In the age of self-help, wellness trends, and personal development, pseudoscientific practices have flourished. From coaching programs to spirituality, healing regimens, and supplements, these industries are driven by ambiguous claims of transformation and improvement. However, what binds many of these practices together is their lack of scientific backing and verifiable results. This absence of a solid foundation means that any attempt to standardise pseudoscience is ultimately futile—because there’s no science to standardise. In essence, the entire pseudoscience world thrives on subjective interpretation, belief systems, and often, the placebo effect. This article delves into why pseudoscience can’t be standardised and explores the common threads that run through various pseudoscientific domains.
No Science, No Standards
In scientific fields, standardisation is built on proven, reproducible results backed by rigorous testing. It ensures that whether you are receiving a medical treatment or following a psychological framework, the process is consistent and based on evidence. Pseudoscience, by definition, lacks this fundamental structure. When there’s no empirical data to support a practice, there’s no basis for determining what should be considered correct or effective.
Take NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming), for example. Despite its widespread use in coaching and therapy, NLP has no substantial scientific validation. Different practitioners may teach or use different methods, claiming that their version is the most effective. Without any evidence to suggest what actually works (if anything works at all), it becomes impossible to set a universal standard. Each version is as valid—or as invalid—as the next.
This is true across the pseudoscientific world, where practices range from crystal healing and Reiki to homeopathy and energy cleansing. These methods are rooted in belief rather than proof, and any attempt to impose a standard would only create the illusion of legitimacy. What one practitioner claims as “the right way” to perform a healing ritual or coaching technique is often based more on personal preference or tradition than on any testable reality.
Placebo as the Common Mechanism
One of the few consistent features of pseudoscientific practices is the placebo effect. People often experience benefits because they expect to—not because the method itself has any intrinsic power. Whether it’s a spiritual healing session, a supplement regimen, or a coaching program, belief in the process can produce real psychological and sometimes physical outcomes. This placebo-driven effect makes standardisation even more problematic, as the perceived success of a practice is often dependent on individual belief rather than any concrete method.
For instance, in alternative medicine, a practitioner might prescribe herbal supplements or recommend a detox regimen with claims that it will cleanse your body or boost your immune system. There is little scientific evidence to back these claims, but those who believe in the process may report feeling better simply because they expect to. Standardising these practices wouldn’t change the core mechanism—the placebo—and would do nothing to provide measurable, replicable results. Instead, it would simply codify varying interpretations of placebo-based treatments under different brand names and approaches.
Make Your Own Standards
In the absence of scientific regulation, anyone can create their own standards within pseudoscientific practices. A coaching program built around unproven principles like NLP or spiritual awakening can claim to offer certifications or advanced training, but these credentials are often self-imposed. This means that the bar for “expertise” is subjective and moves according to what the coach or trainer decides.
As a result, someone can market themselves as a “certified” coach in business, relationship, or life coaching niches, even if their understanding is based on a weekend course or a set of arbitrary principles they’ve been taught. Because there’s no governing body or objective way to measure competence in many of these fields, anyone can invent their own version of expertise. This creates a fragmented industry where certifications and standards exist in name only, designed more to impress clients than to guarantee effective practice.
Similarly, in the world of supplements and wellness trends, it’s common to see vague labels like “all-natural” or “scientifically formulated.” However, these terms are often marketing gimmicks rather than real indicators of quality. The supplement industry is notorious for lacking regulation, which allows companies to make unsupported health claims without needing to provide scientific evidence. The result is a patchwork of self-defined standards that offer little to no assurance of efficacy.
Coaching, Spirituality, and Wellness: A Shared Approach
Across the spectrum of pseudoscientific fields, from coaching to spirituality and healing practices, a shared approach emerges: the freedom to interpret, adapt, and market a wide range of practices without adherence to any verified standard. In the world of coaching, for example, practitioners are often encouraged to find a niche. Whether it’s business, wellness, or relationships, these niches are often based more on the coach’s personal branding than on any specialised training. As with NLP, many coaches claim expertise in areas where they lack actual experience, but the lack of regulation means they can still market themselves as authorities.
In the realm of spirituality, practices like Reiki, astrology, and manifestation are similarly open to interpretation. These methods claim to harness unseen forces or energies, but without scientific proof, their effectiveness is impossible to measure. Nonetheless, practitioners are free to create their own interpretations and charge for sessions, workshops, or training programs. As long as belief in these practices exists, there’s little pressure to conform to any objective standard.
The Danger of Pseudo-Standardisation
While the absence of standards allows flexibility and freedom, it also poses significant risks. Pseudo-standardisation—the creation of self-imposed standards within pseudoscientific fields—can lend an air of legitimacy to practices that may be harmful or ineffective. Clients who see credentials or certifications may assume they are receiving evidence-based services, when in reality, they are participating in something that operates outside the realm of science and regulation.
For example, someone might pay thousands of dollars for a “certified” life coach who teaches methods based on pseudoscience like NLP or Neuro-Semantics. The coach may be sincere, but their training lacks scientific grounding, and the client could be misled into thinking they are receiving expert guidance. In fields like alternative medicine, pseudo-standardisation can be even more dangerous. Patients may forego necessary medical treatments in favor of unproven therapies, believing they are getting professional care because of a practitioner’s credentials or testimonials.
A World Without Boundaries
In the end, pseudoscience practices can’t be standardised because there’s nothing to standardise. Without scientific validation, there’s no objective way to measure what works or what doesn’t. Instead, the entire field is left open to personal interpretation, self-imposed standards, and the power of belief. From coaching to spiritual healing, from supplements to alternative medicine, the similarities across pseudoscientific domains reveal a shared reliance on the placebo effect, subjective standards, and the absence of scientific scrutiny.
This lack of standardisation allows for a wide variety of practices to flourish, but it also leaves consumers vulnerable to misinformation and false promises. In the world of pseudoscience, anything can be true if you believe it—just don’t expect any standardised way of proving it