Science CommunicationLOLO.00.037

www.ut.ee/BG/scom

Section 4

What is not science - Pseudoscience

Nature of Science

Science is about looking for evidence to substantiate theories, ideas, or facts.

Predictions are related to Observations which lead to Inferences (all of which may incorporate some form of bias).

What is Pseudoscience?

• Pseudoscience is any body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific, but does not fit with the actual nature of science (whatever this is ?). The word "pseudo" means fake.

• The surest way to spot a fake is to know as much as possible about the real thing—in this case, about science itself. Knowing science does not mean simply knowing scientific facts - it means understanding the nature of science.

Eleven comments about pseudoscience

1. Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.

Pseudoscientists clip newspaper reports, collect hearsay, cite other pseudoscience books, and pore over ancient religious or mythological works. They rarely or never make an independent investigation to check their sources.

2. Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis (prediction) - usually emotionally appealing, and implausible - and then looks only for items which appear to support it.

Conflicting evidence is ignored. Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalise ‘strongly held beliefs’, rather than to investigate, or to test alternative possibilities.

3. Pseudoscience is indifferent to the establishment of criteria of valid evidence.

The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments, but on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, stories and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious anecdotes. Genuine scientific literature is either ignored or misinterpreted.

4. Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.

Joe Blogs puts jello on his head and his headache goes away.

To pseudoscience, this means jello cures headaches.

To science this means nothing, since no experiment was done.

5. Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.

Pseudo-scientists never carry out careful, methodical experiments themselves - and they generally ignore results of those carried out by scientists also.

Pseudo-scientists also never follow up.

6. Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none exists, by omitting crucial information and important details.

Anything can be made "mysterious" by omitting what is known about it or presenting completely imaginary details.

The "Bermuda Triangle" books are classic examples of this tactic.

7. Pseudoscience argues from ignorance; an elementary fallacy.

Many pseudoscientists base their claims on incompleteness of information about nature, rather than on what is known at present.

But no claim can possibly be supported by lack of information. The fact that people don't recognise what they see in the sky means only that they don't recognise what they saw.

This fact is not evidence that flying saucers are from outer space.

8. Pseudoscience argues from alleged errors, anomalies, strange events, and suspect claims—rather than from well-established regularities of nature.

The experience of scientists over the past 400 years is that claims and reports that describe well-understood objects, behaving in strange and incomprehensible ways, tend to reduce upon investigation to eliminate frauds, honest mistakes, blunders, misinterpretations, or outright fabrications.

Pseudo-scientists always take such reports as literally true, without independent verification.

9. Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic theories that contradict what is known about nature.

They not only provide no evidence that their claims are true.

They also ignore all findings that contradict their conclusions. ("Flying saucers have to come from somewhere - so the Earth is hollow, and they come from inside.")

10. Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary

Listeners are often forced to interpret the statements according to their own preconceptions.

What, for example, is "bio-cosmic energy?"

Or a "psychotronic amplification system?"

Pseudo-scientists often attempt to imitate the jargon of scientific by spouting gibberish that sounds scientific.

11.Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario.

That is, we are told a story, but nothing else; we have no description of any possible physical process.

For instance, Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) claimed that another planet passing near the earth caused the Earth's spin axis to flip upside down. This is all he said.

He gave no mechanisms. But the mechanism is all-important, because the laws of physics rule out the process as impossible.

That is, the approach of another planet cannot cause a planet's spin axis to flip.

What about Emerging Science ?

• This refers to developing fields or protoscience.

• Protoscience is a term used to describe a hypothesis that has not yet been adequately tested by scientific methods, but which is otherwise consistent with existing science, or which, where inconsistent, offers a reasonable account of the inconsistency.

• For these to be scientific, they must relate to the principles of the Nature of Science. This may take time and hence their status is unsure, but may be expected to be a future new scientific area.

Contrasting Pseudoscience with Protoscience

The boundaries between pseudoscience, protoscience, and "real" science are often unclear to non-specialist observers.

– If the claims of a given field can be experimentally tested and methodological standards are upheld, it is real scientific work, however odd, astonishing, or counter-intuitive.

– If claims made are inconsistent with existing experimental results or established theory, but the methodology is sound, caution should be used; much of science consists of testing hypotheses that turn out to be false.

ASTROLOGY – Is this science, pseudoscience, or protoscience ?

• The most popular form of traditional Western astrology is Sun sign astrology, the kind found in the horoscopes of many daily newspapers. A horoscope is an astrological forecast.

• “Do personality traits really correspond reliably with birthdates?”

• According to a 2005 Gallup poll in the UK, 25% persons believe in astrology; a statistic that has remained steady for the past 15 years.

AN INVESTIGATION

PROCEDURE: search the following list of traits and interests until you find the particular combination of traits and interests which come closest to how you see yourself.

Then, on a piece of paper, write 1. the NUMBER of that combination (1-12), and your

birthday (e.g. “July 25”). 2. YES or NO. If you think astrology can give accurate

predictions write (YES) or if not, write (NO).

Idea taken from http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/hor.pdf.html

# Key Positive Traits Main Interests Possible Negative Traits1 loyal, possessive, determined, possessions, comfort, beauty, arts, stubborn, jealous, slow, lazy, practical, enduring family greedy2 gentle, compassionate, sensitive, hospitals, pets, thinking, peace, easily influenced, not ambitious,

generous, dreamy, imaginative helping, arts no self-confidence3 honest, hopeful, intuitive, friendly, freedom, travel, philosophy, not particular, blunt (tactless),

idealist, easy-going religion, books argue4 neat, ambitious, organized, hard work, business, being in worry, slave-driver, stubborn,

conservative, frugal, practical charge, caution social climber5 competitive, action, initiative, self challenges, leading starting arrogant, quarrelsome, enthusiasm, leader starting easily bored, selfish, stubborn6 popular, intelligent, versatile, variety, travel, talking, superficial, fickle, impatient,

witty, curious reading break rules7 helpful, independent, broadminded, helping others, friends, politics, dogmatic, rebel, impersonal,

tireless, generous being leader stubborn, blunt, argue8 cooperative, harmony, fair, companionship, social life, justice indecisive, extravagant, fickle

romantic, gracious, work hard beauty/arts9 generous, power, authority, sports, being in charge, teaching, egotistical, domineering, blunt,

romantic, idealistic, self-confident protective temperamental10 methodical, service, high standards routine, details, perfection, travel, fault-finding, worry, hurtful practical, neat, reliable work alone11 protective, tenacious, domestic security, home, family, country combative, moody, vain

sensitive, emotional, shy, neat solitude12 emotional, resourceful, secretive sex, solving mysteries, working vengeful, cynical, argue, jealous,

forceful, loyal, determined hard, success sarcastic

KEY TO SUN-SIGN DATES # DATES SUN SIGN1 Apr 20 - May 20 Taurus2 Feb 19 - Mar 20 Pisces3 Nov 22 - Dec 21 Sagittarius4 Dec 22 - Jan 19 Capricorn5 Mar 21 - Apr 19 Aries6 May 21 - Jun 21 Gemini7 Jan 19 - Feb 18 Aquarius8 Sep 23 - Oct 22 Libra9 Jul 23 - Aug 22 Leo10 Aug 23 - Sep 22 Virgo11 Jun 22 - Jul 22 Cancer12 Oct 23 - Nov 21 Scorpio

The Earth is Flat -Real or Pseudo- science ?

•http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

Is the following claim byby the Flat Earth Society scientific?

The Earth is Flat !!

  This is a challenge for you to provide evidence for a spherical earth.

• Against this, evidence (experiences) can be presented for a flat earth.

• The role of science in exposing illusions in nature is an extension which we now examine..

AN EDUCATION ACT IS TO BE ENACTED AND TO BE ENTITLED

“The Balanced Treatment for Flat-Earth Science and Spherical-Earth Science Act”

YOUR TASK – to support or to refute

Section 4 of this act gives definitions

(as used in this Act) for:• Flat-earth science (Zetetic Astronomy)• Spherical earth science

Flat-earth science includes scientific evidence and related inferences that indicate:

(1) The Earth is an outstretched plane;

(2) The known, inhabited Earth is approximately circular, with the north pole at the centre and a 50 metre wall of ice at the southern limit (outer edge);

(3) The Earth floats on the waters of the Great Deep, and there is fire below those waters (sometimes called Hell);

(4) The Earth is covered by a dome which also rests on the waters of the Great Deep;

(5) The Sun and Moon are 32 miles (about 50 km) in diameter and circle the region of the equator at an altitude of about 1500 miles (2400 km);

(6) Eclipses of the moon are caused by an unseen dark body passing in front of it;

(7) The Earth and universe were created about 4004 BC.

Another illustration of the Flat Earth

Additional Evidence for the Flat Earth concept

1. Many passages in the Bible are consistent with a flat earth.

2. The land looks flat, even when viewed from high up or when measured by surveyors' instruments.

3. The surface of every body of water is flat.

4. In nature there is an "up" and a "down." If the earth were round, people in Australia would hang by their heels.

5. There is no gravitation.

More evidence for a Flat Earth6. The circumference of the earth at 45° south latitude

is double what it is at 45° north latitude, because in the south the meridians of longitude spread out as they approach the South Ice Wall.

7. The space program is a fraud. The space shuttle is a joke. Thc Apollo moon project was a Hollywood scenario written and directed by Arthur C. Clarke, well-known science fiction writer.

8. In certain eclipses of the moon, both the moon and the sun are seen above the horizon. Thus the earth cannot be a round body positioned between the sun and the moon.

Evidence for a Spherical Earth includes scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:

(1) The Earth is a spinning ball;

(2) The Earth circles the Sun, which is 93 million miles away;

(3) Eclipses of the Moon are caused by the Earth’s shadow;

(4) Other planets are large bodies, some of them larger than the Earth;

(5) The Earth itself is merely a minor planet of a minor star in an undistinguished galaxy;

(6) The universe is billions of light years in extent;

(7) The Earth and universe are billions of years old.

More evidence for the Round Earth concept

1. Seeing the same stars

Bodies in the sky should be visible at the same time from all parts of a flat Earth. This is not so. Stars around the Pole Star are never visible at low latitudes in the southern hemisphere.

2. Angle of the Sun from different longitudinal points

If the sun is observed at noon from different points on the same meridian of longitude, it is seen at different angles from the different points. This would not be true on a flat earth.

3. Evidence for a South Pole

The South Pole has been located exactly by explorers on Antarctic expeditions. On a given day at this point, the sun is lower in the sky than anywhere else on earth, because the South Pole is the southernmost point. No insurmountable ice wall has been found in Antarctica.

Spherical Earth

4. Differing times of sunrise, sunset, etc

The times at which sunrise, sunset, the rising and setting of stars, and eclipses are seen differ at different longitudes. This would be true on a round earth, but not on a flat earth.

5. Eclipse of the Moon

In a total eclipse of the moon the sun is always below the horizon. The eclipse is caused by the shadow of the round Earth completely covering the Moon. In a partial eclipse the Sun may be partially visible. In this event the earth's shadow on the Moon is seen to have a curved edge.

6. As a ship moves away from an observer, it disappears below the horizon hull first, not mast or funnel first.

Evolution – real or pseudoscience?

Background Information

• The theories of evolution and creationism have been clashing in courtrooms for over 70 years. The debate over teaching creationism or evolution as scientific theory dates back to the 1925 trial of John T. Scopes, who was convicted of teaching evolution in a Dayton, Tennessee, USA high school.

• Scopes was held in violation of the 1925 Butler Act, which made it unlawful to "teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible."

• The Tennessee supreme court dismissed his conviction on appeal, and the law was repealed in 1967. 

• 

Additional Information

9-12-99. The Kansas Board of Education voted six to four to eliminate references to evolution as a central principle of biology from the state school syllabus. The new Kansas curriculum cannot prevent science teachers from referring to evolution, but high-school students will no longer be expected to know or understand Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published in 1849, and

evolutionary concepts such as natural selection.

 

.Under a 1987 Supreme Court ruling, public schools can neither teach creation science nor ban the teaching of evolution. But by simply taking the subject off standardized tests, the board’s majority of conservatives have given teachers a reason not to bother and left lawyers with little meat to get their teeth into. The final decision about what’s taught is still in the hands of local school boards.

Theory of Evolution• The theory of evolution holds that self replicating,

single-celled organisms developed from complex organic molecules in our planet's nutrient-rich seas about 3.5 billion years ago.

• Over time, genetic mutations produced increasingly varied and complex organisms which were better adapted to an ever-changing environment.

• Scientists say evidence supporting the theory of evolution includes fossil records, the existence of similar structures in different animals, and the fact that all living things share similar biochemistry.

• They say the theory of evolution is not only scientifically valid, it is the unifying theory of biology.

Against Evolution

Mankind evolved from apelike creatures much less a one-celled organism remains impossible for some people to believe.

National polls consistently show that nearly 50 percent of Americans still don’t accept Darwinism," says TIME science reporter Andrea Dorfman. "They believe that humans were created in their present form as according to Genesis -- just 10,000 years ago."

Creationists argue that evolution is an unproven theory based on faulty science. "It's deception," Tom Willis, director of the Creation Science Association for Mid-America, said. "You can't go into the laboratory or the field and make the first fish. When you tell students science has determined evolution to be true, you're deceiving them."

Limitations of the scientific endeavour

• In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists.

• Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science.

Arguments relating to the definition and limits of science

• Philosophers of science have used the term methodological naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in science of scientific method.

• The methodological assumption is that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes, without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and therefore supernatural explanations for such events are outside the realm of science.

Other comments

• Creationists claim that supernatural explanations should not be excluded and that scientific work is paradigmatically close-minded.

• Because modern science tries to rely on the minimization of assumptions, error, and subjectivity, it remains neutral on subjective subjects such as religion or morality.

• Mainstream proponents accuse the creationists of conflating the two in a form of pseudoscience.

Evolution is a theory and fact

• Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.

• Facts are the world's data. • Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret

facts. • Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories

to explain them. • Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but

apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome.

• And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism, or by some other yet to be discovered.

Theory vs. fact

• Evolution as theory or fact

• The argument that evolution is a theory, not a fact, has often been made against the exclusive teaching of evolution.

• The argument is related to a common misconception about the technical meaning of "theory" that is used by scientists.

• In common usage, "theory" often refers to conjectures, hypotheses, and unproven assumptions.

• However, in science, "theory" usually means "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."

Falsifiability

• Philosopher of science Karl Popper set out the concept of falsifiability as a way to distinguish science from pseudoscience:

• Testable theories are scientific, but those that are ‘untestable’ are not.

• However, in Unended Quest, Popper declared "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme, a possible framework for testable scientific theories," while pointing out it had "scientific character".

Counter claims

• Opponents of evolution seized upon Popper's definition to claim evolution was not a science, and claimed creationism was an equally valid metaphysical research.

• Popper responded to news that his conclusions were being used by anti-evolutionary forces by affirming that evolutionary theories regarding the origins of life on Earth were scientific, because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested.“

More on falsifiability• Debate among some scientists and philosophers of science on

the applicability of falsifiability in science continues.

• However, simple falsifiability tests have been put forward: • For instance, biologists have pointed out that if fossils of rabbits

were found in the PRECAMBRIAN ERA (a time before most similarly complex life forms had evolved) "that would completely refute evolution as an acceptable theory.

• Falsifiability has also caused problems for creationists: In a court decision in the US an American judge used falsifiability as one basis for his ruling against the teaching of creation science in the public schools, ultimately declaring it "simply not science."

Politics and Pseudoscience

• An example of politics trying to control what is science is the support for the work of T.D. Lysenko, an almost illiterate agronomist, who gained almost absolute control of Soviet biology and agriculture from 1937 to 1964.

• He claimed that modern genetics was nonsense. He could produce greatly increased crop yields using techniques unaccepted by orthodox scientists.

• When Stalin backed him at a major conference in 1948, politics decide what was to be considered acceptable science.

• While the rest of the world was using new research to improve their crops, the Soviets were accusing geneticists and supporters of genetics of sabotage, espionage and terrorism.

• Lysenko ultimately set Soviet genetics and plant physiology back by 30 years.

What is Intelligent DesignThe theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause (not an undirected process such as natural selection).

Research to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Then objects are found which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

Intelligent design v. creationism?• The theory of intelligent design to empirically detect whether the

"apparent design" in nature, acknowledged by virtually all biologists, is genuine design.

• Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it.

• Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

• Some Darwinists try to conflate intelligent design with creationism This is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design."

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

• Yes if you accept that the scientific method is a four-step process observations/hypothesis/experiments/conclusion.

• Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).

• Design theorists hypothesise that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.

• Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.

• One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function.

• When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Countering the scientific claim

• Intelligent Design has been called an "argument from ignorance," as it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion:

• Lacking a natural explanation, we assume intelligent cause.

• Most scientists would reply that unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside of science. 

Scientific Method (Process !!)• As in any scientific investigation, we must emphasise our

commitment to the scientific process and agree to accept whatever the conclusion of that process may be.

• If that conclusion is evidence for supernatural intelligent design, then so be it.

• But if we cannot find such evidence, then we should not feel compelled to soothe the sensitivities of believers by leaving unchallenged the assertion that their sectarian prejudices have scientific merit.

• We must speak out forcefully whenever anyone claims scientific authority for beliefs that fail the objective tests of scientific method.

• ARE YOU WILLING TO ACCEPT THIS?

Who’s got the theory?

• A "theory“ - evaluation activity.

• A set of 5 scenarios (which offer proposed explanations for how diverse life on Earth came into existence)

• Each theory needs to be discussed based on its merits.

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/theory.html

• Human values and personal viewpoints can deeply influence science in determining the questions asked and the criteria used for choosing among different ideas.

• Science only deals with natural explanations.

Guidelines for Evaluating the Theories

1. Try to identify the problem/question which the theories are attempting to explain.

2. Give the major strengths and weaknesses of each theory, as discussed by the team.

3. Are there elements in the theories that are untestable? In other words, are there elements for which you cannot think of a way to design an experiment that would produce data to support or refute the element in question?

4. Are there any elements in the theories that seem to be in disagreement with currently accepted “facts”?

5. Which theory could be correct? Give the major reasons for your answer.

THEORY A• Life has always existed.• The life forms presently on the planet are the ones that have

always existed.• There is an immutability to life (life does not change).• All biological types remain the same through time.• Man is at the apex of this static ladder of nature.• There is a fixed hierarchical order to life.• There is a “Great Chain of Being” that extends unchanged

and unbroken from the beginning of time to now.• Some lower life forms may spontaneously arise, if proper

conditions exist.• No life forms have ever become extinct.• Fossils are merely chance aberrations in rocks.• Nature is simply the monotonous and eternal recurrence of

the same things.

THEORY B

• Life originated as an act of divine intervention.• Life forms continue to arise by spontaneous generation.• There is a “Vital Force” that drives the formation of life.• Within each living group, there is an inherent perfecting power.• In the animal group, this perfecting power slowly and

continuously directs the evolution of the group towards the human type.

• Man evolved from an orangutan-like hominoid somewhere in the vastness of Asia.

• Species are not fixed, but are changeable.• Species change in slow, gradual steps, never in sudden leaps.• There are two basic laws which govern these changes:

1. In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops, and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears.

2. All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or the permanent disuse or any organ, all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce young.

• Evolution, therefore, is the gradual change of species as a result of accumulated acquired modifications.

THEORY C• Water is the basic stuff of the cosmos.• Life first appeared in water.• A primordial slime formed in the waters of the Earth.• The primitive oceans of the Earth were filled with preformed,

free-floating organs.• These organs came together haphazardly, by chance, to form

organisms.• Most of the resulting organisms were monstrosities and

perished in the struggle for existence.• Some of the organisms were successful in survival and

reproduction, giving rise to the organisms presently here.• Fossils are proof of the monstrosities which failed to survive.• Life forms first developed in water and then moved onto the

land.• Plants formed first, then animals.• The line leading to man moved through a fish-like stage.

THEORY D• The origin of life is unknown, but life is certainly very old.• At its core, there is a basic sameness to all life.• All organisms tend to increase their population numbers at a

geometric rate. Over many generations, however, the number of individuals in a species tends to remain constant.

• There must, therefore, be a struggle for survival in which some individuals die or in other ways are prevented from reaching their full reproductive potential.

• Variations (some of which may be inherited) are found among the individuals in each species.

• Some variations are favorable to an organism and help it to survive and reproduce abundantly.

• Surviving organisms pass their hereditary variations to their offspring.

• In time, great differences arise, until a new species evolves from an old species.

• Evolution is, therefore, the change of species as a result of the natural selection of favorable variations in inherited characteristics.

THEORY E• Physical events can have non-physical causes.• Life resulted from a single act of creation by a divine being.• Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created

functionally complete from the beginning, and did not evolve from some other kind of organism.

• Changes in basic kinds since their creation are limited to “horizontal” changes (variations) within the kinds, or “downward” changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinction).

• The processes used by the Creator are no longer operating anywhere in the universe.

• Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws; however, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these processes by their Creator.

• There is strong scientific evidence to indicate that most of the earth’s fossil-bearing sediments were formed in a recent global hydraulic cataclysm.

• The Bible is infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which it deals; it is free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.