| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
I had posted the following to paleonet last week, but it never showed up
(at least not that I could see). I understand that there were some
computer problems at Berkeley, so here is my posting again:
Megan Watzke had written:
- I am a grad student at Boston University's science journalism
-program, and I am writing an article on why the age of dinosaurs, and
-subsequently the age of humanity, is constantly under fire. The impetus
-for this article was the 2/25/96 program NBC ran called "Mysterious
-Origins of Man" which claimed, among many other things, that man and
-dinosaurs lived at the same time. Why is this such a point of
-contention?... [SNIP]
- ...comments would be greatly appreciated.
There still seems to be confusion regarding the differences
between SCIENCE, PSEUDOSCIENCE, and RELIGION. Science is NOT a body of
knowledge accepted by the largest number of people. I asked someone I
know what her definition of science was (she is an avid believer in
astrology). She told me that science is "the present accepted paradigm".
After a period of cringing, I informed her that science is an
objective, self-correcting, investigational METHOD. The scientific
method, which was or should have been drilled into us in school involves:
1) Recognising and clearly stating a problem to be solved; 2) proposing a
hypothesis that MAY explain number one; 3) proposing a precise theory that
might be the objective explanation for the phenomenon; 4) testing that
theory several times in as many different way as is possible (and
practical); and if all your experiments indicate that your theory is the
most plausible then 5) state a natural law that works ONLY in the
conditions of your experiment.
This method is the best investigational method that we have, but
we should be honest and recognise some shortcomings. Since human beings
are a required element in this method, there is room for human error and
prejudice. It is next to impossible to be completely objective, so we must
try to come as close as possible to objectivity. Also, step number 4)
presents some problems. It requires work. I'm talking about serious,
tedious, repetative, disciplined, and honest work. Human beings can
easily be trapped into the quicksand of laziness, short-cuts, and a little
data-fudging now and then. Scientists must guard against this at all times.
There are problems in science, absolutely. However, I am reminded
of a quote by Winston Churchill on the subject of politics. He said (I'm
paraphrasing), "Democracy is the WORST form of government. Except for all
the other forms." If you replace the word 'democracy' with 'science', the
quotation will then relay what I think of science.
What about the other forms? What about pseudoscience? What is
it? Well, quite simply it is the scientific method in reverse. It would
go something like this: "I wish to believe that sticking a piece of
quartz against my forehead will help me better channel my positive
energy". This is step five of the scientific method. A flake would then
try to fit the other steps of the method to suit their belief. More ofter
than not, this necessitates the cancellation of step number 4). Too much
work. Most of their energies, however, are chanelled into defending
their poorly constructed ideas. Their defences usually fall into
three categories:
A) "Well, you don't believe it because you have a closed mind"
They may even tell you that a mind is like a parachute (it only works when
it's open). I tell them that a parachute in tatters does one no good even
when it IS open. What people need is a CRITICAL mind. You need a mind
that is open to new possibilities and then you consider them carefully.
An extreme open mind is one that accepts the last thing that enters it.
This is absurd.
B) "It's possible, isn't it? You will accept whatever may be
possible, won't you?" A good scientist must consider the possibility that
his or her beliefs may need fine tuning or replacing, but they need to go
with the most plausible explanation that is available. I'm sorry, but
holding a quartz crystal against your forehead only makes you look silly.
C) "You don't want to believe it because it threatens your world
view." The irony here is that they have turned an argument 180 degrees.
It is true that scientists are reluctant to abandon their world view
because of some new, more plausible explanation, especially if their
life's work has been nullified. I submit to you that this would not
nullify their work if they've been doing good science and following the
method. We have to go off in many directions hoping that one of us finds
the right path. I say that this defence is ironic because it is precisely a
criticism of the pseudoscientist making it.
The most dangerous thing that pseudoscience does is call itself
science. This confuses a scientifically illiterate public into being
overly cynical. Pseudoscientists, for all their rantings and ravings, have
no interest in finding the most objective 'truth' possible. They simply
want everyone around them to believe as they do to give them that warm
fuzzy feeling so they can feel comfortable in having not to think.
RELIGION is another animal again. Religion states a 'truth' that
must be accepted on faith. Practitioners have no interest in proving or
disproving it. When they do venture into this area, it becomes
pseudoscience. A religious person does not feel that their belief
requires proof. The danger in this happens when these people try to force
their views on those who do not wish to partake. Legislation against the
teaching of evolution in schools in the southern U.S. is a prime example
of this. Creationists who try to prove their view or disprove scientific
conclusions are pseudoscientists who happen to be religious.
The special on NBC, "The Mysterious Origins of Man" is nothing
more than a ratings grab. It was intended to make money for the
producers, network, and advertisers. It was designed to be controversial
and 'showy' in order to achieve this purpose. It had NO intention
whatsoever to present cogitive or balanced arguments about its content.
It was not about presenting a view or trying to get at an objective truth.
In this regard, it could be considered pseudo-pseudoscience.
Rhetorical craftsmen representing pseudoscience and religion
employ several other techniques when debating scientists. They will try
to pull you into their arguments in order to make it appear as if you are
abandoning your position. They will use vagueisms to pull the argument
away from specific, proven examples of why they are wrong ("Don't you
think that is is at least possible"). They will invariably try to confuse
the issue. This one is the most common.
The best example of confusing the issue that I know deals with the
"theory of evolution". Here we are dealing with pseudosemantics.
Evolution is NOT a theory, but a label for a specific observation. It is
modification through descent (which, by the way, some creationists
believe). Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is the THEORY to which
creationists rhetoricians refer to. They erroneously (perhaps
purposefully) state "Darwin's Theory of Evolution". This confuses the
issue for anyone unfamiliar with Darwin's work "The Origin of Species
Through NATURAL SELECTION".
Megan, you wanted to know why scientists, particularly
palaeontologists, are more than slightly annoyed when some pseudoscientist
pulls apart that which we work so closely everyday? Consider this
hypothetical situation:
You are an auto mechanic. You know cars. You can strip an engine
and put it together better than new. You have grease under your
fingernails. You LIVE this stuff. One day some smarmy bastard comes up
to you and tells you that the "Internal Combustion Engine" theory is a
theory, and is therefore false. He then tells you that in reality there
are little faeries under the hood running on tiny treadmills. That's what
makes cars go. Says so in his magic book. You open the hood and show him
the engine and tell him to take a look. He then says that he doesn't need
to because he already knows the truth, besides those faeries and
treadmills are so small that a human couldn't see them anyway.
This is the mentality that we are dealing with. It is like
plunking down an orange and telling someone that it is an orange because
that is what we label it. Someone with creationist logic might say, "No,
you're wrong. That's a kangaroo. Says so in my magic book." It is rare
to win debates or arguments with these people precisely because they DON'T
argue or debate. They employ rhetorical absurdities.
When a television show is broadcast on a popular network to the
general public some people are bound to watch it. When it presents
ridiculous ideas it is harmful. When it attributes them to science it is
deplorable. I place this act in the same category as libel and slander.
The only thing we can all do is keep an openly critical mind and try to
suppress our human frailties.
I hope this helps.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Andrew Dalby
Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre
Earth Sciences
Carleton University
Ottawa
adalby@ccs.carleton.ca
---> http://www.carleton.ca/~adalby/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Partial index: