more on science vs pseudoscience

[JuliaB]

I thought I'd take the subject to its own thread, but you can see the post started by Sky Nelson for reference.

One thing that separates science from psuedoscience is when other, reputable parties review your theory, prediction, or experiment.

A scientist's work is done on the backs of many other scientists. They cite those whose work has contributed to theirs. This is also true in the academic circles. In this way, one is kept more honest and we build collective consensual knowledge.

In psuedoscience, you find claims that are made by people who do not necessarily look to peer review or cite contributers to their ideas. They are often solipsistic. They may use anecdotal stories which may or may not be backed up through inviestigation. They use what they know from science to talk about things and ideas that science cannot prove at this present time, and call it science. They do not actively create solid experiments or studies to furthur their idea.

It is ok to put forth theories and ideas that science cannot or does not investigate at this time, but call it what it is--philosophy or belief--- and do not put the label science on it, unless and until you have predictions that are repeatable by nonbiased third parties, and you have shown that you know that you not only know the science behind what you claim, but you can demonstrate it in some fashion (BTW, some would put mathmatical proof in this catagory).

just some thoughts for now,
maybe more later....

Julia

[Sylph]

Some apropos quotes from Carl Sagan. I miss him
and his sexy, rational, deep voice!


"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere.

In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works.

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.

Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.

The brain is like a muscle. When it is in use we feel very good. Understanding is joyous.

The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.

We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.

The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.

The world is so exquisite, with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better, it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look Death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.


For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love."

Carl Sagan

[Sonomamark]

Absolutely. I miss him, too.

A quickie primer for winnowing junk "science" from the real thing (ssh! Don't tell anybody in the "Events and Classes" section):

The Chronicle: 1/31/2003: The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science (https://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm)


SM


Some apropos quotes from Carl Sagan. I miss him
and his sexy, rational, deep voice!


"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere.

In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works.

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.

Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.

The brain is like a muscle. When it is in use we feel very good. Understanding is joyous.

The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.

We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.

The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.

The world is so exquisite, with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better, it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look Death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.


For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love."

Carl Sagan

[skynelson]

Julia, thanks for your thoughtful post. And the article from the Chronicle is worth reading as well. One thing I'd like to bring up is that science is itself limited by its own definition. One of the ways to interpret the fundamental results of Quantum Mechanics is that the question we ask determines the answer. We look for a particle, we get a particle. We look for a wave, that's what we find. What we look for is what we get. in forming the experiment, we determine the answer we get.

How do we deal with this? It poses a problem right at the heart of the double-blind experiment, that somehow our experiment can obtain an objective answer. People have been noticing this result for decades now, including the founders of quantum mechanics themselves.

So how do we maintain and expand the scientific method to include the discoveries science has made? How do we maintain an objective scientific method if our theories are showing that objectivity may not exist?



I thought I'd take the subject to its own thread, but you can see the post started by Sky Nelson for reference.

One thing that separates science from psuedoscience is when other, reputable parties review your theory, prediction, or experiment.

A scientist's work is done on the backs of many other scientists. They cite those whose work has contributed to theirs. This is also true in the academic circles. In this way, one is kept more honest and we build collective consensual knowledge.

In psuedoscience, you find claims that are made by people who do not necessarily look to peer review or cite contributers to their ideas. They are often solipsistic. They may use anecdotal stories which may or may not be backed up through inviestigation. They use what they know from science to talk about things and ideas that science cannot prove at this present time, and call it science. They do not actively create solid experiments or studies to furthur their idea.

It is ok to put forth theories and ideas that science cannot or does not investigate at this time, but call it what it is--philosophy or belief--- and do not put the label science on it, unless and until you have predictions that are repeatable by nonbiased third parties, and you have shown that you know that you not only know the science behind what you claim, but you can demonstrate it in some fashion (BTW, some would put mathmatical proof in this catagory).

just some thoughts for now,
maybe more later....

Julia

[Clancy]

The bizarre dual nature of sub-atomic particles is the exception, not the rule in nature, and we can objectively interpret wave and particle experiments as proof of this very strange dual nature. Without science, we wouldn't have a clue it even exists.

Double blind experiments do a very good job of giving us objective answers to myriad specific questions like: Does aspirin relieve headache? I think the problem some people have with science is their assumption that scientists think it can answer ALL questions. Science is just a tool, like mathematics, meditation or therapy.

We have a profound tendency to see the world through a filter created by our past. For example, I once dated a woman who had a very difficult childhood. She found some comfort in one of the 12 step programs, but grew to see just about everything in terms of addiction, and herself as a prepetual victim. Although I rarely have a single glass of wine, in her eyes I was an alcoholic. I was, in turn, a drug addict (I rarely smoke pot), a 'rage-aholic', (I was as patient with her as the day is long) and I suffered from an 'eating disorder' that I supposedly tried to hide from her. All objectively ridiculous claims, but seemingly real in her experience.

Anyway, I digress. The point is, many things can be objectively understood, knowing when science, therapy or any other available tool is appropriate for furthering our understanding seems to be the key.





Julia, thanks for your thoughtful post. And the article from the Chronicle is worth reading as well. One thing I'd like to bring up is that science is itself limited by its own definition. One of the ways to interpret the fundamental results of Quantum Mechanics is that the question we ask determines the answer. We look for a particle, we get a particle. We look for a wave, that's what we find. What we look for is what we get. in forming the experiment, we determine the answer we get.

How do we deal with this? It poses a problem right at the heart of the double-blind experiment, that somehow our experiment can obtain an objective answer. People have been noticing this result for decades now, including the founders of quantum mechanics themselves.

So how do we maintain and expand the scientific method to include the discoveries science has made? How do we maintain an objective scientific method if our theories are showing that objectivity may not exist?

[julfire]

Sky, Clancy

this issue of objectivity in science is interesting and some good points have been made.
I personally subscribe to a perspective articulated by Immanual Kant, among others, that showed the logical inconsistancy of a truly objective position. My understanding of the power of the scientific methodology is that it constructs, sometimes quite well, a "working objectivity". This is achieved mostly through statistical analysis. When you have multiple data imputs for one object of study, you can winnow out the anomalous results due to objective filters and other things.
This is why science is so successful---in a sense it "triangulates" to an object in order to describe it. I maintain that we, and that means science too, can never actually "get to" that object. A good scientist knows this and rarely says anything with absolute certainty. However, if statiscally we can predict the behavior of something, then we'll operate 'as if' that is certain.

And this is also another important distinction between science and psuedoscience. Data on something from many sources and angles are often not in the interest of the pseudoscientist.

Julia

[MsTerry]

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.
Carl Sagan

I think this is a key statement.

Science has been able to find that aspirin helps some people with their headache but hasn't been able to tell us why it doesn't work for everybody.
Science is still working with a limited understanding of how our chemical being sustains our physical and spiritual being.

[MsTerry]

When you have multiple data imputs for one object of study, you can winnow out the anomalous results due to objective filters and other things.
Julia
Who decides what objective filters are?
This question is what SkyNelson is referring to when he says; "What we look for is what we get. in forming the experiment, we determine the answer we get."

[julfire]

whoops, I meant subjective filters, not objective filters.
Oh, and that's input, not imput

gotta do a better edit check before sending stuff out!

Julia


Who decides what objective filters are?
This question is what SkyNelson is referring to when he says; "What we look for is what we get. in forming the experiment, we determine the answer we get."

[skynelson]

:hello:
"Science and Spirituality: Where Are the Differences?"

Just wanted to let you all know about this...Our Expecting Synchronicity meeting two weeks ago set the stage for a new direction for our gatherings this month. Anyone on this bulletin board is invited.

This Tuesday will be a discussion, not a presentation, and will be a group process. It will not be led by anybody in particular, but will be an open forum for us to have a lively conversation about science and spirituality. One member has offered to lead us in an introductory meditation. From there, we will talk candidly about what defines science, the importance of those definitions, the role of spirituality, how these roles have changed in recent years, and whatever else comes out organically.

I hope you will join us. Scientists especially welcome.

Tuesday, March 10
7 p.m.-9 p.m.
A home in Santa Rosa, CA 95405
707-217-8595
please RSVP for directions.

with love,
Sky Nelson

[skynelson]

hi,
sorry for the last-minute cancellation, but the discussion group scheduled for tomorrow night (Tuesday, March 10) will not happen as scheduled. we will reschedule for the future, and we will post it on www.expectingsynchronicity.com (https://www.expectingsynchronicity.com).

thanks!
sky