Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience

Post Reply New Topic

Obligatory xkcd:



Science isn't about being right or wrong, it's about holding what you believe up to examination. In it's day, looking for an aether and alchemy could both be considered to be science - the idea of an aether fitted into the existing model of light at the time, and Alchemy existed in a time before the the birth of modern chemistry, where the only frame of reference on the subject was occult practices.

Dr. David Brin has observed that the single most important thing for a scientist to learn to say, something that few pseudoscientists seem to be able to say, is, "I might be wrong..."

Dr. Isaac Asimov famously said that the most exciting phrase in science isn't "Eureka!" ("I have found it!"), but rather, "Gee, that's odd..."

When a scientist finds something unusual during his research, something he did not expect to find, he doesn't reject it - the unexpected is the exciting part! When he finds out that the prevailing belief about something is wrong, his next goal is to find the definitive proof that it's wrong - and to be willing to accept the idea that he might be the one that's wrong, and the belief might actually still be right. Remember, after all, that the way a scientist gets ahead in his/her field is by proving that someone who came before was wrong about something, and making it stick. Nobody ever got tenure at a university at an early age by agreeing with existing texts...

I would say that science (A scientific theory) describes the world around us, is able to be repeatedly tested, and can be proven wrong. one could probably say with confidence that all current scientific theories are wrong, and that better theories will be made eventually, but science is not black and white, not all theories are as wrong as each other. everyone knows that the earth is not flat, but it is approximately flat if you are looking at a small part, which is why maps work. Newtonian gravity does not explain everything, but for most purposes it is good enough. you only really need General Relativity if you are doing stuff like a GPS system, or dealing with something close to a big mass.
in everyday life, nobody really uses quantum mechanics, because newton's laws and classical electromagnetism is good enough, but when you are dealing with very small things like micro circuitry, then you need to use QM.
a good indication of the quality of a theory is the uncertainties, which largely depends on how good the measuring equipment is. If the measurements are within their uncertainties of the theory, then the current theory can't be improved yet. But when measuring equipment is good enough, they might start disagreeing with the current best theory, which means a better theory is needed.
A scientific theory fits the evidence, not the other way around.
That is why creationism/intelligent design is not science, because the creationists start with the conclusion that a god created the universe, and that everything in it should look created. they then proceed to find all the 'evidence' they can and discard everything else.
I have found it largely revolves around claims that evolution is somehow wrong, so all animals must have been designed.
now I am not a biologist, but I am pretty sure that if there was anything wrong with any of the theories of evolution, then we would have heard about it in mainstream science, not from some religious organisation like Answers in Genesis.
More in my field of physics, they claim that carbon dating and other radio dating methods are unreliable. this is not true at all. radioactive decay is extremely reliable, and the only way to speed up the decay are under VERY extreme conditions, even more extreme than what is found in the sun (I think) to make a significant difference, which would be impossible on earth.
I read somewhere that measurements of the age of the earth using something like 20 different methods agree with each other within a couple of hundred million years, which is about 5% of 4.5 Gyr.

Using the cosmic background radiation, the age of the universe has been measured to be 13.75 ± 0.17 billion years, which is quite old, but also quite accurate, to about 1.2%!

don't even get me started with homeopathy!

In terms of what is just religious texts and what is pseudoscience - it becomes pseudoscience when they make attempts to refute credible science with their own "science."

It's usually the Christian conservatives we associate with creationism, but I think this article about Orthodox Jewish views on evolution is quite insightful. A literal interpretation of the religion and saying that's what one believes isn't pseudoscience, but arming your congregants with your own version of the science and having your own specific "scientists" to read would be pseudoscience.

A great example of pseudoscience is the movie What the Bleep Do We Know?, which (absurdly) argues that quantum mechanics has anything to do with consciousness.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005 ... leep_.html

Should have been more clear on that - I was talking about the concept of "quantum consciousness" that is somehow external to the brain. New Agers have jumped on the idea of quantum mechanics somehow legitimating their supernatural beliefs. That's what What the Bleep was about.

Here's a piece written almost two decades ago by Victor Stenger:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vste ... usness.pdf

Buddha said:
'Don't believe anything anyone tells you, do not even believe what I am telling you now'