bomb vault, exposed to the same radiation for years on end, must be positively lethal. In fact, Heinlein's melodrama borders on the absurd, but he's not alone. The TV series The F.B.I. once involved pursuing a villain who had been in a nuclear accident and was so radioactive that even a brief encounter was dangerous. He even killed fish in a pond where he stopped to drink! (Water is a fairly good absorber of atomic particles, and fish would probably not be as susceptible to radiation as humans) Anyone bombarded that heavily by neutron radiation would be dead instantly, not running about eluding the F.B.I. One of the most durable pseudoscientific concepts about radiation is that radiation makes things glow in the dark. Some materials are luminescent; they give off light when hit by energetic radiation like gamma rays, x-rays, or ultraviolet light. Most materials are not luminescent. In many stories of the aftermath of nuclear war, like Arthur C. Clarke's short story The Curse, the bombed areas are pictured as glowing. However, the areas that have already been used for nuclear testing do not show any tendency to phosphoresce. If radiation can't do these things, then why all the fuss? First, radioactive decay gives off gamma rays, high-energy electromagnetic radiation. These rays can penetrate the body and do damage. Second, any ingested or inhaled radioactive material can cause damage within the body. The real dangers of radiation are serious enough without adding to them for the sake of silly theatric effects. We have already dealt with a few of the things nuclear weapons cannot do, like altering the Earth's rotation or orbit. It is often said there are enough nuclear warheads to kill every person on Earth several times over. This statement is true. There are enough bullets, knives, chemical poisons and rocks to kill everyone on Earth. Nothing in this discussion should be taken as viewing nuclear war lightly. It would be next to impossible to kill everyone on Earth directly with nuclear weapons. We might, though it's unlikely, kill everyone through fallout. We would lose the Acropolis, Saint Peter's, the Eiffel Tower, the Statue of Liberty, the Golden Gate Bridge, Disneyland and almost everything else the human race has striven to build. Every single person in the industrialized world would lose loved ones. The survivors in the developed world would have to adapt to a far more primitive lifestyle; the survivors in the underdeveloped world would lose all their hopes of future prosperity. Do we really need to embellish this picture with absurd and overblown rhetoric?

 Penta Water is one of many bottled waters whose manufacturers claim to have "restructured" the water in some way that provides special health benefits. In my opinion, there is no credible scientfic evidence for either the altered water structure or for the health benefits.Penta Water has been marketed for several years, formerly by a company known as Bio-Hydration Research Labs. It is sometimes referred to as "Penta-Hydrate Water". The principal marketing claims are that it is "the purest bottled water on the market", and that it is "restructured" to reduce the "cluster size", making it more amenable to uptake by the body. Penta Water is made by a succession of steps, the details of which have varied (6 steps until early 2005, 14 since then.) In general, these steps include various forms of filtration, reverse osmosis, de-ionization, UV-light, "molecular redefinition" (currently referred to as the "Penta Process) and oxygenation treatment. All except the last two are conventional and generally effective methods that are widely employed in both domestic water treatment and in the manufacture of bottled beverages. The descriptions of the last two of these treatments (on an earlier Web page) are rather weird and lack scientific support. Hype Comments
The description of the Molecular Redefinition process concludes with the following ungrammatical sentence: "Penta processing tank where the water molecule clusters are reduced using a patent pending physics process. "  There is no evidence in the reputable scientific literature that the structure of pure water can be altered by any type of treatment. Please see the Cluster Quackery page. 
"The final treatment step is in the oxygenation tank where molecular oxygen is dissolved into the water at a very high concentration. The purpose of oxygenation ... is to create a partial pressure drive mechanism that within the intestines will deliver the water into the blood stream faster." The highlighted portion of this statement is pseudoscientific nonsense. The presence of dissolved oxygen in the gut has nothing to do with uptake of water by the blood. The current oxygenation level is claimed to be only 40-60 ppm .Following are some other claims found on sites promoting Penta Water; those portions which I consider to be "junk science" are in colored type.

Bunk Debunk
Bio-Hydration Research Lab .. has developed a patented process to reduce water containing mostly large molecular clusters into water with a stable, high concentration of smaller clusters. Because Penta water is “thinner,” the body does not have to break down as many of the clusters in order to use it to hydrate cells There is no evidence that water cluster size can be changed, or that any benefit could accrue if any such changes were possible. The claim that Penta water is "thinner" appears to be contradicted by the statement below that it has a "higher viscosity than normal water." 
Penta is the Purest Bottled Water on the Market No justifcation of this claim is offered. There is no evidence that chemically "pure" water is any healthier or more beneficial than any water that meets EPA drinking water standards. Their claim that it is highly "pure" is inconsistent with the claim that it has different physical properties (see below) than ordinary water. 
Penta is the Only Bottled Water with a Patented Physics Process
 A recently-issued U.S. Patent 6521248 describes the way in which this product is presumably made by subjecting water to rapid variations in pressure that are supposed to create gas bubbles that break up the water structure and create a "plasma" of negative ions that confer antioxidant properties. There is no scientific basis for these claims; I suspect that this is a typical "junk patent" intended more for marketing than for protection of a real invention. I was unable to find any registration record of the "Penta Water" trademark in the U.S.P.T.O. database.
Some sales site have claimed that in vitro studies show that Penta Water increases "cell survivability by 266%", dissolves kidney stone material three times faster than normal water, and decreases "DNA chromosomal mutation rates" to 29% compared to distilled water. [link]  No references are given to these unverifiable studies.
"Penta has been shown through highly technical scientific testing (Raman spectroscopy) to have 30 percent smaller molecular water clusters. It has also been observed that Penta has a higher boiling point and higher viscosity than normal water. Penta’s unique structure is also patented and has been verified in a published, peer-reviewed study conducted by scientists at Moscow’s General Physics Institute." [link]  This is erroneous nonsense; the "bonds" between water molecules are so weak that they are continually being broken and reformed on a nanosecond time scale. Moreover, the attractions that the water channels in the cell walls exert on each H2O molecule are greater than those between molecules, so H2O molecules pop through the channels without the need for any outside help. 
Penta's proprietary anti-oxidant and cellular regenerative abilities make it well suited for application to the skin. Preliminary evidence suggests that Penta's ability to absorb through the skin enables the rebuilding of collagen in the dermis. [link]  The idea that a water to which oxygen has been added can have anti-oxidant properties defies common sense. There is no scientific evidence that any kind of water can be absorbed through the skin, let alone aid the "rebuilding of collagen".  One of the Penta pages gives several references to "research" that allegedly supports some of the manufacturer's claims. In my view, they do not:

Reference Comment
A.F. Bunkin, A.A. Nyrmatov, and S.M. Pershin: Study of Cluster Molecular Structures in Various Types of Liquid WatersUsing Spontaneous Raman Spectroscopy. Physics of Vibrations 10(2) 2002.  This obscure Russian journal has changed its name to Physics of Wave Phenomena . The authors observe slightly narrower O-H-stretching band widths in Penta water, which they interpret as indicative of somewhat smaller average hydrogen-bond concentration per unit volume, and thus, smaller "cluster" size. One weakness of this paper is the lack of any clear characterization of the experimental and control samples. In my experience, Russian work of this kind, often sponsored by commercial interests, is frequently unreliable. 
" In September 2002, scientists at the Moscow University conducted a study to compare the effects of Penta on intracellular alkalinity/acidity. ..."  The absence of any specific reference makes it impossible to confirm this apparently unpublished study. The concept of "intracellular alkalinity/acidity" in this context is meaninless pseudoscience. 
"Moscow University scientists also conducted a study to gauge the effects of Penta on cell survivability. Comparing cells cultured in Penta to cells cultured in double distilled water scientists concluded that cells prepared in Penta water demonstrated an increase in cell survivability of 266 percent." The absence of any specific reference makes it impossible to confirm this apparently unpublished study. It is highly unlikely that cells of any kind could survive the osmotic stress associatd with a distilled water medium, so this conclusion strikes me as nonsense. 
" In October 2001, a study was completed at the University of St. Thomas Department of Health and Human Performance in St. Paul, Minnesota, which demonstrated a significant increase in athletic performance..." Another apparently unpublished (and unverifiable) study.