I may have mentioned that a week ago, I lectured on the topic of Pseudoscience. I spoke at length about what the general concept was behind science, developed by Greek philosophers thousands of years ago. The course of civilization was greatly affected by the profound realization that the Universe (“Nature”) is comprehensible. We can understand how things work, and we should question why nature is the way it is.

The Greeks used reason to explain the world around them. Their logical models of the world, were not always correct, but they often were able to explain what they observed, and as our understanding and technology grew over centuries, the models improved. They utilized the Scientific Method, which makes use of intuition and experience, but also relies on observation, logic and skepticism. Scientists must be open-minded, and willing to discard long-held ideas that disagree with observation and experiment. They must be at one time, both imaginative and disciplined.

The Scientific Method is not a precise formula that is applied to every experiment. It is a methodology… a way of thinking about the world around us. The Scientific Method can be used to predict how physical systems will behave. Scientists first create a scientific theory, based on mathematical models or observation, then they make predictions based on this theory and perform experiments or make observations to see how accurate and precise their theory is. If their theory does not agree with observation, it is improved upon or discarded. Science is an attempt to model the observable Universe in a rational, logical way, and is open to independent and verifiable testing – not on belief systems. Science can explain only what we can observe and reliably measure. While science cannot explain everything, we learn more every year, and yesterday’s mysteries continue to be explained by increasingly better models as we continue to question why things work the way they do, and perform more involved experiments, and more precise observations.

Science is a wonderful tool, for coming to understand the world in a reliable way. We need to build bridges that don’t collapse, and that obey strict “natural laws”. Mythology and belief systems that are based on what a group of people desire, yet that cannot be shown to have validity when observed, or reproduced by qualified experts, is what I refer to as pseudoscience. This would include telepathy, telekinesis, astral projection, clairvoyance, astrology, faith-healing, voodoo and magic, to name but a few. Many of these are not harmful, when taken as entertainment. Even religion, which is faith-based, is beyond the explanation of science. In class we discussed how over the history of humanity, countless numbers have died defending their brand of religion, and even today wars are waged because people cannot decide which belief system is the true path to follow.

Science cannot explain or predict what it cannot measure or observe. So, science can make no claims about religion beyond that fact. The existence of a god, or gods, has not been provable and people are free to have belief in whatever system they prefer. Some pseudoscience is harmful in the extreme, such as the case where someone foregoes surgery to travel to the Philippines to opt for psychic surgery. Or, when someone has a serious condition, such as asthma and relies on unproven homeopathic remedies. So, sometimes it is important to expose pseudoscience, especially when it can cause harm or when it is performed by charlatans.

Sometimes, the scientist can also have a belief in something that science cannot explain. Many scientists are deeply religious. While science cannot reduce religion to a formula, the study of the Universe gives us a picture from the first fraction of a second of the Big Bang, to the present day, and paints a beautiful and amazing picture that reinforces the belief in many that there is something greater than we understand.

Belief structures introduce bias into our decision making, and how we observe the world. Early astronomers were meticulous in their observations of stars and planets, yet they struggled to make the data fit with long-held beliefs. They “knew” that the Earth was at the center of the Universe, so they invented a complicated model where Mars circled the Earth on a large circular orbit, with “epicycles” (smaller circles made on the larger orbit.) It was terribly complicated to devise a system that fit with their belief structure, and they had a hard time overcoming that bias for centuries. Finally, Kepler devised a model that was remarkable given the limited perspective he had on the Universe. He proposed that planets orbited in ellipses, which was later proven to be true. Occam’s Razor is a theorem which states one should make no more assumptions than are needed. “The simplest explanation is the best.” Nevertheless, it is very difficult to apply the Scientific Method without bias, because we are humans and cannot ever fully remove ourselves from the “experiment”. That is why theories must be open for the broadest peer review possible.

Ghosts and astrology and psychics are all intriguing. I am entertained by horror movies and ghost stories. It is comforting to believe there is something beyond our understanding that is operating behind the curtains. Unprovable myths can excuse us from blame, and remove responsibility. It is harder to face up to reality under the scrutiny of science. And, who wouldn’t like a world where we can make three wishes and get what we dream of without effort? But, there are too many other explanations that are much simpler for why fantasy becomes myth. People want to believe something is one way, because that is convenient or comforting, yet if they cannot demonstrate their interpretation is correct (in a reliable, reproducible way) then my explanation is just as valid.

We need to do more, as members of society, to promote positive images of science and scientists. We need to do more to popularize science and make it accessible by the average person. Science and skepticism are positive ways to understand, explain and interact with nature. We all rely on cars, and refrigeration, and medicine… yet few of us understand why those things work the way they do. Asimov wrote that, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” And, we may reach a point in this century, if we have not already, when the average person sees the scientist as a technology wizard, and cannot distinguish science from magic, or astronomy from astrology. It is sad, but a possible fate for humanity as our scientific knowledge and technology advances exponentially. We need to promote science and the scientific method in school from an early age, and teach children to be skeptical (in a healthy way!) When children are young, they want so badly to understand the world around them, yet their parents often kill that wonderfully annoying trait and instead encourage boring repetitive tasks, and sports that involve more brawn than brains, blindly following strict rules. I can only imagine how wonderful the world would be if we encouraged creativity and scientific exploration in children from a young age and let that curiosity grow. I would suspect that we would live in a world with much less fear and doubt, and much more understanding and tolerance than we have living in a “demon-haunted world”.

Carl Sagan, in his excellent book, The Demon-Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark, gave us a “Baloney Detection Kit” for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments. Click on the link to read more. Michael Shermer also wrote on this topic in the November 2001 issue of Scientific American. He also discussed how one would challenge the validity of pseudoscience claims.

• How reliable is the source of the claim?
  Pseudoscientists often work very hard to appear reliable, yet their quotes and figures are often distorted, just like the story above of how astronomers for a long time fought to reconcile observation with their long-held belief of an Earth-centric cosmogony. You should look for bias, and any intentional fraudulent distortions.
• Does this source often make similar claims?
  Pseudoscientists often extrapolate well beyond the known facts, and add supposition that is not supported by known scientific facts.
• Have the claims been verified by another source?
  Remember, part of the scientific method is open peer-review. Reports only verified within their own belief circle are suspect.
• How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works?
  Extraordinary claims must be viewed in the larger perspective of history.
• Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only supportive evidence been sought?
  Real science is open to skeptical inquiry, and considers contradictory evidence, while pseudoscientists often only look for supportive evidence (even if it is flimsy or tangential). Watch out for marketing that takes quotes from reputable sources out of context, and claims that to be evidence!

Similar Posts:

• Creationism in the Classroom
• ID By Any Other Name…
• Misconceptions about the Scientific Method
• On Skepticism
• Getting the message across…