Just recently, while taking a two-day vacation in Los Angeles, I found myself parading through the grimy, neon-lit streets of Hollywood Boulevard with my friend and girlfriend. After enjoying several hours of what Hollywood had to offer and all of us being exhausted, we decided to call it a night. As we were heading back to my friend's jeep, we were stopped by a woman who was trying to get my friends and I to listen (painfully) to her obviously-rehearsed spiel. She was offering to provide insight into the workings of our subconscious minds and implored us to step inside her shop to watch a short video, which, supposedly, would further enlighten us on the things she was claiming to have experienced herself. Suspicious of everything this woman was saying, I examined the pamphlet she handed us and noticed that we were being confronted by a zealot of the Church of Scientology. I quickly blurted out that we were not interested, and we proceeded to make our escape.

I have since reflected on this experience and wondered what made this woman so convinced of the fancy, metaphysical claims she was making, so I decided to do some research on what Scientology is all about.

The particular branch of Scientology which I was confronted with in the streets of Hollywood believes in what is called "Dianetics." Dianetics is a "science," created by the science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard, which separates the mind into three distinct parts: the 'analytical mind,' the 'reactive mind,' and the 'somatic mind.' Dianetics is concerned with erasure of the reactive mind, which is caused by the painful memories and experiences of one's past. By erasing the reactive mind, which can be done by subjecting oneself to a series of questions and techniques performed by an "auditor," an individual will gain clarity of thought and have more control over his or her life.

Dianetics is curiously reminiscent of the theories and techniques espoused by the psychologist Sigmund Freud in the 19th and 20th centuries, most of which have since been shown to be false and unscientific. Furthermore, the division of the mind or soul into distinct parts can be traced all the way back to Plato, who lived over two millennia ago. Plato's theories are now considered to be highly speculative and unverifiable.

Leaving the past in the past, let's consider why one might believe something that is not only unverifiable but doesn't even make sense to the rational mind.

Many people believe in theories or ideas on the basis that they are an actual science--that they can be verified and tested. What Scientology is is not a science, but a pseudoscience. A pseudoscience is a set of theories, ideas, or methods that pose as a science but which have no real scientific value or basis. Scientologists use a lot of fancy words and talk about a lot of intricate "scientific" processes which can easily persuade the unlearned mind that they know what they are talking about. Scientology is also purposefully obscure, as many pseudosciences are, because the claims being made aren't even fully understood by the people who make them.

Scientology has been shown by actual scientists to be a pseudoscience because none of the claims of Scientology are clear, and it yields no empirical results or testable hypotheses. People still believe in Scientology, however, because on its surface it fronts as a science. It is only when one digs deeper that its fraudulence becomes clear.

Scientists take pride in showing a theory to be false because that is what propels scientific advancement. Proving scientific theories false, as history shows, is what allows scientists to discover more accurate theories, or make vital improvements to preexisting ones. Proponents of pseudoscience aren't in the business of proving their theory false. Instead, they assume certain hypotheses to be true and work frivolously to confirm their hypotheses.

The doctrine which states scientists work primarily to show that hypotheses are false is called "falsificationism," and it was first proposed by the philosopher Karl Popper. The next time you are confronted with a seemingly scientific theory, ask yourself if there is any way to prove the theory false. If there is not, there's a good chance it's a pseudoscience.

Having taken Philosophy of Science and History of Science classes as an undergrad, as all philosophy majors should, I am quick to point out what is an actual science and what is not. But for those without philosophical training, it might be of importance to question and research apparently scientific claims yourself or risk being a victim of pseudoscience.