Science vs pseudo-science

[Zarathustra]

It seems that there is quite a lot of interest in this subject lately. Therefore, I have done everyone a favor of creating a thread to discuss this fascinating topic without clogging up other threads. I am going to leave this here as a place holder for others to go on record first, so that my opinion does not sway the discussion at the beginning. Let's see what substantive things you all have to say in the absence of merely disagreeing with me.

I do propose a question to direct the discussion: what are the criteria that delineate science from pseudo science? Let's come up with agenda-free lists that would apply generally, and not merely tailored to fit any conspicuous recent examples.

And since it seems that we have a few here who consider themselves experts on the subject, I propose that we challenge ourselves by trying to answer first without Googling. Let's see what you got!

[Savor Dam]

Having once been a bona fide rocket scientist (really not that hard; after all, it isn't music theory!), my first hallmark would have to be a repeatable methodology.

That's a start for this list, but I'm gonna leave plenty of space for others to weigh in.

(Might this be more condignly placed in The Loresraat?)

[Zarathustra]

This actually belongs in The Close. The question of what counts as science rather than pseudo science is part of the philosophy of science. [ full disclosure: I have taken a couple of courses on the subject in college and I have read dozens of philosophers who have defined the subject, from Roger Bacon to Thomas Kuhn to Karl Popper.]

[Fist and Faith]

(really not that hard; after all, it isn't music theory!)

Pfff. Music theory's a snap.

[Avatar]

For you maybe Magister.

Anyway, SD already posted the first thing that came to my mind. I suppose verifiable and repeatable are the same for our purposes.

Measurable results?

--A

[Fist and Faith]

It's easy. Nobody ever taught you. I could teach you here, in print. You could understand it even if you had been born deaf. Not sure what that has to do with science v pseudo-science, though. heh

[Zarathustra]

Well, I honestly thought we'd have more discussion here. I'll go ahead.

I think that the idea of repeatability is important in terms of replicating one's results, to verify their accuracy. But that doesn't necessarily mean that if you can't repeat an experiment that it was never science to begin with. It just undermines the veracity of the results. Science doesn't equal "truth." It's a method. You might be able to get true results just once. It's conceivable that some experiments can never be repeated.

Science is contrasted with superstition, religion, and mythology, but also common knowledge, tradition, authority, rules of thumb. It's not just naturalistic (rather than supernatural) but also rigorous, tentative, questioning, and skeptical. It originally stressed empirical evidence as a source of knowledge--contrasted with authority or ancient texts--and this was successful, but it was also misleading. Knowledge doesn't come from empirical evidence. All empirical evidence is "theory laden," as Popper says. We interpret all evidence according to theories that we already believe, as well as theories we want to test. So there isn't really "objective evidence." Not only do we see what we want to see, but we often only find what we are looking for.

Knowledge, as Deutsche says, comes from conjecture, which is then tested against the empirical evidence. But most of the things which we have knowledge of are things we'll NEVER observe. We have an excellent idea of what is happening inside stars, though we'll never see their interiors. Most of our empirical evidence for things we hold true is indirect evidence.

A good explanation is one that can't be easily varied without impacting its explanatory power. The more specific and invariable it is, while still explaining the phenomenon, the better. The more you reveal that "it can't be another way," the closer you are getting to reality.

But even this is not enough. It must also conform to previous knowledge. This isn't a hard and fast rule, because as Kuhn showed, science moves through a serious of paradigm revolutions, in which large bodies of previous knowledge are overturned or reinterpreted. But the "normal" times of science are characterized by working within a paradigm, working out all the details, chasing down the implication of what is already assumed to be true. So something that fundamentally contradicts the rest of science, is suspect. This doesn't mean that it's not true, or not science, but it's a valid reason for doubt.

Another point bought to us by Popper is the falsification principle. If a scientific theory is not falsifiable in principle, then it cannot be science. This is true for many supernatural ideas, though not as many as you'd think. For instance, if we can show that the universe can spontaneously burst into existence due to principles of quantum cosmology, we can in fact falsify the idea that it requires supernatural creation in order to get the ball rolling. So, creationism is falsifiable! That doesn't mean that creationism is a scientific theory. It just means that falsification alone isn't sufficient to tell the difference.

Pseudo-science often depends upon the ignorance of the audience, "lying with statistics," confirmation bias, misunderstandings of probability theory, and many other psychological reasons for people not to think critically/rigorously. Pseudo-science is often much harder to spot than mere mythology, because it dresses itself up in the language of science. But if it is radically disconnected from accepted science, is not falsifiable, contains logical flaws, contains bad math, can be varied substantially without affecting the theory, then we're dealing with pseudo-science.

That's off the top of my head. Now, after Googling to refresh my memory:

Examples of pseudo-science:

Chiropractic (I've discussed this before)
Ley Lines (attributing intentional significance to the placement of ancient monuments that was actually random chance)
Perpetual motion machines
Flood geology (ascribing most of earth's geology to Noah's flood)
UfOlogy
Crop circles
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
Magnet therapy
Myers-Briggs personality indicator test

And many more. Very interesting list.

Here's a link to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the issue of science vs pseudo-science. This link is fascinating in its complexity, showing the breadth of debate and thought on this issue, including the possibility that the line between science and pseudo-science could move as science itself progresses. Others resist this, insisting that the criteria must be timeless.

An interesting point of emphasis is science denial. Many pseudo-science theories have as their chief objective the denial of standard, accepted science, such as climate change skepticism and intelligent design. (I disagree that being skeptical of the future impact of global warming to be pseudo-scientific; I think that such projections rely upon Malthusian naivete of the ability of humans to adapt to change--an inherently unpredictable phenomenon in its specifics, but reliable enough generally to be taken into account as a mitigating factor to global warming alarmism.)

It is important to note that many of the features of pseudo-science are part of science. That's why it's so difficult to delineate. Was Einstein's denial of the implications of quantum mechanics scientific? The way he phrased it most certainly was ("god doesn't play dice . . . "). But the way he investigated this skepticism led to the discovery of things like quantum entanglement. So why can't denial be a valid part of moving science forward?

Anyway, if you guys have any pet theories (like chiropractic or global warming skepticism) that you want to defend as scientific, go for it! Likewise, if you want to attack something as unscientific (e.g. simulation theory), go for it! This is the place to get that out of our systems. But let's try to keep it in the framework of the philosophy of science, rather than over-reliance of metaphors/similes that emphasize absurdity alone.

[samrw3]

Some ideas - some mentioned above

- Measurable

- Repeated Methodology

- Independent Methodology [can someone in reputable independent country/region repeat tests - theory and get same results]

- Ability to do blind sampling if possible - this is not always possible/practical but ability to get someone to duplicate results with no intimate knowledge of how the original results were produced. Thus if the first theory has flaws, faults and someone just repeats thus the exact same theory/tests and get same results that does not tell us too much. [Meaning if you able to reproduce exact same flawed results multiple times does not make them any less flawed]

- Auditable - can someone perform a check/task list on the steps and make sure that each step was performed with accuracy, thoroughness and approved machinery

That's all I can think of for now

[Zarathustra]

- Ability to do blind sampling if possible - this is not always possible/practical but ability to get someone to duplicate results with no intimate knowledge of how the original results were produced. Thus if the first theory has flaws, faults and someone just repeats thus the exact same theory/tests and get same results that does not tell us too much. [Meaning if you able to reproduce exact same flawed results multiple times does not make them any less flawed]

That's an important point in testing the efficacy of medicine, for sure. I think that people too often equate science with physics/chemistry, etc. But medical science is also science. Good point.

- Auditable - can someone perform a check/task list on the steps and make sure that each step was performed with accuracy, thoroughness and approved machinery

That's all I can think of for now

This reminds me that I should have added "error correction and a tradition of criticism." It's related to your point. Science makes errors. If it is to progress, it must be able to correct them. Often, you can't correct your own. You need other people to help you see things you can't see, either because you're too close to it, too biased, too invested, or just sheer limits of being human. Good point!

[samrw3]

- Ability to do blind sampling if possible - this is not always possible/practical but ability to get someone to duplicate results with no intimate knowledge of how the original results were produced. Thus if the first theory has flaws, faults and someone just repeats thus the exact same theory/tests and get same results that does not tell us too much. [Meaning if you able to reproduce exact same flawed results multiple times does not make them any less flawed]

That's an important point in testing the efficacy of medicine, for sure. I think that people too often equate science with physics/chemistry, etc. But medical science is also science. Good point.

I had medical in mind - but can be useful in any theory - I just didn't know what to call it besides "blind" sampling. But take any science theory/test can someone reproduce those results without having too much - closer to no influence is ideal to repeat results. So if I take John Doe and have him in my lab and take his paper, his machines, his conditions and I reproduce his results that may be science. However, it would be more ideal to know what John Doe did but create my own parameters, machinery, conditions, assistants, etc to try to reproduce the results with as little to no influence from John Doe If I know someone else exact route I can have it subconsciously have it impact my methodology.

Example - John Doe has theory on our Sun. I can randomly and blindly select other suns to see if Johns theory has validity. If I know John's entire methodology I may subconsciously select suns that are going to have the exact same results - just because I know how he progressed through his methodology.

[lucimay]

a couple of times since I've been reading the close threads I've thought to bring up Rupert Sheldrake but haven't. this might be the place to bring him up.

morphic fields and morphic resonance, science or pseudoscience?

[Skyweir]

That is fascinating Luci

I googled Morphic Resonance as I had not heard the term and found this article https://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance

I read this and it is very interesting and a philosophy of thought Ive read to explain human evolutionary survival. That some of our human knowledge is acquired incrementally from the intelligence of our predecessors. Some hold to genetic storage but Ive read that the physical body itself may retain memory. If indeed memory is the right word.

Is this seudo science? Is it distinguished from seudo science by its alignment with other relatable fields of study? I literally do not know enough about it. But the following indicates

Ervin Laszlo's concept of the Akashic Field includes the idea of a cosmic memory. This field is a universal field, and Laszlo's (2004) Laszlo, E. 2004. Science and the Akashic Field, Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International. [Google Scholar] scientific starting point is the physics of the vacuum underlying space itself. A similar idea of a memory in nature arises from the hypothesis of formative causation, with its central concept of morphic fields. This hypothesis arose from biology rather than physics. Morphic fields help to explain embryology, biological development, habits, memories, instincts, telepathy, and the sense of direction. They have an inherent memory. In its most general form this hypothesis implies that many of the so-called laws of nature are more like habits.

[Skyweir]

Pseudo science like Flat Earth Theory .. Hitlers Eugenics .. not to be confused with modern developments in the field .. Astrology .. Intelligent Design.

I agree that science study often arises from science fantasy .. Anything that initiates ideas can propel those ideas forward.

Science through theory testing, measuring, idea mapping, research and analytical methodologies can refine those ideas, confirm or expose those theories as science myth or science fact. Well those theories or ideas that successfully acquire the necessary funding.

So business or research cases I guess must be made, detailing the specific idea, Theory, objectives, its value etc. So the level of sponsorship received might also distinguish seudo science from actual science, no?

As to Simulation Theory, would it be more a philosophical hypothesis than a scientific theory? But I am not a scientist not a philosopher, nor a student of either. But am curious

[lucimay]

yeah I came across Sheldrake and the idea of morphic fields and morphic resonance in a book a friend loaned me (which I now own) called Beyond the Quantum by Michael Talbot. it was published in '88 and i read it probably 8 or 10 years later. it's a book of essays and the sub title is "how the secrets of the new physics are bridging the chasm between science and faith" which might be off-putting to some but i found it a really good layman's read.

[Vraith]

It's easy. Nobody ever taught you. I could teach you here, in print. You could understand it even if you had been born deaf. Not sure what that has to do with science v pseudo-science, though. heh

Heh...I doubt you could teach it that easily...but yea, it ain't rocket science.

I wouldn't say it's pseudo-science. I'd say it's science-pseudo. Cuz what it says is true, in an isolated/descriptive/post-existence sense. But learning all of music theory won't teach you shit about music, unless you got the music in you. [[[though maybe brain/gene science will reveal, eventually, how you can/do get the music in you]]]

[Zarathustra]

a couple of times since I've been reading the close threads I've thought to bring up Rupert Sheldrake but haven't. this might be the place to bring him up.

morphic fields and morphic resonance, science or pseudoscience?

Yep, this is exactly the place to bring it up! I hadn't heard of it, either.

I really wish that our schools taught the difference between science and pseudo-science. Too many people think that philosophy has little practical application, but this is exactly where it applies to the real world: determining what is rational/scientific and what is just bunk.

From wikipedia:

The morphic resonance hypothesis is rejected by numerous critics on many grounds, and has been labelled pseudoscience and magical thinking. These grounds include the lack of evidence for it and its inconsistency with established scientific theories. The idea of morphic resonance is also seen as lacking scientific credibility because it is overly vague and unfalsifiable. Furthermore, Sheldrake's experimental methods have been criticised for being poorly designed and subject to experimenter bias. His analyses of results have also drawn criticism.

I note several of the criteria we've discussed are applied here.

However, I think it is important that *somebody* is researching ideas like these, if for no other reason that we are reminded of the value of real science. But also, I think it's important to push the boundaries of reality as much as possible, just in case we are fooling ourselves. No, I don't think significant resources should be devoted to the idea, unless it's to debunk it, but as a Donaldson fan, I'm glad there are a few nutcase Unfettered people out there.

[lucimay]

However, I think it is important that *somebody* is researching ideas like these, if for no other reason that we are reminded of the value of real science. But also, I think it's important to push the boundaries of reality as much as possible, just in case we are fooling ourselves. No, I don't think significant resources should be devoted to the idea, unless it's to debunk it, but as a Donaldson fan, I'm glad there are a few nutcase Unfettered people out there.

agree 100% Zar! where would we be without the nutcase Unfettereds?!

here's a pretty decent interview from John Horgan in Scientific American in 2014 the quote below cites one of the experiments that Talbot cited in Beyond the Quantum, the book where I first read about Sheldrake and his work.

Horgan: What is the single most powerful piece of evidence for morphic resonance?

Sheldrake: There is a lot of circumstantial evidence for morphic resonance. The most striking experiment involved a long series of tests on rat learning that started in Harvard in the 1920s and continued over several decades. Rats learned to escape from a water-maze and subsequent generations learned faster and faster. At the time this looked like an example of Lamarckian inheritance, which was taboo. The interesting thing is that after the rats had learned to escape more than 10 times quicker at Harvard, when rats were tested in Edinburgh, Scotland and in Melbourne, Australia they started more or less where the Harvard rats left off. In Melbourne the rats continued to improve after repeated testing, and this effect was not confined to the descendants of trained rats, suggesting a morphic resonance rather than epigenetic effect. I discuss this evidence in A New Science of Life, now in its third edition, called Morphic Resonance in the US.

[Avatar]

Too many people think that philosophy has little practical application...

Haha, I've always claimed it was a much more practical degree than it was given credit for.

--A

[wayfriend]

It seems to me that no one could possibly prove the universe was not a simulation to anyone who truly wanted to believe that it is.

Whatever kind of idea you could have that would prove it is "not" a simulation, the response would be "but that could be because the simulation works that way".

Also, I strongly feel that if you cannot disprove it, then you cannot prove it either. There is no such thing as a scientific method which utilizes a test that cannot fail but can only succeed.

If you cannot prove it isn't a simulation, then it is like angels and magic and religion IN THE SENSE THAT (AND ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT) you could not disprove it to someone who is adamant that it is true. The similarity to "but that could be because God wants it that way" is not coincidental.

(This whole way of arguing that if A is not like B in one way then it cannot be like B in any other way is total horseshit and we all recognize it when we see it.)

[Zarathustra]

The simulation theory comes with several predictions which are testable. A negative result for one of those tests would disprove the prediction, which counts as a falsification.

Falsification is a general rule of thumb for science, but it is not absolute. Naturalism itself is not falsifiable, because one could always claim that a supernatural event has an underlying natural cause that we do not know yet. The idea that there is extraterrestrial life is not falsifiable; we can never check every planet in the universe. Does that mean that SETI is not science? How can we possibly justified devoting any valuable telescope time to an idea that cannot be falsified?