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
Bookmark and Share

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.

$2/mo $5/mo $10/mo One time

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.

Follow me on Twitter @BrianDunning.

Brian Dunning

© 2012 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information

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. 24 Apr 2014. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4324>

Discuss!

10 most recent comments | Show all 124 comments

a) yes there is a reason why I have fixed the month (should you actually read comments).

b) you have aligned yourself with many conspiracies in the position of "accuse authority" (question authority has never been argued with a basis) and speculation within an opposing "popular culture" view.

If fl77 was the only conspiracist position you have held, may I quote your above and underline all the other conspiracy posts you have commented to?

you do realise that the woo is also argued on a conspiracy based position? Its a few times I have heard that general practitioners treat sore knees and common complaints with mind altering drugs..

Magnanamous Dinoflagellate, sin city, Oz
June 21, 2013

No argument pursued to date..

Magnanamous Dinoflagellate, sin city, Oz
July 02, 2013 11:46pm

I haven't asserted or adopted any conspiracist position regarding Fl77, Mag. De Flagellation.

1) I am skeptical of the official version of Fl77.
2) The US govt knows more about Fl77 than it is letting on.
3) There is NO evidence for the official story of Fl77 other than what the public have been told by a routinely abusive and untrustworthy US govt.

I still hold the position of the above three assertions, backed with substantial evidence, and official non-evidence, and has not changed from the start.

"you do realise that the woo is also argued on a conspiracy based position? "

Only in your own dreams, Mag. D. Flag.

Macky, Auckland
July 05, 2013 3:26pm

1) Thats nice.. thanks for not supporting an argument.
2) thanks for letting us know that further arrests and litigation are expected.
3) yes, apart from the wreckage there is no evidence...Hang on? did somebody miss the collation of evidence here?

Quacky, there is no evidence to support your position unless you hold grand proclamations of conspiracits.

As far as to dreams Quacky, yours are bludged from sensationalists.

Evidence as bad as your own from chemtrails and as preposterous as those from people who make a living from generating chat is clearly not evidence.

You have never given us evidence.. just general web chit chat.

Clearly your sources do not agree with you but a read of conspiracy sites would direct you to believe so.

I eschew any conspiracism, its about time you do as well and then argue again without these.

After all, you have denied the conspiracists that make your view.

Midrash Delinquent, Gerringong NSW Oz
July 13, 2013 12:11am

Honk, it seems as though you've changed your posting-name again, by your nonsense that is contained therein.

Can't you stand behind a single name for long ? You're like a boxer who runs around the ring hurling insults but not actually engaging in swapping a few hits.
When I was in the ring, such and opponent was regarded as dishonest (for getting into the ring in the first place), and gutless (for not actually engaging in boxing).

1) I've supported my arguments.
2) Self-evident. The FBI still withholds cam footage (at least).
3) The wreckage is no proof that Fl77 hit the Pentagon.

Now for the rest of your rubbish, why don't you do what I've asked others to do ?

Bring some evidence outside the US govt's that supports the official version of Flight 77. It shouldn't be hard, given your giant intellect.

And just so as you know, I have not proposed any conspiracy (yet) regarding 9-11, and particularly Fl77.

"Quacky, there is no evidence to support your position unless you hold grand proclamations of conspiracits."
What that means is anyone's guess.

I have not asserted any CT from the chemtrail article.

I'm not a bludger. Coming from an Oz (even a naturalized one) that's a pretty bad insult. Not that I care.

"After all, you have denied the conspiracists that make your view."

I don't read CT sites and they do NOT make my view.

Stop talking nonsense and address the subject in a clear and coherent manner.

Macky, Auckland
July 13, 2013 12:47am

1, 2, and 3 are quite properly explained in my 100+ posts on the Pentagon Missile article.

There is ample official evidence there for my skepticism, if you are not too lazy to read some of it.

There is no evidence except for what the US govt and its agencies have supplied, for the official version of 9-11, and in particular Fl77.

Your posts are simply denial of my assertions, and provide no arguments dealing with the subject at hand, only continued comments about myself.

Macky, Auckland
July 13, 2013 3:33am

Evidence as bad as your own from chemtrails and as preposterous as those from people who make a living from generating chat is clearly not evidence.

You have never given us evidence.. just general web chit chat.

Clearly your sources do not agree with you but a read of conspiracy sites would direct you to believe so.

I eschew any conspiracism, its about time you do as well and then argue again without these.

After all, you have denied the conspiracists that make your view.

Muntacious Deanfleagle, sin city, Oz
July 17, 2013 11:21pm

"Evidence as bad as your own from chemtrails .."

I've never provided evidence of chemtrails, only detailed sightings of trails which are not like contrails, along with at least three others, who like me also do not promote any CT-CT.

"After all, you have denied the conspiracists that make your view."

CT's don't make my view. I certainly deny that they do.

M.D. you're always on about the lack of, depth, or sources of my research.

Why not post some of your own, for once, that allays my skepticism of the official version of Flight 77.
I'm sure by now everybody is positively slathering with anticipation for some examples of your expertise, which so far have been noticeable by their absence.

Macky, Auckland
July 18, 2013 8:48pm

Nope, no detailed sightings noted here. Maybe you could repost the sighting of yours?

"M.D. you're always on about the lack of, depth, or sources of my research"

Macky, Auckland
July 18, 2013 8:48pm

what research, have you looked anything up yet.

"Why not post some of your own, for once"
Macky, Auckland
July 18, 2013 8:48pm

When I post research you call it corporate behaviour..

As to my real research, have you looked it up yet?

After all, if you cant find something that simple to find, goodness knows what you are making up here (spotted) but have been directed to as your appear just a little inept at carrying out literature review.

Macky, you have never done any research.

You have never done a shred of literature review and I have severe doubts about the only two claims you make here.

1) Seeing etherics from a book (or at all)
2) Seeing any sort of chemtrail but have copied someone elses.

This started to be confirmed when you started denying the existence of Conspiracy Posits in your prose and Jeff Rense in particular,

Flight 77 started to become a bit silly when you did that.

Sorry for being a bit corporate there me old bean!

Mountain Denier, sin city, Oz
August 01, 2013 1:36am

You above post is bereft of any evidence for your multiple fabricated assertions, Henk.

They lay entirely in your imagination and nowhere else.

You have not answered any of my direct questions on many subjects that I have posted to you on Skeptoid, Henk.

Instead, you maintain a constant tirade of false innuendo, outright fabrication, and criticism of my research, both in the depth and source.

Your posts as usual, Henk, have nothing going for them, and are silly exaggerations and examples of blowing things up all out of proportion.

Like yourself.

Macky, Auckland
August 02, 2013 5:18pm

I suppose its back to "that darned science"..

Empiricism is still running a shut out in the game of achievement..

Belief, is still shut out..

Minty Dateroll, sin city, Oz
August 15, 2013 11:05pm

Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:

Your Name:
City/Location:
Comment:
characters left. Discuss the issues - personal attacks against other commenters, posts containing advertisements or links to commercial services, nonsense, and other useless posts will be deleted.
Answer 5 + 9 =

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?

Support Skeptoid
 
Skeptoid host, Brian Dunning
Skeptoid is hosted
and produced by
Brian Dunning


Newest
Your Body's Energy Fields
Skeptoid #411, Apr 22 2014
Read | Listen (12:50)
 
The Black Eyed Kids
Skeptoid #410, Apr 15 2014
Read | Listen (11:18)
 
Oil Pulling
Skeptoid #409, Apr 8 2014
Read | Listen (12:24)
 
Skeptoid Media is a 501(c)(3) Public Charity
Apr 4 2014
Listen (1:13)
 
15 Phreaky Phobias
Skeptoid #408, Apr 1 2014
Read | Listen (12:44)
 
Newest
#1 -
Listener Feedback: Alternative Medicine
Read | Listen
#2 -
The JFK Assassination
Read | Listen
#3 -
Asking the Socratic Questions
Read | Listen
#4 -
5 False Arguments for Raw Milk
Read | Listen
#5 -
The Vanishing Village of Angikuni Lake
Read | Listen
#6 -
The Riddle of the L-8 Blimp
Read | Listen
#7 -
The Secrets of MKULTRA
Read | Listen
#8 -
Who Discovered the New World?
Read | Listen

Recent Comments...

[Valid RSS]

  Skeptoid PodcastSkeptoid on Facebook   Skeptoid on Twitter   Brian Dunning on Google+   Skeptoid RSS

Members Portal

 
 


"Logical Fallacies 2"
inFact with Brian Dunning


Support Skeptoid