Listener Feedback: That Darned Science
Skeptoid responds to some listener emails that question the validity of the scientific method.
Filed under Feedback & Questions
| Skeptoid #324 August 21, 2012 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
By Brian Dunning, Skeptoid Podcast
Episode 324, August 21, 2012
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4324
Once again we're going to pour the mailbag of listener feedback onto the table, and sort through the pile of questions, suggestions, criticisms, praise, requests for lengthy one-on-one discourse, and death threats. Those are the basic mail slots, for better or for worse.
This week's feedback is comprised of common misunderstandings of science and the scientific method. Most of these are familiar arguments that attempt to bolster a pseudoscience not by providing evidence in favor of it, but instead by trying to show that science itself is fatally flawed; thus, by implication, the preferred pseudoscience must therefore be correct. On top of everything else, this is a false dichotomy. Even if the scientific method were proven to be useless, this would not leave the paranormal to be the only possible true explanation.
Let's get started with an email from Scott from The Villages, Florida, who wrote in response to my episode on expensive alkaline water filters, a health product sold through quack multilevel marketing business scams. Scott reiterates the most basic of all misunderstandings of science based medicine, which is the Big Pharma conspiracy theory:
It's been reported that doctors will not recommend the use of these alkaline antioxidant water making machines because its a fact that do help people get releaf from some medical ailments, and that would cause less people going to doctors for treatments.Bottom line,the doctors would lose money.
The same holds true with the pharmaceuticals companies.The pills they sell will not cure anything.If they did,they would go out of business.
Setting aside for the moment the question of whether doctors truly do conspire to suppress useful therapies, let's focus on the rationale of Scott's argument. If someone is motivated by profits from selling a service, they are not likely to sell a service that will provide what the customer actually needs. My question for Scott would be that if this truly is human nature, does it extend to the sellers of these water filters? Most such devices cost in the range of two to six thousand dollars. Why would someone sell a machine that would truly solve the customer's health problems? If they did, the customers would be taken care of, and would not need to give repeat business.
Scott's logic is also commonly used by supporters of just about every other type of alternative medicine. Herbal supplements, acupuncture, and cleansing concoctions are all sold on a for-profit basis, and thus the argument applies to them as well. I couldn't say it any better than Scott did himself, and I quote: "The pills they sell will not cure anything. If they did, they would go out of business."
Next we have an email from Dezi, who writes:
Skepticism is like a blind religion that "believes" blindly the negative of everything and just rationalises evidence away and comes up with theories that are just as bizzare as anyone elses and then pretends those theories are facts.
Dezi raises several fallacious arguments, but let's focus on the common misperception that the dismissal of an unscientific belief is just as much a type of belief itself; faith-based, as it were. This is popular because it sounds so rational: as silly as it would be to "believe" in leprechauns, logically it's just as unsupportable to assert that they don't exist.
This reflects a misunderstanding of what the scientific method leads to. The application of skepticism to a new idea that's not yet proven does not lead to the assertion that it's false. Instead it leaves us with the null hypothesis, an important concept that's often overlooked. If the new idea is a suggestion that we're surrounded by invisible dancing unicorns, the null hypothesis tells us that there's not yet a compelling reason to make this conclusion. That's different from saying it's a fact that we're not surrounded by invisible dancing unicorns. Maybe we are, allows skepticism; but without convincing evidence that can be tested and repeated, we don't yet agree that the case is proven.
Here's a really good email from James in New York. I love this because James understands just enough to be dangerous:
Science is ever correcting itself. Scientists of the day thought the world was flat. Science today views the solar system in the same way as the people who thought the world was flat. Newton was corrected by Einstein who was corrected by Hawking. Science continually updates, then considers that to be rock solid evidence.
James is absolutely right that science is a continually self-correcting process. Unlike pseudoscience, we constantly revise and improve our knowledge. But James does something that I hear all the time: he twists this fact into an assertion that anything we've learned might be suddenly and completely overturned at any moment. Pre-scientific ideas, like geocentrism, were completely overturned because they had no sound empirical underpinnings. Conversely, today's theories are based on foundations of research and testing; in some cases, centuries of it. It's true that we are still revising some of the nuances of gravitational theory, but by now it's implausible to suspect that its fundamental nature might suddenly be found completely wrong. So it is with nearly every science. Think of science as forever incomplete, not as catastrophically fragile. The pyramid may be uncapped, but it's not likely to tip over.
Macky from Auckland presents another facet of the misrepresentation of scientific thought:
Science has made much progress DESPITE other mainstream scientists who have maintained the status quo of the day, even sometimes at the ruination of the "heretic's" career or life. The mainstream did not engage in critical thinking at all, but proceeded to often pillory the heretic until they either recanted, or faced death or dishonour.
The previous outdated models of science, in fact, was only DOGMA, as it has turned out so often.
Dogma is a set of irrefutable truths established by an authority. Thus Macky is demonstrating one of the most familiar misconceptions, that science is an established set of beliefs, rather than a learning process. There are a number of flaws in this perspective. First, "science" has no authority figure with the power to establish anything. Second, every working scientist's career is defined by his new discoveries; there is no work to be done, and no salary to be found, in accepting irrefutable truths and doing nothing.
I also hear the word "heretic" a lot from people with Macky's perspective. It's usually used in reference to a lone crank who promotes some pseudoscience, often selling a product, who wishes to be seen as a maverick courageously bucking the trend. It's noteworthy that the term "heretic" is only ever used by dogmatic authorities. For example, the Catholic church used it during the Inquisition. I've never heard a working scientist call anyone a heretic in reference to their scientific work; instead, they simply point out that they're wrong and why. But promoters of pseudoscience want to be called heretics, because that would make the scientific mainstream into a dogmatic authority. Whenever you run into a lone researcher who's outside the mainstream and claims to have been labeled a heretic, you have very good reason to be skeptical.
Mick from Liverpool wrote in reference to my episode on the Baigong Pipes, one of many examples around the world where some think modern humans were preceded by a more advanced race:
i think the obvious conclusion is that we are not the first advanced civilization or species on this planet.......thats plausable enough to me, and the geological argument sounds desperate. so , lets drop this inflated sense of ourselves and say..ok, maybe we are not the first bunch of people to get to at least our level of technology and maybe our history is nothing but an educated guess and nothing is written in stone
The charge that today's researchers have an inflated sense of themselves is basically saying that scientists arrogantly claim to know everything. Again, this flies in the face of the whole reason researchers exist. It's to learn new stuff. Nobody funds research that's intended to not learn anything. I've never met an archaeologist or anthropologist who wouldn't love to discover evidence of a superior early civilization. The reason we don't think there were any is not that we have an inflated sense of ourselves, it's that there's no evidence or record of it, and it's fundamentally illogical for knowledge and technology to have actually decreased over the centuries.
Finally, here's an email from Adrian in Romania, who wrote in about the homeopathy episode. Homeopathy proposes that spiritual essence is a functional mechanism:
You people are so concerned (and bitter) about scientific details that you lose the essence of human being.
It must be very lonely to live surrounded only by matter, with no hope, or happiness, or LOVE around you, just because there is no scientific prove of these feelings. No IN LOVE without statistical analysis. Waiting for "material death" to come in a statistically determined moment, destructuring your atoms and molecules and returning them to Earth.
There are only two possibilities:
1. You are well paid to convince readers that the highest entity they must believe in is the President or Royal Highness.
2. You are brainwashed.
3. The possibility of doing that for free is aberrant that I prefer not to consider it.It is not my intention to offend you, but to awaken you, to understand that every single decision we take has consequences and if you can fool some people around you cannot fool your inner self. So close your eyes, take a deep deep breath and just be yourself.
Adrian makes two basic points, but they contradict each other. First he asserts that scientists who study the physical world are somehow lost or deficient or are unable to enjoy life for some reason; but then he contends that the only reason someone would study the physical world is that they're either brainwashed or paid to pretend to do it. Adrian's proposed dichotomy — which I hear all the time — is that in order to accept what we can learn through scientific research, we must reject all intangibles such as love and happiness. It's a bizarre suggestion, but in my experience, it's all too commonplace. It seems infantile to even have to refute such a statement, by pointing out such obvious facts as the existence of many happy scientists in the world.
There should be something of a self-evident red flag to people who draw this dichotomy and make such a radical assumption about so many people. Great sweeping generalizations, particularly those purporting to know the thoughts and feelings of other people, are almost always wrong. It doesn't really matter whether you're a skeptic or a believer, black or white, gay or straight, liberal or conservative, Eastern or Western, Northern or Southern: when you catch yourself thinking you know the minds of others — and most especially when you assign them some sort of sub-human, amoral, or thoughtless traits — it's almost certainly you who is in the wrong.
© 2012 Skeptoid Media, Inc.
References & Further Reading
Dyson, Freeman. The Scientist As Rebel. New York: The New York Review of Books, 2006.
Ernst, E., Singh, S. Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine. New York: Bantam Press, 2008.
Plait, P. Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astrology to the Moon Landing Hoax. New York: Wiley, 2002.
Randi, J. Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1982.
Sagan, C. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. New York: Random House, 1995.
Shermer, M. The Believing Brain: How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2011. 207-230.
Reference this article:
Dunning, B.
"Listener Feedback: That Darned Science." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
21 Aug 2012. Web.
22 May 2013. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4324>
Discuss!
10 most recent comments | Show all 102 comments
So what ?
If Jeff can't continue to back up the Pentagon conspiracist position with evidence, then he is only being perfectly sensible by stepping back.
I am however supporting my skepticism of the official story of Fl77 substantially, both with strong circumstantial evidence, and anomalies in the report itself.
Apart from my acknowledgement of Max's and Nick's better interpretations than mine of the gate cam vids ( which proves what I've always said i.e. I am happy to change my views when better evidence is presented ) nobody has provided coherent explanations against my evidence that Hanjour could not have flown the B757 the way the report says he did.
That the only evidence for those that endorse the official story comes from the US govt itself.
Therefore it is only a belief system that Fl77 happened the way the US govt says it did.
The US govt still withholds cam footage from the Pentagon cams and the over-road businesses, despite the Comm. report supposing to be the final word.
That requires no evidence from me. It is self-evident, and yet so-called skeptics accept it all without question.
It's only belief, that's all, that Fl77 flew the way the official story said it did.
In this case, I'm the true skeptic here, because I've subjected the Comm. report etc to critical analysis and found it wanting, not just swallowed it because it comes from Authority.
Macky, Auckland
March 30, 2013 12:29am
so we are back to speculation?
No, a true skeptic would say, these are the overwhelming data.
Its only belief that the jet flew the way it did from evidence.
Authority means, this is the best rendition until a better one comes along.
Mud, Sin City
May 02, 2013 12:10am
And unfortunately for your idea of what a true skeptic is in this case, I am employing true skepticism here, because I have provided the overwhelming data to cast serious doubt on the official version of Flight 77, for which in fact there is no evidence outside the Comm. and NTSB reports.
Should you wish to cling to Authority's pop phenomena version of Flight 77, feel free to do so. I don't mind.
But don't imagine for one moment that you are being truly skeptical, because accepting a made up US govt version of Fl77 without a single piece of evidence outside what the US govt has provided the public with, is not being skeptical at all.
It's simply the obedient following of a belief that the US govt is telling the truth, and nothing more.
Macky, Auckland
May 03, 2013 9:39pm
Are you spamming about F77 in here, too, now?
Sorry, Macky, but you're pretty far from what I would consider a true sceptic.
You've made some strange and clearly uninformed statements about 9/11 which were quickly shot down, and since then you've just been repeating the same things ad nauseum like a broken record, barely even listening to and replying to our answers.
If that's scepticism, call me a sheep.
Øyvind, Sogndal
May 13, 2013 9:07am
Get your facts together Øyvind.
The only reason why I mentioned Fl77 in this thread was in answer to Mud, who brought it up first.
As to your comment about spamming, if Brian thinks that I am spamming, he has the right to remove my posts, like any other.
I fail to see why you believe I've been quickly shot down on my "uninformed statements" about 9/11 when you have never given any answers whatsoever to clear evidence presented to Skeptoid.
In fact, many of my statements come from the official reports themselves, and mainstream wiki accounts which are peer-reviewed.
So where you get your "uninformed statements" comment from, who knows ?
If you had taken even the slightest notice of my posts instead of repeating the official story like a mantra, you would have noticed that I expanded my arguments through successive posts, both in scope and detail.
And as to your "repeating the same things ad nauseum like a broken record" it is quite obvious why I've repeated myself.
Firstly, as only one of two dissenters here on Skeptoid, I have had to reply to many pro-official story supporters who popped in, repeating the same old tired arguments which are only what the Comm. report says.
Secondly, none of your answers actually answered to the points I was making, but merely kept on repeating the same old dogma.
Like I have invited you several times now, bring me some evidence that is better than mine, and I'll drop my skepticism of Fl77.
And I don't call anybody a sheep, here.
Macky, Auckland
May 13, 2013 1:04pm
Oyvind,
yer right, he is hardly a skeptic and now he is referring to someone he has denied knowing the existence of by his first name.
Its the poor referencing skills of the above that has made me flower to my new incarnation on the cosmic wheel..
No matter what we are talking about, it reduces to..."I read about it on a wiki". Rots me fins on cold days!
Not that I have any evidence past a wiki for that..
Moral Dolphin, Greenacres by the sea Oz
May 13, 2013 5:38pm
Pure ad hominem.
No coherent arguments against mine, only pronouncements of propriety on my research source (as usual) and what I'm supposed to be.
What an miserable indictment on such a fine mind.
Arguments comprising of nothing but derision.
Øyvind, I'm waiting for some solid evidence from you regarding the support of Fl77 of the 9-11 attacks.
If you haven't got any, just admit it. I don't mind.
But so far all you've come up with is nonsensical aviation "facts" which under even the most elemetary scrutiny fail to stand up, and all your other arguments, like Another Nick's, have been taken apart one by one.
If and when you come up with something that causes me to drop my skepticism of the official version of Fl77, I would ask you to post it on "The Pentagon and the Missile" thread, seeing as how you have accused me of spamming.
Macky, Auckland
May 13, 2013 9:31pm
No Macky, Its what you have stated all along, you only speculate, use "mainstream evidence" and are generally unwilling to research.
Cant help paraphrasing a cohort of your replies. This is hardly derision, its just repeating what is consistently posted.
Oyvind, dont answer here. Go to the particular posts and collect the evidential statements you read and analyse them.
As to overwhelming someone, it wont work on the basis of the underwhelming conspiracism to date. Speculators have to live too..
As to spamming, I think that would be streng verboten in Brian world.
Moral Dolphin, Pho's Slave palace, Gerringong the Brave, NSW
May 14, 2013 5:03am
Sorry Mud, or Moral Dolphin, or Henk, whatever moniker you are posting on currently, but your constant casting of aspersions on my mainstream evidence and research just doesn't cut it, in reality.
Obviously when pure science is being discussed, then comprehensive research is required, and I have no argument with that.
But when it comes to human events and the historical interpretations that govts sometimes use to hide and deceive, even just for trivial purposes, then that is quite a different matter, one which you have failed to appreciate right from the start.
As I have posted before, your use of scientific tenets to cover everything else under the Sun results in stilted thinking which has demonstrated an overwhelming tendency on your part to embrace everything that officialdom dishes out to the public without question.
I agree with you that Wiki is only a start, when it comes to scientific enquiry.
On the other hand, Wiki is a peer-reviewed internet encyclopedia which is quite accurate in the information it imparts, and is reasonably reliable, especially on events such as 9-11. It has to be.
That the official version of at least one of the flights of 9-11 (AA77) should be so easily unraveled by the merest scrutiny of Wiki, plus of course the Comm. and NTSB reports themselves, is not an indication of poor research at all, but rather a proof of how easily anomalies, lies, and corruption in the 9-11 report are exposed.
Macky, Auckland
May 14, 2013 11:58am
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation, or join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
What are you talking about Macky?
Clearly you are uninformed on brewing so I'll forgive that ignorance.
True Jeff and You have a love child called a small imagination. But at least Jeff researches the further woo as well. Not just the painfully obvious credibility self abuse..
Have you gotten over the fact that he has actually stepped back from the pentagon conspiracist position?
Mud, Sin City, Oz
March 19, 2013 5:36pm