| From: James R (Avatar) | 09/11/2000
21:22:58 |
| Subject: Antiscience | post id:
166818 |
| This thread arises from various
comments by Paul H in threads discussing "fringe" science topics including
the "Aquatic Ape" hypothesis, whether human DNA was ever tampered with by
aliens, and whether certain "remote viewing" experiments have any validity
(among others). A common theme in Paul's arguments seems to be that there is an accepted orthodoxy (almost a dogma) in science. As a result, people with unusual "fringe" theories are summarily dismissed by "establishment" scientists as cranks, when in fact they are merely trying to overturn an existing paradigm with perfectly legitimate arguments. The lone crusading backyard scientist with his theory of antigravity is looked on derisively by the "establishment", whose world view is not flexible enough to even consider the idea that antigravity might be possible and that the scientist's views might be worth listening to. The late Carl Sagan* referred to this view (of established science as an inflexible dogma unwilling to look at new ideas) as "Antiscience": "For centuries, science has been under a line of attack that, rather than pseudoscience, can be called antiscience. Science, and academic scholarship in general, the contention these days goes, is too subjective. Some even allege it's entirely subjective, as is, they say, history. History is generally written by the victors to justify their actions, to arouse patriotic fervour, and to suppress the legitimate claims of the vanquished." Scientists are human. Therefore, they have their own sets of prejudices and values. They can also have a personal stake in their adherence to a type of "orthodoxy". But if science was only an adherence to an orthodoxy or "faith", it would not have progressed. Science is more than that: "[Scientists] have biases; we breathe in the prevailing prejudices from our surroundings like everyone else. Scientists have on occasion given aid and comfort to a variety of noxious doctrines (including the supposed 'superiority' of one ethnic group or gender over another from measurements of brain size or skull bumps or IQ tests). Scientists are often reluctant to offend the rich and powerful. Occasionally, a few of them cheat and steal. ... Scientists make mistakes. Accordingly, it is the job of the scientist to recognize our weakness, to examine the widest range of opinions, to be ruthlessly self-critical. Science is a collective enterprise with the error-correction machinery often running smoothly. It has an overwhelming advantage over history, because in science we can do experiments. ... In those historical sciences where you cannot arrange a [repeat by experiment], you can examine related cases and begin to recognise their common components. We can't make stars explode at our convenience, nor can we repeatedly evolve through many trials a mammal from its ancestors. But we can simulate some of the physics of supernova explosions in the laboratory, and we can compare in staggering detail the genetic instructions of mammals and reptiles." Sagan draws a comparison between an accepted scientific doctrine (quantum mechanics) and a pseudoscientific belief system. He makes the point that to properly comprehend quantum mechanics, about 15 years of study is needed in order to obtain the necessary mathematical background of calculus, differential equations, matrix algrebra and so on. "Now suppose we were to approach some obscure religion or New Age doctrine or shamanistic belief system sceptically. We have an open mind; we understand there's something interesting here; we introduce ourselves to the practitioner and ask for an intelligible summary. Instead we are told that it's intrinsically too difficult to be explained simply, that it's replete with 'mysteries', but if we're willing to become acolytes for 15 years, at the end of that time we might begin to be prepared to consider the subject seriously." So how is the shamanistic belief different from quantum mechanics? Sagan asserts that it is because, even if we don't understand how quantum physicists arrive at their predictions, the predictions can still be verified against experimental results. We can verify that quantum mechanics works, even if we don't understand it. Equally, if the shaman is willing to have his "miracle" cures tested rigorously to see if they are more effective than a placebo, and it turns out that they are, then we might start to think there is something valid in the shamanistic practices. However, there are very few (if any) examples of New Age beliefs which stand up to this type of testing. Sagan quotes Morris Cohen, a philosopher of science, who commented in 1931 on another distinction between legitimate science and pseudoscience: "To be sure, the vast majority of people who are untrained can accept the results of science only on authority. But there is obviously an important difference between an establishment that is open and invites every one to come, study its methods, and suggest improvement, and one that regards the questioning of its credentials as due to wickedness of heart ... Rational science treats its credit notes as redeemable on demand, while non-rational authoritarianism regards the demand for the redemption of its paper as a disloyal lack of faith." The above quotes give a somewhat idealistic picture of how science works, but also point out that scientists are human. Mostly, scientists are willing to consider "fringe" ideas, even fringe ideas which clash with their previously held beliefs. However, the flip side of the coin is that they demand high standards of evidence before a "fringe" idea is accepted. If the "fringe" idea challenges existing theories which are well established, the onus of proof generally falls on the party asserting that the established theory is wrong, although the fringe idea will still usually be given the once-over in case it leads to useful new lines of inquiry. The perception of professional scientists as an "establishment" fighting new ideas could not be further from the truth. Scientists love new ideas. But the days of backyard science are rapidly drawing to a close. We know many things about our universe. There is an intricate web of knowledge built up by scientists over the centuries (particularly the 20th), with many links. To discover something truly new often requires professional equipment and methods. Occasionally, a single individual working alone will still come up with a revolutionary scientific idea which turns out to be correct, but this is becoming rarer. Much more often, the individual with the idea will be a scientist trained for years in the "establishment", in constant contact with people working in similar (if not exactly the same) fields, with shared goals. Mention has been made of "The Textbooks". If it's not in The Textbooks, then an idea must be wrong according to the "establishment". However, The Textbooks usually lag the cutting edge of science by a long shot. The real, ground breaking work is being reported and argued in the peer-reviewed journals. After some time, the scientific community as a whole (or a majority of it) reaches agreement on a contentious topic. Then the agreement is enshrined in The Textbooks. Many backyard scientists argue with the well-established theories in The Textbooks. Scientists can get a little irritated about this, since in many cases the relevant arguments have been had and settled long ago. This does not mean that the Textbooks are always right. This is why scientists listen to backyard scientists when they have a new theory. If the theory actually does introduce a new idea, or bring new facts to light, then perhaps the Textbooks will need re-writing. But remember, the "establishment" is usually in a better position to judge the worth of a new theory than the weekend scientist. The "establishment" scientist has done the 15 years training required for a deep understanding of his/her science. JR * the quotes reproduced here are borrowed from The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. | |