How to distinguish science from pseudoscience?
Michael Shermer, an American historian of science, proposed his own approach to draw the line between science and pseudoscience. We print a brief summary of two of his articles published in the journal "Scientific American" No. 10, 11, 2001.
How, when encountering unusual hypotheses or discoveries in the press, to distinguish a sensational breakthrough in a particular field of science from pseudoscientific fictions? Shermer offers ten questions, ten criteria that will help you do this.
1. How much can the author of the discovery be trusted?Upon careful consideration of the pseudoscientific theory, it can be understood that facts and figures are distorted, taken out of context or even fabricated.
Of course, there are mistakes in ordinary scientific works, but in pseudoscientific ones you can notice signs of deliberate manipulation of facts. The issue of trust is also closely related to the authority of the researcher and his good name. Thus, the famous American geochemist Thomas Gold develops a hypothesis according to which oil and gas reserves are not left from the distant past, but are continuously produced by microbes living in geological strata at great depth, where, according to generally accepted ideas, there can be no life, even microbial. Almost none of his colleagues support this hypothesis, but Gold is known for many other outstanding discoveries, so no one considers him a false scientist or a crook.
2. Does this author often make "great discoveries"?Too much concentration of "great discoveries" in the works of one author cannot but arouse suspicion.
3. Have these discoveries been confirmed by other specialists?The discoveries of typical pseudo-scientists are not confirmed when checked by other specialists or are confirmed only by like-minded people of the author of the discovery.
A typical case is the discovery of the so–called "cold nuclear fusion".
4. How does the new discovery fit into the current picture of the world?A new discovery or a new hypothesis needs to be considered in the general context of what we already know about these problems.
So, when the hypothesis is put forward that the Egyptian pyramids and the Sphinx were created more than 10 thousand years ago by an unknown civilization that possessed "higher knowledge" and then died, several questions should be asked. Where are the remaining traces of the activities of this lost culture? Where are the works of art, weapons, clothing, tools, and finally, where are the landfills and garbage dumps that always remain from any civilization?
5. Did the author of the hypothesis look for ways to refute it, or did he select arguments only in its favor?Science relies on constant repeated checks and rechecks, repeated experiments and measurements, including by skeptical independent experts.
6. Does most of the facts support the new hypothesis, or do the facts mostly point in the other direction?Thus, the theory of evolution is based not on a few separate facts, but on many independent lines of research.
Thousands of facts collected in various branches of biology and geology, with the participation of physics and chemistry, add up to a general picture of the evolution of life. On the contrary, the proponents of creationism (the "theory" that claims that it is possible to find scientific facts confirming the biblical account of the creation of the world) are looking for individual biological anomalies or phenomena that have not yet been explained by science, and want to see in them a confirmation of their position.
Those who write about pseudoscience often mention "Occam's razor" – a principle formulated by the English philosopher William Occam (1285-1349). It says: "It is not necessary to multiply entities unnecessarily." It is the "multiplication of entities" that parapsychologists are engaged in, for example, when they also put forward the concept of "biofield" to explain telepathy or telekinesis (phenomena whose reality has not yet been proven).
7. Are the methods of reasoning and tools accepted in science used in the research, or have they been replaced by others that give the results desired by the author?A good example is the scientific program SETI (English abbreviation of the words "search for extraterrestrial intelligence") and the activities of ufologists.
Scientists approach the problem with a null hypothesis: there are no aliens, but we will try to find facts that prove the opposite, and if it works out, we will make a sensational report. Ufologists, on the contrary, approach the matter with confidence that aliens exist and visit us almost daily. To prove their theory, they use questionable research methods (for example, interrogation under hypnosis of those who met with the crews of "saucers" or examination of "UFO landing sites" using "biolocation"). As evidence, blurry photographs, fuzzy video frames and confused stories of witnesses are used, often mistaking various astronomical or atmospheric phenomena for UFOs.
8. Does the new hypothesis explain more observable facts than the old one, or does it simply negate the old interpretation?The old way of dishonest scientific polemics is to criticize your opponent, but do not make any statements yourself, then they will not be able to criticize you.
9. Does the new hypothesis explain at least as many facts as the old one?So, now there is a theory that the cause of AIDS is not a virus, but an abnormal way of life of the sick (approximately more than a hundred years ago, before the discovery of the true causes of tuberculosis and malaria, it was believed that these diseases were caused by an unhealthy lifestyle or climate).
But the viral theory explains much more about the features of the disease, its spread and course. And most importantly, treatment based on it allows you to prolong the life of patients.
10. Are the conclusions of the author of the hypothesis determined by his personal beliefs and preferences?Each scientist has certain social, political and ideological views that can influence his interpretation of facts.
In modern science, this factor is sought to smooth out as much as possible by subjecting an article sent for publication to peer review by several specialists whose views, as a rule, do not coincide with the views and preferences of the author. Nevertheless, Michael Shermer emphasizes, there is no absolute way to distinguish a pseudoscientific fake or draw a clear line between science and pseudoscience. It is also important that science tries to remain open-minded and flexible, willingly revising its ideas as new facts become available. This makes it the most remarkable work of the human mind. But at the same time, this fundamental "incompleteness" turns away from science some people who, in search of definitive and unquestionable answers, turn to theories about extraterrestrial aliens or to religion.
The abstract was prepared by Yu .Frolov, atheismru.narod.ru .
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru11.03.2008