[Paper] Pseudoscience: how does and how should science react to it?

[sanctus]

This is the first time I post an article. I had to write an essay since during PhD-studies in Norway it is compulsory to follow an ethics course (a norwegian dental-researcher faked many results (in his PhD and following articles) a few years back with the consequence of having this mandatory course).

 

Some of you helped me a few weeks back for a question for this essay in this thread. So if you wanna see the result here it is (in the attachement).

pseudoscience_forum.pdf

[Pyrotex]

Sanctus,

excellent essay.

[sanctus]

Wow, pyro, you are a quick reader!! Thanks.

[Moontanman]

Great essay sanctus

[freeztar]

Thanks for the good read.

 

I know if it was my essay, I would hope for some honest and constructive criticism. So, I hope you don't mind the following critiques.

 

I found the essay laborious to read at times. I think this mainly has to do with grammar and sentence structuring. I'd be willing to help you with this if you can send me an email with a Word, or text version (I don't have Acrobat).

 

The crux of your argument was great! I agree that science intrinsically requires an open mind. I can't think of a better argument off the top of my head and showing inconsistency does make for a good argument.

 

A little minor quibble here; I consider cooking as a science, at least the way I cook. :eek2:

You could start by making a prediction that if you mix one egg, one cup each of flour and sugar, and 1/4 cup of milk, you would have a tasty cake. You can test this by making the recipe, baking at a certain temperature for a certain amount of time, and then feeding it to a test group. They can either approve or disapprove (on a scale of 1-10 perhaps). You could then make a prediction that adding another 1/2 cup of sugar will yield higher ratings and carry out the experiment again. etc.

 

Popper might disagree with me because it's hard to falsify a recipe. ;)

 

Good stuff, Sanctus. How did your grade turn out? I would guess you got an A.

[UncleAl]

Truths need not be believable, they merely self-consistently exist. Lies must be believable. Consequently, lies are usually much more believable than truths.

 

Acts of faith are strengthened by slaughter, not diminshed. The Church can win not only by impressing its dogma but also by inculcating its methods. An effective attack upon the unethical and the unscrupulous is laughter. "Lord, render my enemies ridiculous." Follow that by expulsion and banishment.

 

Science versus pseudoscience is not about convenience, fashion, or faith. Ultimately it is about life or death - and the universe does not care what you believe when it makes the call. Social activism demands objective reality be displaced by the compassion of diversity. One need only observe how Michael Jackson objectively benefitted from the purchased labors of his privileged minority personal physician.

 

--

Uncle Al

UNDER SATAN'S LEFT FOOT

Vote a 10 for the experiments!

[pamela]

well done, sanctus

[modest]

I loved it. Great quote from Popper! The conclusions were well formed and followed well from the arguments. I thought the language flowed alright and was understandable. I give it an A+ :)

 

Freezy, I "saved at text" in acrobat. The formatting looks a little wack, but workable. It's attacked.

 

~modest

pseudoscience_forum-1.txt

[freeztar]

Freezy, I "saved at text" in acrobat. The formatting looks a little wack, but workable. It's attacked.

Cool, but it lookslikethis in mostparts.

:)

 

I'll try to print it as a pdf using cutepdf in windoze...

 

I get the same thing over here, and while I don't mind editing grammar, it's a bit different when you have to manually parse words. :)

 

Was this done in Debian per chance? If so, I'll hop over there and look at it with OpenOffice.

[modest]

Cool, but it lookslikethis in mostparts.

:)

 

I'll try to print it as a pdf using cutepdf in windoze...

 

I get the same thing over here, and while I don't mind editing grammar, it's a bit different when you have to manually parse words. :(

 

Was this done in Debian per chance? If so, I'll hop over there and look at it with OpenOffice.

 

:) I am so fired :)

 

Try the attached :)

 

Edit: And... it was too large to attach. I'll email.

 

~modest

[sanctus]

Thanks all, there is no grade it is only accepted or not. The first version was not accepted, i got the constructive criticism. And also posted then in the other thread, to get some help from you guys.

Uncle all, love your sentence about lies having to be believable.

 

Freez, i don't mind criticism at all and like to discuss it more. I could choose the theme and so I like it :-). But since i handed it in already, I do not know if it is worth modifying the grammar...but I know that (even language-independently) I tend to construct really complicated sentences.

 

Neither open-office or word or acrobat ;-) but the editor which makes you also coffee (emacs) so I could send you a tex-file. I always write in latex...

 

Freez, about cooking, you can call in the popular way science, but I had to be coherent with my definition and the first one I had before the criticism, ended up saying that since cooking is not science it is pseudo-science. So I had to improve definitions. Which then makes cooking no science...

 

Modest, which quote? I have more if I remember right.

[modest]

Modest, which quote? I have more if I remember right.

 

On page 2 in defining science. I didn't realize why I was drawn to it before, but I realize now that I used almost the exact same quote to define science here:

 

Re: What is Science?

From Karl Popper's 1959 "The logic of scientific discovery":

 

The task of formulating an acceptable definition of the idea of an ‘empirical science’ is not without its difficulties. Some of these arise from the fact that there must be many theoretical systems with a logical structure very similar to the one which at any particular time is the accepted system of empirical science. This situation is sometimes described by saying that there is a great number—presumably an infinite number—of ‘logically possible worlds’. Yet the system called ‘empirical science’ is intended to represent only one world: the ‘real world’ or the ‘world of our experience’.

 

In order to make this idea a little more precise, we may distinguish three requirements which our empirical theoretical system will have to satisfy. First, it must be synthetic, so that it may represent a non-contradictory, a possible world. Secondly, it must satisfy the criterion of demarcation, i.e. it must not be metaphysical, but must represent a world of possible experience. Thirdly, it must be a system distinguished in some way from other such systems as the one which represents our world of experience.

 

But how is the system that represents our world of experience to be distinguished? The answer is: by the fact that it has been submitted to tests, and has stood up to tests. This means that it is to be distinguished by applying to it that deductive method [the scientific method] which it is my aim to analyze, and to describe.

 

‘Experience’, on this view, appears as a distinctive method whereby one theoretical system may be distinguished from others; so that empirical science seems to be characterized not only by its logical form but, in addition, by its distinctive method. (This, of course, is also the view of the inductivists, who try to characterize empirical science by its use of the inductive method.)

 

The logic of scientific discovery - Google Books

 

Great minds think alike I suppose :)

 

~modest

[UncleAl]

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard Feynman.

 

Do (metaphoric) left and right shoes vacuum free fall identically? Nobody has ever looked. They should, they must, of course they do... or a vast swath of physical theory is horribly wrong for a subtle footnote.

 

Somebody should look, as below. Every 10 vote is a sharp stick that makes physics twitch. You will know a man by his fears.

 

--

Uncle Al

UNDER SATAN'S LEFT FOOT

Vote a 10 for doing the experiments!

[Pyrotex]

Sanctus,

I did have one teensy criticism, but not the time (until now) to express it.

Open-mindedness is indeed a requirement for Science.

 

When someone suggests that ingesting the inner lining of the bark of the Willow tree will reduce head and body pains, Science should be open-minded and perform the appropriate experiments.

Indeed, this actually happened and today we have aspirin as a result.

 

When someone suggests that drinking ultra-pure water will cure disease, Science should be open-minded and perform the appropriate experiments.

Indeed, this actually happened and the experiments showed no significant effect.

 

But then, someone made the same suggestion again, and bottled ultra-pure water and began selling it to the masses as a cure for disease.

 

Science, in its open-minded wisdom, again performed experiments yielding no significant effects.

 

But then, a third time someone made the same suggestion again...

And a 4th time...

And a 5th time...

 

And a 83rd time...

And a 84th time...

 

And a 12,999th time...

And a 13,000th time...

 

And a 2,000,007th time...

 

Where does Science's open-mindedness draw a line in the sand?

 

After Science proves that something is wrong, or bogus, or impossible, or illogical, or contrary to observed fact, or negated by experiment, or bullshit that Nth time, what is Science's obligation to "open mindedness" then?

[lawcat]

I enjoyed reading your paper. Great structure. Good roadmap. You take the reader well without departures from section to section. The only thing I would suggest is that you explain your conlusion briefly in the introduction so that the reader knows where this is headed ultimately.

 

Interestingly, in law, pseudoscience would be an opinion not grounded in facts.

So in law, an opinion is (1) conviction, in (2) perceived, (3) subject matter. Facts would constitute the findings, or perception of subject matter. Pseudscience would lack proper perception of subject matter, or any findings of fact. So, the pseudoscientific opinon would be unreliable for lack of elements of proper opinion.

 

To tie this to your paper: (1) ill-defined would be "vague" in law, and thus unreliable; (2) non-falsifiable would be actual complete lack of attempt of findings of fact, and thus unreliable, (3) appropriate tests would be labeled as "inadequate findings of fact" and thus unreliable; and (4) seeking confirmation would be either "fraud" or "duress," fraudulent aassertions or undue influence.

 

So, I found your paper enjoyable, and consistent with not just scientific discourse but also law. I also agree with your conclusion, which I read as: Since we are dealing with opinions, which are subjective, we should be respectfull of the opinions of others, to the extent that such opinions do not cause grave harm.