New Essay - Criminology as Pseudoscience 7/4/2025 12:19:19 PM
A new essay, based on earlier works, argues that criminology, along with other social studies like psychology, sociology, and theology, operates as a pseudoscience rather than a rigorous scientific discipline. Rooted in the liberal arts, there is a notable lack of empirical rigor compared to the "hard sciences" such as biology, chemistry, or physics. The philosophical nature of criminology suggests that it relies heavily on subjective opinions, confirmation bias, and unverified theories, rather than objective, scientific, evidence-based methodologies, such as those found in biology, for example. The discourse emphasizes the prevalence of belief-driven conclusions in criminology, likening them to public beliefs in the paranormal or extraterrestrial life, which persist despite lacking empirical evidence. With the influence of media, social media, and emotional reactivity, unverified narratives about crime and criminality can perpetuate fiction over facts, undermining the truth. As such, movies perpetuate the "CSI effect," where public expectations are based on erroneous perspectives projected by the media, and lead to misconceptions about the reliability of forensic science. At the first utterance of such mainstream offensiveness, criminology as a pseudoscience, those offended run to their local 'ministry of truth' to ensure censorship ensues. Renting their clothing, gnashing their teeth, and donning sackcloth of pretentious indignation, the hypersensitive know no limits. Minions fan out to promote the exorcism of liberated creativity. Panels for the sake of homeland security summon the assembly of 'misinformation boards' to make sure fiction prevails over facts. In the alleged spheres of higher education, the 'social studies arena' recoils. In this contrived nexus of the liberal arts, the pseudosciences of criminology, psychology, sociology, and theology take inventory of their axes to grind. Meanwhile, across campus, in the real sciences, for instance, astronomy, biology, chemistry, medicine, and physics, scientific research goes on. But, over in the domains of not-so-much science, philosophers in the metaphysical spectrum proselytize the regurgitation of their 'sciences'.
How many science courses did they take? It is crucial to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism, with a hint of cynicism, and engage in critical analysis when evaluating claims in the field of criminology. Critical thinking is imperative. As to the "gists" and "trists", the counteroffensive asserts its commercial interests. For a light-hearted point of reference, the "gist" refers to that which stems from a Ph.D. in more or less a philosophy, or school of thought outside the hard-core sciences, such as "criminologist". An essence of sorts, a reference point, like a nub or tip of something thought to be true, yet there is no certainty, except by way of illusion. Opinions flourish as if they were evidentiary validation. But, they are no more than subjective prejudice or confirmation bias. Someone somewhere did a study, conducted interviews, observed humans doing something, and wrote a paper.
Subsequently, a panel reviewed the writings and the magical thinking of "peer review" confirmed their own biases. Regardless, scientific validation relative to the studies of human behavior remains definitively elusive, conjectural, and often cunningly deceitful. By collusion, the "trist", or "psychiatrist," went to medical school and then entered the realm of the pseudosciences.
For some criminologists, particularly practitioners with real-world expertise, in this discourse, no offense is taken in accepting the notion of pseudoscience as applied to criminology or any other degree program in the liberal arts of alleged higher education. The word is used to infer that those domains are philosophical in nature and not scientific investigations.
