Image: Illustration by Alex Robbins
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
Climate deniers are accused of practicing pseudoscience, as are intelligent design creationists, astrologers, UFOlogists, parapsychologists, practitioners of alternative medicine, and often anyone who strays far from the scientific mainstream. The boundary problem between science and pseudoscience, in fact, is notoriously fraught with definitional disagreements because the categories are too broad and fuzzy on the edges, and the term “pseudoscience” is subject to adjectival abuse against any claim one happens to dislike for any reason. In his 2010 book Nonsense on Stilts (University of Chicago Press), philosopher of science Massimo Pigliucci concedes that there is “no litmus test,” because “the boundaries separating science, nonscience, and pseudoscience are much fuzzier and more permeable than Popper (or, for that matter, most scientists) would have us believe.”
It was Karl Popper who first identified what he called “the demarcation problem” of finding a criterion to distinguish between empirical science, such as the successful 1919 test of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, and pseudoscience, such as Freud’s theories, whose adherents sought only confirming evidence while ignoring disconfirming cases. Einstein’s theory might have been falsified had solar-eclipse data not shown the requisite deflection of starlight bent by the sun’s gravitational field. Freud’s theories, however, could never be disproved, because there was no testable hypothesis open to refutability. Thus, Popper famously declared “falsifiability” as the ultimate criterion of demarcation.
The problem is that many sciences are nonfalsifiable, such as string theory, the neuroscience surrounding consciousness, grand economic models and the extraterrestrial hypothesis. On the last, short of searching every planet around every star in every galaxy in the cosmos, can we ever say with certainty that E.T.s do not exist?
Princeton University historian of science Michael D. Gordin adds in his forthcoming book The Pseudoscience Wars (University of Chicago Press, 2012), “No one in the history of the world has ever self-identified as a pseudoscientist. There is no person who wakes up in the morning and thinks to himself, ‘I’ll just head into my pseudolaboratory and perform some pseudoexperiments to try to confirm my pseudotheories with pseudofacts.’” As Gordin documents with detailed examples, “individual scientists (as distinct from the monolithic ‘scientific community’) designate a doctrine a ‘pseudoscience’ only when they perceive themselves to be threatened—not necessarily by the new ideas themselves, but by what those ideas represent about the authority of science, science’s access to resources, or some other broader social trend. If one is not threatened, there is no need to lash out at the perceived pseudoscience; instead, one continues with one’s work and happily ignores the cranks.”
I call creationism “pseudoscience” not because its proponents are doing bad science—they are not doing science at all—but because they threaten science education in America, they breach the wall separating church and state, and they confuse the public about the nature of evolutionary theory and how science is conducted.
Here, perhaps, is a practical criterion for resolving the demarcation problem: the conduct of scientists as reflected in the pragmatic usefulness of an idea. That is, does the revolutionary new idea generate any interest on the part of working scientists for adoption in their research programs, produce any new lines of research, lead to any new discoveries, or influence any existing hypotheses, models, paradigms or worldviews? If not, chances are it is pseudoscience.
We can demarcate science from pseudoscience less by what science is and more by what scientists do. Science is a set of methods aimed at testing hypotheses and building theories. If a community of scientists actively adopts a new idea and if that idea then spreads through the field and is incorporated into research that produces useful knowledge reflected in presentations, publications, and especially new lines of inquiry and research, chances are it is science.
See what we're tweeting about
64 Comments
Add Comment
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific Method - "a method of research in which a hypothesis is tested by means of a carefully documented control experiment that can be repeated."
Any discipline using the "scientific method" to examine theories follows a certain procedure.
Any "scientific" group presenting a theory as fact when there is no evidence to back up the theory can be called a "Pseudoscience".
Adopting a theory as true withbout factual evidence to prove the theory as fact is Pseudoscience. When a "scientist" has to "fill in the gaps" or extrapolate based on observation where there is not concrete evidence to justify or prove the theory pursues a Pseudoscience.
"Consider these great discoveries in science: Archimedes' principle, Doppler effect and Heisenberg uncertainty principle." These discoveries followed the scientific method requiring observable, repeatable and verifiable results.
Any "science" that cannot produce "observable, repeatable, verifiable results in a Pseudoscience!Therefore Evolution and Creationism fall into the same category as Pseudosciences. Both are based on theory that cannot be proven and has no factual evidence to back up the theories. Both require faith to fill in the gaps.
Until evolutionists and creationists can produce irrefutable factual evidence to back up their theories both lie in the category of Pseudoscience. Evolution is based upon guesses based on observation without enough information to justify the conclusion and creationism is based on a well documented historical record.
I am disappointed in the authors lack of providing a working definition of “Pseudoscience”. Establishing a foundation of agreed upon definitions is a rudimentary beginning point in any scientific pursuit. Without it the concept and positions are biased and irresponsible.
Here is a working definition :”Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research; while failing to meet these norms.”
In his essay, "What is Pseudoscience?," Michael Shermer ignores the existence of very bad people who, for example, may be more interested in profitably selling snake oil than in scientific validity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDepending upon the specific subject, we become squeamish about calling someone a "liar." For obvious reasons, there is no hesitation to label as a sociopathic liar someone who denies the vast documentation of the Holocaust. And when something as holy as money is involved, we spare few epithets for those who cause widespread financial ruin; we don't debate the boundaries of whether or not Madoff was engaging in pseudo-accounting. And yet when a creationist disregards evidence as basic as a measurement (say the measured age of a fossil), why do we fail to label such evidence-denial as the act of a sociopath? Believe it or not, some who deny climate change are just liars, with political and/or financial motives for lying, who depend upon their audience not looking at the data.
I appreciate Shermer's thoughtful discussion of the topic, but I question how someone can broach the topic of pseudoscience and not mention eugenics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEugenics was broadly embraced by countries around the world (very publicly embraced by the United States and their sterilization efforts, which was buttressed by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood)and was really only halted when Adolf Hitler's genocidal insanity brought us to our collective senses. Still, eugenics persisted, perhaps most notably at Cold Spring harbor among other places.
Perhaps we are uncomfortable discussing eugenics because then we would have to discuss some of the practices we carry out to this day (negative eugenics for one)and reconcile our present actions with the sordid history of this largely discarded bit of politicized science. For example, the wikipedia page of Linus Pauling (a staunch advocate of negative eugenics)doesn't even mention the word or his support of its practices or explain his position on the topic.
In any case, eugenics should be the model according to which we temper our enthusiasm for and acceptance of government taking energetic and freedom-curtailing activities on our or the planet's behalf implementing policies based on the extrapolation of science for the betterment of ourselves and our planet.
That Shermer failed to seize the opportunity to do so is understandable, but disappointing nevertheless.
Mr. Shermer is unusually off base in this article. He bends the rules to fit in favorites that don't in fact fit. At the present time, string theory is indeed pseudoscience: it looks like science but (last I heard) makes no specific predictions that can be investigated by experiment. The "neuroscience surrounding consciousness" is not science to the extent that it fails to make specific predictions about experiments. There is lots of speculation by scientists that is not science. We should not dignify it as more than that until it is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, the assertion made in the comments above that evolution is not falsifiable is quite bizarre. Evolution -- that is, the assertion that species result from natural selection with variation -- makes many specific predictions which are found experimentally to be true: you will never find a fossil of a modern human in 600-million-year-old strata. No species arises in a single step without predecessors. New species do not result from non-inheritable changes. If a naturally-occurring species is found that demonstrably has no predecessors and arises from scratch from e.g. a single cell, evolution is shown to be wrong (or at least incomplete). These predictions now seem so obvious that they may not seem profound, but they are in fact distinct from other theories of species origin. The origin of species by natural selection with variation is demonstrably science, even if people also speculate about related aspects without evidence.
What is pseudoscience. While you do provide a working definition Dr. Shermer, as far as I can see you don't take it far enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I may, pseudoscience can be noted for what it does not do; it either does not explain, or if it seeks to explain it does so badly.
It isn't just that science is falsifiable, science also seeks to explain. String theory, even if it is wrong, seeks to explain. Creationism explains nothing. Creationism is a way for adherents to present the Book of Genesis as an explanation for the complexity of life, and in that it fails. It is in that failure that it becomes a pseudoscience.
Consider now parapsychology and cryptozoology. The first now only does not explain anything, there really is nothing to explain. At least not as far as I've been able to learn. Cryptozoology on the other hand seeks to explain anomalous animal sightings as being evidence of so far unknown animals. In so far as cryptozoology has failed it can be laid at the feet of cryptozoolgists, who could be more scientifically rigorous (don't get me started on the Bigfoot Field Research Organization), and at the feet of biologists, among other scientists, who keep insisting they see no reason to investigate the various reports that come in.
I could cover the subject more, but I think I'll keep to the first parameter; it explains nothing. There may be nothing to explain, or it is the wrong explanation. I'm sure I could go on with further parameters, but my brain refuses to cooperate right now and I can think of nothing to add. You think of anything feel free to reply below.
BTW: thanks for giving me something so interesting to think about.
A bit of bad news for you here, a pseudoscience is not a subject of inquiry and discovery you happen to find personally distasteful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe theory of evolution explains a phenomenon, it explains it better than any alternative so far proposed, and such 'challenges' as genetics have either proven false, or to reinforce the theory. In over a century Darwin's theory has been shown to have explanatory and predictive power. Creationism has done no such thing, but relies instead on just so stories and appeals to authority
So, sorry, but lumping evolution and creationism just doesn't work.
I’m very impressed by the shrewd way that Skeptic’s Michael Shermer used the extra page you gave him in your September issue. His usual page asked “What Is Pseudoscience?” and the opposite page answered with an imaginary example, masquerading as an ad about something called Nature’s Self-enforcing Law of Absolute Right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe ad illustrated Dr. Shermer’s points very cleverly, yet it looked so plausible that if it had been in any magazine other than Scientific American, readers might have taken it seriously.
Felix Godwin
Spokaneoc is wrong when he says evolution has not been proven, when in fact it has been shown to occur, in a repeatable way, when bacteria in a laboratory evolved and a new genetic trait was observed to take over a population. You can read about it for yourself here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat he was also wrong about was the use genetic information had has lead to incredibly powerful predictive abilities within the evolutionary and biological sciences. I could go on, but it should suffice to say Spokaneoc needs to update his understanding of evolution.
From the article : "The problem is that many sciences are nonfalsifiable, such as string theory, the neuroscience surrounding consciousness, grand economic models and the extraterrestrial hypothesis."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- - -
I'm fairly sure that the majority of scientists in at least one of the "minor" fields of research (physics ? / geology ? / astronomy ? / ???) would object to this statement.
I remember reading an article a few years ago that said that there was a (small ?) minority of physicists who argued quite strongly that string theory was NOT "scientific", mainly because its "predictions" could not be verified using experimental techniques that would be available in the near future.
It was notable that their collegues did NOT vilify the minority opinon, the response was more like : "I don't agree, but I can both understand AND RESPECT that point of view".
See also danield101's comment above on both string theory and "neuroscience surrounding consciousness".
- - -
"Grand economic models" ... how many of those PREDICTED the economic crash of 2008, as opposed to economists saying the crash was "compatible with the models" AFTERWARDS ?
- - -
"The extraterrestrial hypothesis" ... The problem I have with this one is that the ONLY evidence that could "prove" it, one way or the other, would be a response to the question stated in a "negative" manner, and it is one of the "laws" of logic that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove a negative.
[ That's not very clear, let me explain ... ]
Restate the "extraterrestrial hypothesis" as follows : "Extraterrestrial life does NOT exist".
The only PRACICAL way to "prove" this "hypothesis" USING CURRENT TECHNOLOGY would be if extraterrestrials landed on Earth in sufficient numbers that the majority of human beings were first-hand witnesses.
The "hypothesis" would then be "proven FALSE".
NB : It is NOT POSSIBLE to declare this formulation "almost certainly TRUE", for the reason stated in the main article.
Compare this with the OBJECTIONS, whether you consider them valid or not, to the statement "string theory is scientific" ...
- - -
Maybe the above idea could form the basis of a definition of "Pseudo-Science" ?
If the ONLY way to imagine "falsifying" experimental data is in response to the NEGATIVE formulation of a hypothesis (/ conjecture ?), then it should be considered as "Pseudo-Science" ???
At the very least, if you have A LOT of trouble thinking of ways that a conjecture is "falsifiable" UNLESS you formulate it in the negative, that should be a pretty good "red flag".
Dr. Shermer suggested: "If a community of scientists actively adopts a new idea and if that idea then spreads through the field and is incorporated into research that produces useful knowledge reflected in presentations, publications, and especially new lines of inquiry and research, chances are it is science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis rule of thumb can be helpful, but it may also be misleading. Pseudoscientists often form communities devoted to theories and fields that are misguided (e.g.,homeopathy, chiropractic and parapsychology) and tend to overrate the utility or fruitfulness of the knowledge they generate in presentations, publication, and new lines of inquiry. The work of pseudoscientists may look like real science, even to many scientists, but, unlike successful, revolutionary scientific theories, pseudoscience lacks a foundation based on what we already understand about nature.
Pseudoscience, if it is a useful concept at all, should refer to activities that have all the trappings of science, but which promote cultures of delusion rather than enlightenment. Pseudoscientists have no problem generating hypotheses to test, but they have problems generating sound rationales for the hypotheses and they tend to perform inadequate testing.
You at Scientific American frankly lose scientific and journalistic credibility by hosting Michael Shermer’s regular columns. Shermer does not believe in the existence of God, even though there is conclusive evidence, including math evidence, for God. The reason math evidence is so strong is that there are formal proofs for math. Only somebody who is mentally ill, in denial, etc., will try to reject math evidence. For some of this evidence visit www.palmoni.net/gematria.htm and read the article. When you read the article, you will note, among other things, overwhelming mathematical evidence for the Christian concept of the Holy Trinity (e.g., the many encoded triangle numbers, Star of David numbers, way beyond what probability would predict) encoded in the gematria of the Bible. You will also note encoded gematria patterns with a statistical probability of trillions to one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn writing about science, one must be logical, rational, sane, mathematical, and scientific. When you host Shermer, and what he represents (mental illness, a lack of logic, a lack of basic math skills, a disrespect for the scientific method) you lose credibility.
Mark Hines
A postscript to the "Is String Theory a Science ?" question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe usual answer to "negative" conjectures, the canonical one being "God does not exist", is : "That conjecture cannot be investigated using The Scientific Method".
When people attempt to answer them anyway, a wide range of procedures / methodologies will be used. Trying to attach a single label, of the form "{Prefix}-Science" to ALL of these methods is probably doomed to failure.
What you CAN (probably ...) say for each such method is : "It's not science."
NB : This is a COMPLETELY NEUTRAL response, with NO connotation of "good" or "bad" attached; a "dry statement of fact", if you will.
- - -
As I understand it, most proposed experiments to "test" String Theory start something like the following :
Step 1 : Build a particle accelerator (at least) a million times more powerful than the LHC.
Step 2 : ...
Perhaps the correct response to this is to say : "String Theory is not YET science".
NB : Even if the first series of these future experiments conclusively DIS-proves String Theory, because it had made SPECIFIC predictions that had been verifiably tested in the real world I believe that it would still qualify as a SCIENTIFIC theory (/ hypothesis / conjecture ?).
It would just become yet another "beautifully elegant theory that was murdered by a band of ugly facts", to paraphrase something someone (Lavoisier ?) said a long time ago.
It seems to me that Scientific American is skirting the issue of pseudoscience in at least one area. Almost all references in the magazine to global-warming/climate-change carry the underlying attitude that the subject is settled in the favor of those who consider warming imminent and anthropogenic. As an interested layman, I find it strange that challenges to that attitude, which seem credible and varied, are not addressed in the magazine. For example, it has been asserted by some critics that historic carbon dioxide increases did not preceed, but followed temperature rises, that past temperature fluctuations are better explained by sunspot activity, that carbon dioxide levels, compared to those of much more effective greenhouse gasses, make up a miniscule percent of the atmosphere, that man's addition to that level is even more miniscule, that none of the models that exist today and are used as predictive bases satisfactorily describe even cloud cover and its selective effect on the range of the incoming/reradiated energy spectrum, that ice coverage, at least in the Antarctic and perhaps in the Northwest Passage, are growing. I have seen allegations of semi-fraudulent use of endorsing names on the IPCC reports.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile scientific papers are critiqued by juries of major journals, those juries can be stacked. Although Dr. Shermer says that in general the citations by subsequent papers provides confirmation of earlier ones, it must be recognized that the appearance of papers on a given subject is influenced by the market for those subjects (they are paid for by grants), and that disaster prediction draws attention and support that does not accrue to negations of disaster. The possibility of conflict of interest exists on both sides of the issue.
There is enough strong controversy for the Scientific American to devote an entire issue to the subject. Creationism has been demolished in hundreds of publications, but a head-to-head on anthropogenic warming would serve a valid purpose.
Mr Shermer suffers from a common problem in identifying pseudoscience – he subscribes to pseudoscientific theories – notably Darwinism and much modern cosmology which are pure pseudoscience. This leaves him with no reliable guide that distinguishes the theories he wishes to identify as science or pseudoscience. The fundamental problem is that people interpret the data according to their expectations – everyone is familiar with someone taking something the wrong way. There are millions of people who can look at the world and see the hand of an all-powerful benevolent deity although this can hardly be described as rational. Even the best trained and intentioned suffer from this – hence the necessity of double blind experiments in medicine. The best test I know is to ask the question – “what steps have been made to check that the data is not being interpreted incorrectly?” The only acceptable answer is that predictions have been made and compared with observation. The common answer of “peer review” does not meet the requirement. Peer review will pick up many errors – criminality, mathematical or logical errors and omission of significant facts but the limitations on detecting incorrect interpretations can be seen from the range of bizarre ideas that have at some time held currency. The great advantage of prediction and observation is that anyone can make the test. Anyone can verify a predicted eclipse, the prediction that a Boeing 747 can fly etc. Even in obscure subjects the match between a theoretical line and the experimental dots can be verified by anyone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo if you suspect pseudoscience ask – please show me the peer reviewed theoretical prediction and the peer reviewed experimental measurements and let me decide whether the dots fit the line well enough for me to add the theory to my mental baggage. If you are given the information – science – if you get fudging about peer review, expert opinion, authority, masses of examples etc you may reasonably conclude the presence of pseudoscience.
Given the length of comments I will add notes on Darwinism in another comment
Continued.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor the benefit of Darwinists please note that the argument “The Eiffel tower is in a capital city, Washington is a capital city therefore the Eiffel tower is in Washington” is exactly as illogical as the position that “Species arise from an evolutionary process, Darwinian evolution is an evolutionary process therefore species arise from Darwinian evolution”. The primary evidence for the evolutionary source of species is the way species, existent and extinct, naturally fit into an evolutionary tree which must therefore explained. Nodes in an evolutionary tree correspond to novel characteristics. Web weaving, for example requires genetic mechanisms to create the silk, the relevant organs and the instinct to create the web. Darwinian evolution cannot explain the mechanisms this – the rate of novel useful gene production in random variation is normally given as “extremely low” rather than a number (a sure sign of pseudoscience) although easily estimated as about 10 to the minus 33 per organism year. For any advanced organism the expected time for a single gene extends beyond a million times the age of the universe. Worse – the genes must be ones that interact to form a functional genetic mechanism. Finally, and critically, the rate at which advanced species gain genes shows extraordinarily small variation. This is the least, or one of the least, variable of all biological and environmental variables. You really do need one of the global forms of evolution.
For modern cosmology the critical issue is the remarkable suitability of the universe to intelligent life. This is normally explained away by the “Anthropic principle”. However this does not work. AP applies if one is looking at the imminent end of the universe or not seeing another star in the sky. As far as can be estimated the universe will remain hospitable for tens of billions of years – and as this is in the future cannot be explained by AP. Similarly there is nothing obviously special about out environment and most estimates suggest at least billions of other intelligent species exist or will exist in other parts of the universe, and these species, not being the observers, cannot be accounted for by AP. In short the universe is very, very much more favourable to intelligent life than can be accounted for by modern cosmologies. As for evolution, there is no difficulty in coming up with a plausible model that does explain the observation – it is just that the model is outside the bounds of the “peer reviewed” standard.
One more example.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn idea has been presented at a regional scientific society and published at its annals. But the publication did not “generate any interest on the part of working scientists for adoption in their research programs, produce any new lines of research, lead to any new discoveries, or influence any existing hypotheses, models, paradigms or worldviews”. What is more, the idea has been cited only once.
According to the criterions by Michael Shermer it was undoubtedly the pseudoscience. But all Shermer’s criterions failed at this case.
The Mendel’s fundamental principles of genetics began to work 35 years after their first publication and subsequent silence of scientific community.
Only the criterion of novelty is able to perceive a difference between scientific hypothesis and pseudoscientific once.
One more example.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn idea has been presented at a regional scientific society and published at its annals. But the publication did not “generate any interest on the part of working scientists for adoption in their research programs, produce any new lines of research, lead to any new discoveries, or influence any existing hypotheses, models, paradigms or worldviews”. What is more, the idea has been cited only once.
According to the criterions by Michael Shermer it was undoubtedly the pseudoscience. But all Shermer’s criterions failed at this case.
The Mendel’s fundamental principles of genetics began to work 35 years after their first publication and subsequent silence of scientific community.
Only the criterion of novelty is able to perceive a difference between scientific hypothesis and pseudoscientific once.
An idea has been presented at a regional scientific society and published at its annals. But the publication did not “generate any interest on the part of working scientists for adoption in their research programs, produce any new lines of research, lead to any new discoveries, or influence any existing hypotheses, models, paradigms or worldviews”. What is more, the idea has been cited only once.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to the criterions by Michael Shermer it was undoubtedly the pseudoscience. But all Shermer’s criterions failed at this case.
The Mendel’s fundamental principles of genetics began to work 35 years after their first publication and subsequent silence of scientific community.
Only the criterion of novelty is able to perceive a difference between scientific hypothesis and pseudoscientific once.
Michael – you’re my hero.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI usually find myself agreeing with you nearly 100% of the time. This is not one of them.
You attempt to define science as ‘what a scientist does’. I can agree with that because it allows a person like me to do science and at the same time not be a scientist. Here is how. Both a scientist and the average person applies the rules of logic, usually without thinking much about it, to arrive at a decision based on the facts at hand. So a scientist uses rules of logic to do science, I uses the rules of logic as well so I am doing science as well. I like it.
You then go on to define it more closely and that’s where you loose me as a scientific thinker. You say, or imply, that there must be a ‘community’ that can accept and spread new ideas and ‘produces knowledge reflected in presentations, publications… ‘. I don’t do that so I guess I am excluded from the club of scientists (damn just when I started to enjoy it).
I think a better definition of ‘science’ would be simply ‘clear thinking’ about a problem to arrive at a conclusion. That way anyone can be considered scientific so long as they use the rational thought process to arrive at conclusions. They may do it poorly (bad science) or correctly (good science) but it’s the thought process that counts not the process of submitting ideas or research with papers, etc.
I want to a member of science club again. Please let me in.
Monsieur, Vos articles dans Scientific American me passionne chaque mois. L'article de ce mois m'a intéressé tout particulièrement. Serait-ce une façon de restreindre mais de clarifier le débat que de se demander si une branche de la connaissance est une science galiléenne et newtonienne? Serait-ce un crime de lèse autorité scientifique que de se demander si la théorie des particules et la cosmologie sont des sciences galiléennes et newtoniennes. Dans ces domaines, le critère de reproductibilité des expériences n'est-il pas mis à mal? Serait-ce prétentieux que de se demander si une personne aussi avertie que Monsieur Shermer serait d'accord d'accorder quelques instants à cette question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVous voudrez bien m'excuser de vous écrire en français. En anglais, je n'oserais pas mais il va sans dire que je lis l'anglais sans difficulté. Merci de m'avoir lu. Avec tout le respect que je vous dois. Henri Besson.
Mark - You may be a poster child for the title of this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRE: Pseudoscience vs Critical and Scientific Thinkings!?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is: When pseudoscientists argue about their high-level of thinking, they may not realize that they're employing their pseudoscientific thinking, at all!
The following case is an example that I recently tried to comment here: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/08/22/is-david-deutschs-vision-of-endless-understanding-delusional/#comment-3990 -- Is David Deutsch’s Vision of Endless Understanding Delusional? -- where the recent SA blogs platform-upgrade has rendered my browser incompactable therein; so I now updated and post it herein under for readers convenience:
RE: Reductionism in biology and psychology: The pseudoscientific confusions, self-conceits and delusions, in our practical science and philosophy today!?
In the above, John Horgan surmises that "Deutsch's book is worth reading simply for his forceful rejection of traditional, materialistic reductionism and his defense of the power of ideas, which transcend any particular physical instantiation and yet exert a powerful influence over the world."
I thought that is a misrepresentation of his (quantum physics and philosophy) book, in which Deutsch (being a reductionist theorist himself) has indeed uncritically adopted another pseudoscience (pseudo-genetic and pseudo-linguistic) reductionist evolutionist (in biology and psychology) Richard Dawkins' rhetorical power of "memes" -- the memes rhetoric -- which is the power of ideas (as presented in Dawkins' 1976 book The Selfish Gene) that has no physical instantiation nor reality-based in fact or in neuroscience, at all; and yet it has exerted a very powerful impression and resonance on Deutsch's similarly a reductionist and delusional Mind (as presented in his new book The Beginning of Infinity -- or thus the beginning of his infinite memes or explanations rhetoric, that is; and hence the beginning of Deutsch's "pseudo-philosophy" of endless understanding of the memes rhetoric in quantum physics and philosophy issues, in the 21st century and beyond)!?
Best wishes, Mong 9/7/11usct12:04p; practical science-philosophy critic; author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), "Gods, Genes, Conscience" (iUniverse; 2006 -- http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0595379907 ) and "Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now" (blogging avidly since 2006 -- http://www2.blogger.com/profile/18303146609950569778 ).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's unfortunate that the public at large has so little understanding of science and the scientific method that they often can't distinguish between science and outright bunk. It certianly gives reason to doubt that public schools are doing an adequate job with science education.
When I consider the history of science I don’t recognize "falsifiability” as a driving force, or a core value exemplified by the people who did the foundational work of modern science. As I do science, or evaluate the work of others, I don't consider falsifiability first, in fact, I can’t recall ever considering it. Shouldn’t science be defined in terms of it’s strengths or core values?
Almost 200 years after the terms "science" and "scientist" took on their modern meaning, we still can't agree on what they are. I hope that Scientific American continues to cover topics like that in "What Is Pseudoscience", and leads the way to finding a clear and concise definition for "science".
Evolution is testable (in a lab in fact), falsifiable, and chock-full of evidence. It's rather telling how you grouped evolution and creation together. Oh yes, what evidence or test you ask ... go read up! Ignorance isn't substitute for evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are funny. Let's say the people that wrote (or rather plagiarized) the bible are brilliant mathematicians. So what then? Just because the four corners of my house add up to pi does not mean I am a god (no matter how much my children and my ego would like for that to be the case, seriously). In the bible you have the perfect case of the claim being presented as the evidence ("Hey, I am god. Those who don't believe me are e-v-i-l. I don't need to give you any proof, just read up the first sentence and talk to the millions that believe without needing evidence. They shall be saved but you will go to hell."). You are of course too clueless to even deserve a response ... but here I am.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it odd that this article does not address falsified theories as much as unfalsifiable notions. It is far worse for a theory to be proven false (falsified) than unfalsifiable or unable to refute. What is even more odd is that Dr. Shermer actually supports a falsified theory with as much scientfic validity as flat Earth theory. Two simple high school science concepts: free fall and the law of conservation of energy combined with the fact of at least 8 stories of free fall of WTC 7 on 9/11 falsifies (proves false) the official theory of 9/11 that Dr. Shermer defends. Google "9/11 skeptopathy" to get the full story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne word: Homeopathy. It even gives pseudoscience a bad name.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichard Feynman said, "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." I would contend that if you've failed in this endeavor, then what you're doing is pseudoscience. If you've succeeded, then what you're doing is science. Feynman had a way of cutting through the BS that surrounds poorly conducted scientific enterprises, particularly those that muddy the waters by obfuscating their methodology. Feynman also characterized good science by its usefulness and, as mentioned above, it's ability to make testable predictions. It should not be that hard to tell the difference between pseudoscience and science. Science is useful. Pseudoscience is not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPseudoscience: Anyone or any political group, e.g., Scientific American, whom ignores all physics and propagates the political myth that planes and fire brought down the WTCs, and fire alone was enough to cause WTC 7 to fall at 9.8 m/s^2, symmetrically into its own footprint leaving mostly fine dust.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo call evolution pseudoscience, indicates a total lack of literacy in science. First of all, scientists have years and years of evidence of fossils indicating the movements of animals to and back from water and land. e.g whales, which scientests have outlined the first ten million years or so of whale evolution. They have fossil records of 360 million years ago for mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. Fossil records for the origin of feathers,teeth,vertebrates etc. Scientists have watched animals in their habitats, such as lizards and birds over the years to observe natural selection. Natural Selection is present from drug resistance to toxins on a molecular level. Missing links fossil structures like Ida to Australopithecus sediba recently found to two to three million years and like us to our present form. The evidence for Evolution is scientific and credible. Creationism has no evidence and is a fairy tale.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are mistaken on at least two points.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Evolutionary theory does produce observable, repeatable, verifiable results. It makes predictions that can be, and in some cases have been, successfully tested.
2) There are no historical records of creationism that meet even the most basic qualifications of evidence.
In a technical sense no scientific theory can ever been proven to be fact. Many theories however are so well supported that in a more casual sense they can be considered true. The theory that the Earth orbits the Sun, or is not flat, for example are so well supported that any suggestion to the contrary will simply be ignored as ridiculous.
I suppose technically these theories could be overturned but the evidence would have to be formidable. Pseudonymous reports from the book of Joshua, that have changed hands, been recopied, edited and translated without having followed a proper chain of custody just do not do the trick.
The theory of evolution is also such a theory.
Considering testability, the general difference is:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisscience inserts a set of "testable" variables that predict future outcomes in a specific relationship.
pseudoscience is a string of words having neither a definite relationship nor a predictive solution.
That said, with an objection to what is reality - methods for measuring hypothesis, it should be emphasized that scientific facts may lead to pseudoscience conclusions and pseudoscience ideas may lead to scientific facts only and only when models or model based realism with predictable outcomes are not adjusted to facts them selves produced via measurements.
Thus Popper is mostly correct in stating that theory is a theory when is falsifiable although some theories precede the development of instrumentation in order to be tested.
I think you posted in the wrong magazine. World Weekly News will take your post on mathematical proof for God next to the article FILM STUDIO BUILDS BUNKER FOR ALIEN ATTACK.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems like people who don’t produce science but like the idea of the scientific thought are the ones who are really passionate about the scientific method. Moreover, discriminating on what science, pseudo-science or non-science is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe do not practice science with the falsifiability in mind. We perform on what we know, what previously proven theories tell us or simply the experiments we perform. This continues until we have something in our hands that we can not able to explain with the current domain of knowledge. Then we doubt ourselves and try if we can recreate the thing we can’t explain again and again. If we get the same unexplained result,…
…Enter pseudo-science. Before even we have a tangible hypothesis in our hands we wonder, we dream. Some of us pull analogies from different places; different disciplines and some of us are brave or stupid enough to take unconventional approaches. What make this “pseudo” are the steps we take to converge to a reasonable hypothesis. This process might be irrational and may not fit in the realm of faculty of science. However, in the end it does not really matter know we get there. Once we arrived, then the process begins.
I don’t need to qualify the Freudian world with scientific methods because I can’t repeat my dreams or Evolution because we can’t start all over again and see statistically if we can get to the same species with the same amount of time. But this does not say these are not science or they are pseudo-science. It is an attempt to explain what has been observed and thinking “what would have caused it?” Some of time, we are lucky because we can find other observables to feed in our cause-effect understanding. We find fossils, we observe living things, we come up with an idea that would explain part of the puzzle. What makes this a “science” is, we check if it is consistent with what we all know, until we find an inconsistency. Once we have the idea/theory, we use it forward to explain other things.
I can’t do it with creationism because it does not predict, it is not consistent with the other things we know.
Hey, if it makes you comfortable and cozy at night it is also fine to think about it. But be sure not to design any medical device or vaccine with it.
Virtually everything written in SCIAM regarding Anthropogenic Glogal Warming falls into the realm of psuedo-science. If it's consensus, it ain't science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReal science is testable, repeatable and falsifiable.
So far, AGW has produced nothing that satifies these criteria. AGW research is merely a complex web of suppositions, computer models, and half experiments, all of which are designed to prove the existence of the theory. Competing theories are treated with extreme hostility.
In real science, you must take your theory and try to find ways to disprove it. It's easy to find data to support a theory, but it only takes one piece of data to destroy it.
I'd respect AGW scientists who actually tried to disprove the theory rather than wander around finding meaningless natural phenomenon consistent with it.
When I did my thesis research, it was so easy to find information that corroborated my thesis that it was hilarious. The light finally went on that I needed to be gutsy enough to look for data to disprove it. That's when I understood science for the first time.
As far as I can tell, no AGW scientists have the guts to be wrong, so they'll never be able to tell if they are right.
So you believe that someone here on the earth can prove, with evidence, not math, that black holes exist. Show me where anyone has proof of a black hole bending light, etc. Part of the problem with the whole argument is that just as I have to take a creationists word that their evidence is real, I also have to take a Physists word that their math is correct, or an astronomer's word that his information on exoplanets is correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fundamentalist myth of creationism and the scientific theory of evolution do not belong in the same category.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour argument hangs on one utterly bizarre twist of logic that goes like this: a detective arrives on the scene and finds a body with multiple stab wounds and a knife is found near the body. The scientist reasons "Someone must have murdered that person with that knife". The creationist says "You didn't actually observe the murder therefore an intelligent designer must have put that body near that knife."
You do not have to take anyone's word in Science because mathematics, experiments and conclusions have to be repeatable,verifiable and peer reviewed. By the way NASA has pictures of black holes. Nasa's Chandra X-ray Observatory and the Hubble Space Telescope have captured pictures of black holes. Creationist do not have any hard scientific evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wouldn't lump all forms of alternative medicine into one category. Standard medicine relies on prescription drugs, which pharmaceutical companies promote to doctors because the companies' primary goal is profit. There are many natural alternatives such as herbs and teas, to prescription medications, for many conditions that do actually work. If these became the primary means of treating such illnesses, the pharmaceutical companies would face a major loss of income. This has to be taken into account when evaluating standard versus alternative medical treatments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPretty weak definition. If your argument was that it really is hard to demarcate, you've made a great one. Adoption may be a part of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBrian Dunning does a much better job outlining the characteristics often found in pseudoscience, that are rarely found in real science. "How to spot pseudoscience" - http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037
Too bad you did not include global warmists in your otherwise correct opinion. They also have only a belief. They can't prove with experiment global warming is anything but natural. The fact that any weather good or bad they claim is "proof" and their experiments have no possibility of being false. It started back in the 50s, when going through CO2 measures from the 1800s. The method they used to determine what old data was good, was simply deciding any data that did not fit their belief of CO2 caused global warming but be bad data. Then you add a few decades of that cherry picking until the build computer models which is the only source of their "proof". The problem is constants like the normal average global temperature or the "normal" amount of CO2 is entirely arbitrary. They dont know what normal of either of those numbers are. Do you go back 100k years like they did or 2 million years or a billion years? It is ridiculous and psuedo science
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article did address global warming. In his first examples it is "climate deniers" who are practicing psuedoscience. Apparently the global warmists and their theory with no proof but computer models programmed to always show global warming is a problem and caused by humans is somehow to the author not psuedoscience.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome psuedoscience is not hard to identify. "Clinically Proven" is one example. Proven is definitive, you have actual fact to show something occurred and how it happened.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClinically proven is a gimmick word that uses statistical mathematics on data from "experiments" where something appears to be happening but they don't know for certain what the cause is. I could clinically prove pigs can actually fly, which is why these two words are easily defined as a keyword for pseudo science.
Global warming follows this example, every bit of their "proof" is from statistics, extrapolation and guessing all from computer models designed to always "prove" their biased desire. I am surprised they are not claiming CO2 has been Clinically proven to cause global warming.
Evolution is proven for much of the theory. What is not yet proven is how the processes started. The so called mutations. For them to be genetically inherited, it has to be in the genes. This means the animal would have to have been born with the mutation to begin with. Which means the parents of the mutated animal would also have to be mutated as well. So the end result is every possible combination of DNA existed at first and evolution is not a process of adding mutations to get a better animal, it is the result of useless DNA being eliminated from the gene pool. In other words, if the world flooded, humans are not going to "evolve" a gene for human gills, which would be more effective in a world of water. You would have to explain what process comes along and alters an already fully mature human in a way that creates active genes to produce gills in offspring, when the adult does not have them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not implying evolution is false. Most of it is observable and provable. It just makes more sense for us to have devolved from a mass of all possible DNA into animals that have kept specific DNA from the original total. This would also explain why the past, such as the cambrian period had so many more types of species than we have today.
Creationism, is not science. Nor is it proof evolution is incorrect. It is a story created by people who also thought the world was flat and other nonsense. However, from a very very primitive and basic level, the start of the universe to humans did happen that way. Big bang, to stars, to planets, to plants, to animals. I give those ancient people credit for coming up with a creation theory which does fit with what science has proven. Just consider the originators of that story and the limited knowledge and abilities they had. Not a bad effort really. Still it is foolish to place evolution and creationism in the same discussion. One is not religion and the other is not science.
Falsifiability is important. Not for the sake of proving something false. BUT what is the point of doing any experiment if you already believe the outcome is true and you tailor the experiment to ensure the result you want? If an experiment has no false conditions possible, then it is probably not valid experiment. It works the other way as well. If an experiment has no conditions for being true, then the experiment is likely design to ensure a false result, which is the same thing as ensuring a true result.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour opinion on the field of neuroscience is somewhat dated, the scientific method is apparent and rigorous, e.g. http://www.cnbc.cmu.edu/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience doesn't require anyone to believe anything. It just asks, "Does it work?" And scientific fact doesn't have to be universally true in all time or space. Scientific facts are theories, hypotheses, have tested unfalse by all tests we can think to throw at them up to the current moment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll theories have limits. The usual example is Newton's Law of Gravity which works fine to predict what happens if you jump of a building but has problems describing light passing by very massive objects. Now, in the matter of not seeing black holes. We see effects of black holes that are consistent with the theory. Furthermore, this is about the best we do in everything that we "see." I assume there is snow on top of a mountain because I "see" and image my brain creates from reflected light. Experience, theory if you will, tells me for a particular case that I may choose to walk 5 miles to the summit and build snowmen. The theory doesn't rule out other as yet unexperienced pheonomena that may produce the image of snow where where there is only rock. As of now, however, the only theory that works is that "seeing" snow on a distant mountain top means that I'll be able to pack snowballs when I get there.
Currently, the best explanation we have for certain observations from distant locations is that they represent certain things occurring around a large amount of mass within a small amount of space. The term, "black hole" is merely two little words that we use to label a very big phenomena for ease of discussion. Simpler than specifying mass and space parameters everytime we talk about them.
Oh yea, the theory of evolution works too. If you don't believe it (and science doesn't care whether any of us do), look at every food on your table tonight. Unless you have strange eating habits, everything you eat tonight is the result of concious or unconcious selection by humans, predicted and described by the laws of inheritance. Laws of inheritance that are part and parcel of the theory of evolution. Evolution works for explaining life forms on Earth. So far, we don't have any reason to think that it wouldn't work elsewhere, provided similar conditions. I'm finished talking.
"Can we ever say with certainty that E.T.s do not exist?" Shermer writes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.
That is not the correct question, for it is likely that somewhere in the universe there exists another life form.
.
The correct question is this. Is there verifiable proof that any extraterrestrial life form ever visited earth? The answer so far is no.
.
A good example of pseudoscience is any individual claiming ETs have visited earth without providing specific, undeniable evidence.
My father, the astronomer, didn't deny that UFOs exist, he just observed, "unrepeatable phonomena, therefore outside science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElDub: I have waited patiently to see if any other person who considers him-herself a rationalist to respond to your comment on Eugenics. Since we have not heard form anyone, here goes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou don’t blame an entire field of science for its adoption for evil purposes.
Seven billion humans survive on this crowded planet thanks to Eugenics. Almost all the food you eat be it, vegetable or animal has attained its current state thanks to Eugenics. Linus Pauling and other scientists don’t talk about it because of political correctness. However in our hearts we all know eugenics improves life.
What is wrong about informing parents carrying genes that will result in mentally or physically deformed children of the issue and hoping they will see the sense in not passing these genes on to their children. It does not always work. We have a case of a young girl with a debilitating skin condition, who found a partner with the similar condition and in spite of warnings has had 3 children with the same condition. Thankfully for her and her children they live in a welfare state and our government spends the money to keep the family alive and comfortable.
Political correctness is evil. We no longer get a demographic breakdown of the religious make-up of our country after a census to keep hide the rate of increase of our Muslim population, why?
I think you've mistaken animal husbandry and plant breeding for eugenics. Eugenics advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population. It lost favor after WWII, because it was associated with Nazi notions of a supreme race.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs the science of genetics developed, eugenics turned out to be faulty science, ie pseudo-science. You would know this if you had taken (or paid attention in) a college genetics course. Nothing to do with political correctness--I know because I didn't give a ding for politics on campus, but I did love science. Here in a nutshell is college genetics:
1. Evolution doesn't support a notion of better or worse. Characteristics provide greater or lesser advantage relative to other characteristics in any particular environment. Cows bred to produce a lot of milk in a barn and grains bred for high productivity on a cultivated field both disappear quickly when released to the wild. Simple rules of selection--nothing to do with political correctness.
2. It is nearly impossible to completely eliminate deleterious recessive genes from any population. Phenotypes and math--nothing to do with political correctness.
3. The notion of inferiority depends on who is setting the criteria. The 1920s-1930s eugenics movement always applied to eliminated "other" disenfranchized populations within societies (other races, homosexuals, prostitutes, gypsies, so forth). Individuals with power were always considered to be in the superior group, regardless of their characteristics. Actual science vs pseudoscience--not political correctness.
4. DNA studies have demonstrated that the average genetic difference between races is far less than the genetic difference between any two individuals within a race. Base-pair statistics--not political correctness.
5. Genetic counseling doesn't have anything to do with improving the population. It has to do with parents' desire to have healthy kids or avoid burdening children with avoidable inherited diseases. Does nothing to "improve" populations (see number 2 above).
Finally, Muslims, eugenics? Religiosity apparently has genetic basis, but not religion. My impression is that Muslims enter the US for all the reasons that others enter the US--for freedoms (religious, personal, intellectual, and political) and for economic opportunity.
I find Muslims with whom I work and play no less pleasurable to be around than other groups. Works well for me to make friends person-by-person; not by nationality, religion, economic status, race, sex, or profession. Try it.
Parapsychology is Science. The AAAS, the world's largest federation of scientific and engineering societies, includes the Parapsychological Association among its members (see http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/affiliates/). And many hypothesis in Parapsychology are indeed falsifiable, like telepathy, mediumship, remote viewing, reincarnation, and many laboratorial experiments and case studies gives strong evidence for them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbout mediumship, see:
a)An investigation of mediums who claim to give information about deceased persons. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, Vol. 199, No. 1. (January 2011), pp. 11-17.
b)http://darklore.dailygrail.com/samples/DL5-GT.pdf
About telepathy, see:
a)“Meta-analysis of free-response studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the noise reduction model in parapsychology”: by Lance Storm, Patrizio E. Tressoldi, Lorenzo Di Risio (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136, 471-485.
Avaliable here: http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/includes/MetaFreeResp010.pdf
b)http://www.frontiersin.org/quantitative_psychology_and_measurement/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00117/full
About reinarnation, see:
a)http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_02_2_stevenson.pdf
b)http://www.criticandokardec.com.br/imad_elawar_revisited.html
About remote viewing, see:
a)http://www.stephanaschwartz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Marea.pdf
b)http://www.stephanaschwartz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Eastern-Harbor.pdf
c)http://www.stephanaschwartz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Beaks_Cay-.pdf
d)http://www.stephanaschwartz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/caravel.pdf
I thought we defined science by repeatable experiment? By experiment we mean something we can do in lab or on Earth or in local space? So how come so much of the 'science' of astronomy is based on unreproducible maths and pseudo/ simulated experiment. Have the telescope toters generated a single black hole?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscatrachos "Now, in the matter of not seeing black holes. We see effects of black holes that are consistent with the theory. Furthermore, this is about the best we do in everything that we "see."
That's because the theory was built around a 17th/ 18th century gravity-only universe. From Newton to Einstein to Hawking the big mistake is to imagine space as a vacuum. This is blantantly wrong as plasma has been found to occupy 99.99% of the universe. So M&M were looking for a 30km/s head'wind' (ether) and failed to vectorially subtract the existing solar em field. Their results actually measured 8-9km/s, which has since been consistently measured, BUT 'science' has chosen to reject that evidence. Why because they are blinkered by Einstein's SR and GR mathematical hocum.
Hence the gravity-only dream has spawned a family of impossible entities that work on paper BUT not in the lab. What does work in the lab, is the plasma experiment. Ionised gas is shown to need electricity to sustain it. It also radiates wideband radiation. How do you detect an electric current - its magnetic field. How do you detect a 'black hole' - a magnetic field and wideband radiation.
Case closed, no! Electricity in space is PSEUDOSCIENCE! It goes against all that is sacred in the Standard Model, therefore it MUST BE WRONG. Even though labs can reproduce all space phenomena electrically, including the famous 'impact crater' [www.wikihow.com/Etch-Your-Own-Crater?].
I agree wih zsinger(36) Let's challenge astrophysicists to "..prove, with evidence, not math, that black holes exist". They get paid, the counter 'pseudo' researchers don't.
"The problem is that many sciences are nonfalsifiable, such as string theory, the neuroscience surrounding consciousness, grand economic models and the extraterrestrial hypothesis."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut that's exactly the point: none of these really appear to be scientific disciplines. Economics is not a science, string theory has been criticized heavily for being pretty much untestable, and the study of consciousness is largely philosophical--indeed, the question of the very definition of consciousness is a matter of philosophical debate. As to the hypothesis that there must be or intelligent lifeforms in our universe: I don't know that one could say that this is scientific, as it really is just an "educated" guess based upon limited information.
You realize of course that the parapsychological organization that you mention actually attempts to falsify parapsychological claims? From the organization's web page:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Parapsychological Association is an international professional organization of scientists and scholars engaged in the study of psi (or 'psychic') experiences, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, psychic healing, and precognition. The primary objective of the PA is to achieve a scientific understanding of these experiences.
In other words, they investigate phenomena described as "parapsychological" and then attempt to determine the true explanations for these phenomena. In contrast, there are people who believe that these phenomena are based upon things which are beyond scientific understanding: these people are the pseudeoscientists.
I think Science is about generating reliable, evidence-based explanations that model reality as accurately as humanly possible, as judged by our ability to explain, predict and (perhaps even) control events.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBesides whilst I love Popper's dictum "In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." I think it has its limits.
So I'm not sure I'd entirely agree with Michael Shermer that String theory, neuroscience etc are "non-falsifiable". Just that we haven't yet figured out to construct hypotheses and design experiments to attempt to falsify them.
So String Theory strikes me as work in progress. It has yet to make the sort of predictions we can falsify. Neuroscience may be similar (although I think progress in that field has advanced thanks to some things being falsified under examination - there are certainly experiments we can conduct in Neuroscience that can falsify or illuminate some of our model explanations)
I like Michael's definition "Science is a set of methods aimed at testing hypotheses and building theories" I'd just add "..and building theories that offer ever improving explanatory and predictive power based on the evidence we uncover".
Thanks for the article Dr Shermer :)
When you use pejorative terms like "deniers" to describe individuals who disagree with more popular views on a subject you are contributing to irrationality and bias. This is a term promoted by advocacy organizations and environmental crusaders. This kind of emotionally-loaded name-calling has no place in the lexicon of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause this issue has become so politicized one has to ask what the personal and professional consequences would be for a scientist who decided that the facts of the matter did not support the popular view of man-made global warming. From everything I've seen he would immediately become a pariah on his campus, “controversial” in his department, would be labeled a "denier," and be suspect of selling out to the corporations. Who is willing to risk that? The most palpable climate change has been the climate of environmental McCarthyism on this subject.
The man-made climate change crusade has taken on many of the dimensions of an apocalyptic millenarian cult and has handicapped reasonable and rational public policy decisions. It many ways it resembles the overreaction that occurred after 9/11. The public expectations of danger and loss far exceeded anything that was rationally plausible and the consequences have been two misguided wars, well over a trillion dollars of wasted public funds, and setbacks in civil liberties that will be very difficult to restore.
The only way to get a rational view of this issue is to remove it from the grasp of the advocacy organizations and depoliticize it. Then, when professionals are free to express their doubts and reservations, will you get a reliable and genuinely honest range of opinions.
After reading all comments posted, I've noticed what I would call a major flaw in science education which results in the idea that there is only one "scientific method". There are more. Good objective observation can lead to valid conclusions which can be "tested". Looking at fossil evidence, including attempting to date them to determine a time line of changing life on this planet is not pseudoscience. Maybe the "scientific method" should be redefined as a logical means of investigation whose results are reliable (meaning the results are as accurate, precise and unbiased as possible) and repeatable (anybody duplicating the experiment the same way or making the observation will get the same results). I think that would be more helpful and hopefully more correct that list of steps of one method that's drilled into everybody's head from most textbooks as "The Scientific Method".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe string theory should be renamed string hypothesis. Seems to be more fitting since it hasn't been tested.....yet.
As far as science versus pseudoscience goes, I've found interesting difference. Both can have a hypothesis, which can be tested. But in science, if the data doesn't support the hypothesis, the hypothesis is discarded. In pseudoscience, if the data doesn't support the hypothesis, the data is thrown out!
HumanistJeff writes: "Spokaneoc needs to update his understanding of evolution."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCompletely agree - and let me add: update understanding of the observations and experiments made and the knowledge gained through 150 years, lots of work ahead, my lad.
Mr. Shermer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would have to conclude from reading your article, disappointingly but in a self-fulfilling prophecy inquiring as to pseudoscience, that you do not know what Science is.
There are dictionary definitions for these concepts.
Since a thing is best defined by an Action or Doingness definition, and best understood by relation to comparable things, here are some relevant definitions;
A Practice is something that works sometimes for some people. Witchcraft is a Practice, as is Medicine.
Science is reproducible, independently verifiable knowledge. It is exactly repeatable. Anyone can do a certain experiment and get exactly the same result. That's Science.
Technology is the application of Science to achieve some goal or solve some problem.
Neither Science nor Technology is a matter of opinion or popular endorsement. Science does not necessarily connect with economic practicality or acceptance by opinions-of-authorities, but technology often does.
Steve Smith
Simply because you state something is pseudoscience, doesn't make it true, as there is some science in the various disciplines you claim to debunk, or outright classify as 'not science.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with most of what you said, so, it really boils downto what side of the debate your preconceived notions fall on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Believe it or not, some who deny climate change are just liars, with political and/or financial motives for lying, who depend upon their audience not looking at the data."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, believe it or not, some who preach climate change are just liars, with political and/or financial motives for lying, who depend upon their audience not looking at the data.
The Current SSkeptic Top 25 Weapon Words:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPseudoscience - Reigning champion buzzword – The 121 Forbidden Topics
Magical Thinking - To discredit all dissent as being belief in magic
Pareidolia - Current fad word in SSkepticism
Manufactroversy - SSkeptics targeting GMO food or Big Pharma skeptics/activists
Contrarian - To impugn any person who holds a SSkeptic accountable
Denier - One who disagrees is spun as denying data – rather than being in rational disagreement
Creationist - Any person who does not adhere to the Naturalist Nihilism religion
Believer - One who does not loudly decry the 121 forbidden SSkeptic subjects
Apophenia - Rising fast = counter any medical data which shows a concerning trend
Woo - Ghost hunting SSkeptic buzzword now useful against all disliked data
Anti-Vaccinationista - To spin safe vaccination proponents as irrational militants
Confabulation - Only SSkeptics are allowed to extrapolate off of circumstantial data
Bunk - Fading in use as debunkers are increasingly called into question
Ponzi - Used against new data displacing old protected ideas
Conspiracy Theory - A questioning of a SSkeptic agenda item
Truther - Anyone who dissents
Bubba - All persons who have seen a Bigfoot or UFO
Hack - A person not authorized to pretend to do science
Quack - Any medicine which does not support big 5 Pharma revenue
Hokum - Falling out of use because Bubba’s use this word as well
Sheeple - Anyone who does not immediately dismiss the Forbidden 121
Hoax - All old disliked observations
Monkey Suit - Something presumed debunked long ago and now spun as myth
Crack - A Bubba who is rather insistent on what he saw or provides evidence
Delusional - When the observation cannot be dismissed as pareidolia