The red herring

Conclusion to “Sham Inquiry“
The coelacanth is a red herring

Mainstream science, which is respected and functions very well with its current methodology, excludes those fields who don’t pass muster. For a theory to be considered as an explanation for observations of the natural world, even the public realizes it ought to be scientific. Using supernatural qualities as necessary components in your theory will get you excluded from consideration outright by the scientific community. The public, on the other hand, finds the paranormal quite fascinating and is willing to give consideration to those that put on a good show.

Science shouldn’t loosen up and accept subjective evidence. When pseudoscientists can’t get in to the scientific “party”, they will continue to denigrate it. Many pseudoscience proponents will jump at a chance to show that science, up on the pedestal, has a flaw. At the same time, they want room made for them on the pedestal.

In researching three forms of sham inquiry for this project: cryptozoology, ghost hunters and creationism, I was amused to find one example used for all three to the same ends. In an attempt to showcase how orthodox scientists are wrong, proponents of ghosts, creationism and cryptozoology all cited the finding of the coelacanth fish in 1938. Warren [1] highlights that the discovery was unknown and unexpected. Therefore, he surmises, there may be many more unexpected findings left in nature to come to light, maybe perhaps we are just around the corner from scientifically proving ghosts exists. Creationists [2] love the prehistoric-looking fish because it appears to not have evolved – looking much like it did from the last fossil find 65 million years ago. If evolution is true, why didn’t it sprout legs and walk by now? The coelacanth is an iconic species for cryptozoologists [3]. Though it was not actively being sought, it still was vindication that an animal presumed to be extinct survived but remained hidden since the extinction of the dinosaurs.

The finding of the coelacanth was not an example of how science as an institution or method is misguided. Instead, the finding of the modern coelacanth is a testament to the wonder of nature to still hold surprises and to the fast-thinking museum curator who preserved the carcass as best she could then contacted a genuine expert to examine it before declaring the jaw-dropping discovery. One can only hope if the Loch Ness Monster is found, someone will be that diligent instead of negotiating a fee for viewing the remains and finding a “scientist” who will say what they wish him to say.

It is not valid for pseudoscientists to say they are subject to discrimination. Revolutionary ideas can receive serious consideration and acceptance if they follow conventional science protocol. Einstein’s work on relativity is an excellent example. [4],[5] Self-promoting fringe scientists may think very highly of themselves but it appears there really aren’t many Einsteins out there.

Evidence must be considered on its merits and discarded if not persuasive. Once a researcher has fallen in love with his theory, he is blind to disconfirming evidence. When a whole career is built upon research into a promising theory, he is loath to discard it. A genuine inquirer has intellectual integrity; a sham inquirer mainly has a goal.

The commonest examples of suspension of reason are those that validate one’s deepest beliefs while offering an illusion of privileged, insider status [6]. Therefore, we see sham inquiry that doesn’t get to the truth but instead makes a case for some proposition one wishes to be true. The end conclusion is already decided and enforced by a purposely closed community. The public is a willing follower if the story sounds believable or if it conveniently supports their prior held beliefs.
—————
[1] Warren, J. (2003). How to Hunt Ghosts, Fireside.
[2] Issak, M. (2007). The Counter-Creationism Handbook, Univ of Calif. Press. p. 99.
[3] Coleman, L., J. Clark (1999). Cryptozoology A to Z, Fireside. p. 66-68.
[4] Gardner, M. (1981). Science Good Bad & Bogus, Prometheus Books. p. 5
[5] Popper, K. (1963). “Falsificationism”. Scientific Inquiry (1999). R. Klee, Oxford Univ Press. p. 66-68.
[6] Levitt, N. (1999). Prometheus Bedeviled, Rutgers Univ Press.p. 92-94.

Elbowing in

Continuing with “Sham Inquiry“

Elbowing in on good science

The Journal of Scientific Exploration is the published by the Society for Scientific Exploration which describes itself as “a professional organization of scientists and other scholars committed to studying phenomena that cross or are outside of the traditional boundaries of science and…are ignored or studied inadequately…” Many of the members’ topics of research and methods are considered pseudoscience by conventional scientists. The journal is closed to outside contributors and criticism.

The journal contains many articles that reveal a deep hostility to science presumably because the scholars interests have been ignored or disparaged by the contemporary scientific community. Authors frequently characterize the scientific establishment as elitist, dogmatic and authoritarian. They denote themselves as visionary, oppressed, open-minded and comprehensive. They “know for certain the existing paradigms are flawed” and “know better than our opponents what is real and what is not” [1]. Along with complementary medicine practitioners and holders of religious viewpoints, the unorthodox scientists also want a seat at the table, wishing to merge with science, as complimentary [2]. They aim to do this not by proposing an alternate model but by changing science as it now operates to make room for their subjective methods [3].

In a paper entitled “Change the Rules”, the authors conclude that when phenomena are highly correlated with subjective parameters, science needs to expand the paradigm to accommodate them. Called the “science of the subjective”, the purported advantage would also be to improve the attitude, utility and image of science [4]. Very convenient, but only they are asserting that such improvements are necessary. It is a blatant attempt to blur the line between evidence and belief and demolish high standards of scientific quality that has served humanity very well over the past few centuries. Another example is the comments of the record in the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial where it was noted that in order to accommodate supernatural causes, such as intelligent design, one would need to “broaden the ground rules of science” [5].

In one very disturbing but enlightening paper by B. Martin [6], he notes that scientist who are dissenters from majority opinion should take action to be accepted by mimicking orthodox science. This includes setting up institutions (even with one person) and specialized journals to add credibility, aim to publish anywhere, enlist patrons, seek different audiences (that is, appeal to people who will not critique one’s work), and build a social movement. This plan sounds remarkably like the successful creationist approach. One wonders if Martin, trained as a theoretical physicist, had the gains made by creationism in mind.

Along with the characteristics indicative of pseudoscience, a false science community will claim “the institutional moral authority” of science for themselves while trying to deny the same for their opponents [7]. A currently popular view is that public education should offer alternative paradigms as equal but different explanations of natural observations. This is presented as an attempt to be fair and open-minded by those who are actually not at all fair and open-minded. This method has been indicted as having more to do with religious and political ideologies than fairness [8] and nothing at all to do with science [9].

————-
[1] Jahn, R. G. (2008). “A Fourth-of-July Speech to my SSE Colleagues.” The Explorer: Newsletter of the SSE 19(2): 7-9.

[3] Bunge, M. (1995). “In Praise of Tolerance To Charlatanism in Academia”. The Flight from Science and Reason (1996). P. R. Gross, N. Levitt, M.W. Lewis, New York Academy of Sciences.
p. 106.

[4] Jahn, R. G., B.J. Dunne (2008). “Change the Rules.” J. of Scientific Exploration 22(2): 193-213.

[5] (2005). “Kitzmiller vs Dover”, US District Court For The Middle District Of Pennsylvania. p. 68.

[6] Martin, B. (1998). “Strategies for Dissenting Scientists.” J. of Scientific Exploration 12(4): 605-616.

[7] Toumey, C. (1996). Conjuring Science, Rutgers Univ Press. p. 94.

[8] Godfrey, L. R. (1981). “Science and Evolution in the Public Eye”. Paranormal Borderlands of Science. K. Frazier, Prometheus Books: 379-390.

[9] See Kitzmiller v. Dover.

Creationism – Sham Inquiry

There has been a concerted effort to package creationist views in such a way as to sound so convincing and correct (at least politically) in order to gain public support and demonize evolution.

In the 20th century, special creation, as an explanation of all life on earth, was so obviously nonscientific that it ended up as a problem in the modern education system. As religion, it was prohibited from being taught in public schools. Evolution, developed from Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection in 1849, was the clearly acceptable scientific explanation to be included in the school curriculum. Scientific creationism was developed as an alternate view in the post-Sputnik science atmosphere of the 1960s [1]. “Scientific” was added as a credibility bauble. It was simply tacked on the front and various science-like trappings were added.

The method utilized in creationist arguments is to pick apart the scientific evidence, looking for anomalies or observations that cast doubt on the concept of evolution. Creationists excel at simplifying and mischaracterizing science into straw man arguments, then shooting them down with a self-righteous chuckle. Their philosophy is peppered with “bits of science, variously chopped, twisted, crushed, mangled and blended” [2] aimed at the average population who does not know enough about the scientific process and standards and who never learned enough about the basics of biology in high school. Creationists use scientific principles (like thermodynamics) as far as it will take them for the purposes of their arguments. The explanations will not extend too far in case it could be revealed how inappropriate they are [3].

The premise of creationism is miraculous and outside the bounds of natural law and human understanding [4]. It is a stellar example of a nonfalsifiable theory. There is no coherent creation theory or that of its modern version, “intelligent design”. The philosophy is invoked when it is convenient – when a biologic process appears to be lacking an evolutionary explanation. Corollary theories, such as flood geology, are soundly at odds with modern knowledge. There is no research, no testable hypotheses, but they will staunchly say that there is [5].

Creationists practice dismissals of accepted scientific evidence such as geologic time, genetics, developmental biology and the fossil record. A particularly infuriating ploy (committing the logical fallacy called “moving the goalposts”) is the standard response to finding a transitional fossil that fills in an evolutionary gap. They conclude it did not actually fill a gap, it created two more gaps. There are never enough transitional fossils to convince [6]. The argument of personal incredulity is committed because they just can not imagine that some things can be so. It does not fit with their preconceived notion and is rejected. Actually, creationism literature provides excellent examples of many other logical fallacies including arguments from authority, non sequiturs, ad hominem, inconsistency and probably several others.

Creationists like to debate scientists. It appears to put them on equal footing. It is difficult to argue with an ardent creationist. There is no logic. Logic and reason are anathema to religion and therefore are not respected in the creationist court. Yet, they will fervently use terms like “truth” and “facts” and “common sense”. They will use arguments that are decidedly unscientific and illogical, but still sound very convincing to an unwary audience.

While trying very hard to look like science, apologists will claim that evolution is not science but a “belief” and dogma, styling evolution as a religion, calling evolutionists intolerant, pompous, arrogant, deceitful, engaging in indoctrination, elitist and afraid [7]. Clearly, they attempt to dilute science and blur distinction in the eyes of the public. They will latch onto and publicize disputes among scientists [8]. In this way, they manufacture a controversy in science where there simply is none.

Without any solid claims originating from their own position, all that the creationist side can do is attack. They are experts of “conjuring tricks employing inaccuracy, misrepresentation, dazzling numbers and layers of confusion” [9] In this vein, they will style evolution as a religion, calling evolutionists intolerant, pompous, arrogant, deceitful, engaging in indoctrination, elitist and afraid [10].

No evidence is required, or desired, beyond that of the Bible. There is no respect for science, its methods or principles. The conclusion precedes everything. It is not a search for knowledge, it is a story to support a religion where revealed knowledge is seen as truth and will not be forsaken. Creationist motives are blatantly obvious. They wish to show evolution is false in support of a supernatural creator. Creationists have been wildly successful in convincing the public that a supernatural view is reasonable and legitimate, even if they have not convinced them with a lame scientific argument. The ideological argument is harder to reject.

For these reasons, creationists are science pretenders of the worst kind.

References

(2005). “Kitzmiller vs Dover”, US District Court For The Middle District Of Pennsylvania.

Godfrey, L. R. (1981). “Science and Evolution in the Public Eye”. Paranormal Borderlands of Science. K. Frazier, Prometheus Books.

Issak, M. (2007). The Counter-Creationism Handbook, Univ of Calif. Press.

Kitcher, P. (1982). Abusing Science-The Case Against Creationism, MIT Press.

Popper, K. (1963). “Falsificationism”. Scientific Inquiry (1999). R. Klee, Oxford Univ Press.

Scott, E. C. (1995). “Creationism, Ideology, and Science”. The Flight from Science and Reason (1996). P. R. Gross, N. Levitt, M.W. Lewis, New York Academy of Sciences.

Toumey, C. (1996). Conjuring Science, Rutgers Univ Press.
———–

[1] Scott, p. 508
[2] Kitcher, p. 82
[3] Ibid., p. 91-96
[4] Scott, p. 514
[5] See the Institution for Creation Research website at http://www.icr.org/evidence/ where it will take you several clicks to get to any content, none of which can be considered “evidence” of any sort.
[6] Isaak, p. 113-125.
[7] Toumey, p. 125-6.
[8] Kitcher, p. 55.
[9] Ibid., p. 120.
[10] Toumey, p. 125-6.

Back to Sham Inquiry contents page.

Ghost Hunting – Sham Inquiry

Thousands of eyewitnesses report ghostly encounters from ancient history to modern times. Contact with the dead is very much part of our modern culture. With the expansion of television content and the internet, stories about hauntings have surged in popularity.

Ghost hunting is a popular hobby for thrill seekers. It’s fun to be scared. The official community of ghost hunters, including those of popular reality TV programs, are non-scientists. However, they invariably tout the scientific nature of their activities. The basis for their science is high-tech equipment and jargon. The term “ghost” has been replaced with “psychic energy” in reference to the explanation for data collected. All the science-like dressing is designed to portray seriousness about the reality of the subject. Colleges have sponsored seminars and non-credit classes about ghost hunting. The hobby appears to have taken on a decidedly pseudoprofessional aspect. As with cryptozoology, some young people consider this a potential career choice!

An investigation by a troop of ghost hunters is prompted by anecdotes of a haunting. So-called paranormal investigators will systematically approach an investigation with a fixed set of equipment and a plan. They claim to be objective and to attempt to rule out non-paranormal explanations. But, since one calls the activity “ghost hunting” it is fair to conclude that there is a preconceived notion about how they will interpret whatever they find.

Ghost hunters will use high-tech equipment including electromagnetic field meters, thermometers, tape recorders, Geiger counters, ion detectors, infrared cameras, and ultra-sensitive microphones. (These devices do a fair job of measuring and recording whatever they were designed to detect around the location. The investigators gather no background data to determine baseline readings at a site. The instruments are not calibrated and there is only a token attempt to eliminate obvious explanations (such as drafts or electrical current in wiring). The reliance on anomalies reveals that the users do not understand what they are measuring, how the equipment works, and the scientific principles that explain how it works [1]. The giant leap made by ghost hunters is that any anomalies detected by this equipment are paranormal. Clearly stated: there is no evidence whatsoever to conclude they are detecting ghosts. To be fair, some professionals have acknowledged this [2].

The popular ghost hunter group, TAPS, has a diverse article collection containing writings on religious mythology (demons and angels), folklore (different types of hauntings and spirits) and unsubstantiated claims (haunted objects and electronic voice phenomena). None of the work has references or has been published. Sprinkled in are misrepresentations of physical laws, dark matter, psychology, consciousness, solar events and lunar cycles relating to ghostly phenomena. There is no coherent theory that explains what is allegedly observed. Peer review consists of a public discussion board frequented by fans of their TV show.Using a scientific instrument, citing “Bose-Einstein Condensate” or Maxwell’s equations, and talking in acronyms and jargon does not indicate that you are practicing science.

Since ghosts are non-physical, they won’t often produce physical evidence. The strongest physical evidence for ghosts are photographs. The history of paranormal phenomena is riddled with frauds and hoaxes and, in the modern age of do-it-yourself photo manipulation, every photo is suspect and is very weak evidence. Like personal stories, photographs can be very persuasive. Lens flares, camera straps and dust reflections are interpreted by the public as evidence of captured spirit manifestations.

The ’science’ of hauntings is missing clear, agreed upon definitions, objectivity, controlled research and scholarly experiments [3]. After centuries of study into spirits and life after death, we have no better knowledge about it – an indicator of pseudoscience. The ghost hunters and psychical research community can be contrasted with that of Wiseman, et al. (2003) who does controlled experiments in supposedly haunted locations based on the psychology of humans. M. Persinger conducts laboratory experiments into how the human brain is influenced by applied magnetic fields. These types of research are showing satisfactory, yet still controversial, explanations for the experiences of hauntings.

Perhaps we have yet to discover the means to truly detect transient phenomena like ghosts. Or, perhaps we have been overlooking more down-to-earth causation.
————–

References

Radford, B. (2006). “The Shady Science of Ghost Hunting.” Retrieved April 28, 2009, from http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/061027_ghost_hunters.html.

TAPS: The Atlantic Paranormal Society. http://www.the-atlantic-paranormal-society.com/articles/articles.html#general.

Warren, J. (2003). How to Hunt Ghosts, Fireside.

Wiseman, R., C. Watt, P. Stevens, E. Greening, C. O’Keeffe (2003). “An investigation into alleged ‘hauntings’.” British Journal of Psychology 94: 195-211.

————-
[1] Radford, 2006
[2] TAPS
[3] Wiseman, et al.

Back to Sham Inquiry contents page.

Cryptozoology – Sham Inquiry

Cryptozoology is “the study of hidden animals” (called ‘cryptids’). More precisely, it is the pursuit of animals that science does not recognize as existing and, in some situations, be considered ‘monster hunting’ in comparison to the ghost hunters in a forthcoming discussion.

Like the closely related field of UFOlogy, cryptozoology can accurately be described as “a simulacrum of systematic rationality…quite impressive to many…nonbelievers.” [1] In order to become a cryptozoologist, one needs no special training, just an interest in and knowledge of the jargon, and reverence of the self-appointed experts.

To establish evidence for the existence of these mystery creatures, there is little zoology involved. Researchers rely heavily upon anecdotes, historic tales, and circumstantial evidence of alleged sightings. A cryptozoolgist will frequently set up a false dichotomy, especially to the media: either an eyewitness saw something mysterious or he/she is lying. Anecdotes are taken at face value – it is assumed that the eyewitness knows what she saw. Better explanations, like mistakes, misidentification, exaggeration and confabulation, are lightly regarded. One cannot reasonably analyze data at face value when misperception, fraud and expectations are so common [2].

Though thousands of eyewitness sightings have been documented, remarkably little data exists for scientific scrutiny [3]. The best evidence that has been obtained for hundreds of mysterious creatures claimed to exist on land, in the water and in air is considered to be print casts, photographs, video and a few biological samples. All are controversial. No bodies exist, not even parts.

Cryptozoologists have a classic love-hate relationship with the scientific community. This field has a history of interest from credentialed scientists including anthropologists, zoologists and wildlife biologists who commendably make repeated attempts to insert their work into conventional scientific journals and conferences. The crypto-community is warm and welcoming to professionals that are sympathetic but show blatant disdain for scientists and investigators critical of their claims.

Cryptozoologists revel in examples of new species discoveries (made by actual zoologists, not part-time scientists), citing “Cuvier’s rash dictum” in response [4]. They enjoy exploding the (erroneous) concept that “science knows everything” and “the world is fully explored”. These tenets serve as inspiration that one day, a cryptid body will be found.

All skeptics are a token ’straw man’, lumped into the bin of debunkers. Cryptozoological skeptics are characterized as ridiculing eyewitnesses, refusing to look at evidence and dismissive of cryptid existence. Those of a critical mindset, who wish to examine the evidence of cryptozoology, are treated with disdain, as noted by Radford (2008), who states that investigators are denied the opportunity to view collected samples. Evidence is hoarded. Close scrutiny is disallowed except to select few.

In researching the existence of unknown animals, the cryptozoologist, by definition, has made the assumption that an unknown creatures exists. In the mind of the cryptozoologist is a preconceived notion of the creature they aim to find.

Speculation is rampant and forms the basis for the majority of media content. A prime example is Coleman & Huyghe’s The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide (published by Anomalist Books). Field guides carry an assumption that one can locate such creatures in the field. Though science has never recognized any of these mystery primates, this descriptive guide explains their natural history which amounts to complete conjecture far beyond what any evidence can support. Cryptozoologists have proposed not one large unknown mammal species existing in the modern world, but several.

Locating an animal in the woods is difficult and takes patience and skill. Yet, we do find rare and secretive animals. Trail cameras have been successful in finding animals like the wolverine and jaguar returning to areas from where they had been previously eradicated. Fishermen dredge up new species or some just wash up on shore. The cryptozoologist has not captured unequivocal evidence and so will instead engage in special pleading: animal ‘X’ is so rare, in remote habitat, very smart, with enhanced senses to avoid people. When these excuses are strained, they might even propose that cryptid behaviors and abilities transcend normal biology making them paranormal, not subject to natural laws. Cryptids are commonly closely associated with other paranormal concepts like UFOs and demons. In the cryptid community, there is an argument between those that would blend these concepts and those that wish to retain a semblance of scientific professionalism by excluding paranormal explanations.

Leaving out important considerations and telling only one side of the story without disclosing the weak points is intellectually dishonest. Mystery mongers seem satisfied with retaining mystery and will not attempt to seek a reasonable explanation. Radford (2008) likens the behavior of cryptozoologists to obstructing justice.

A confounding factor with cryptids arises with the spectrum of creatures that may be included under this label. They range from actual animals, now presumed extinct to clearly mythical creatures that make sense culturally, but not biologically.

Accepting the idea of unknown animals in our midst has a strong component of faith. The public will consider whether they “believe” in the reality of Bigfoot or other cryptid without consideration of the actual evidence. Mystery is fun and the idea of monsters in our midst is exciting. Cryptozoology claims success when some unknown creature (even a mundane one), previously described by a culture, is recognized by science. New species are not found by cryptozoologists out investigating tales of sightings. While they truly want to do science and be accepted into that circle, in the final analysis, cryptozoology is essentially about pursuing a belief, being immersed in a mystery, and feeling important.

References

Carroll, R. T. (2003). The Skeptic’s Dictionary, John Wiley & Sons.

Coleman, L., J. Clark (1999). Cryptozoology A to Z, Fireside.

Daegling, D. (2004). Bigfoot Exposed, AltaMira Press.

Levitt, N. (1999). Prometheus Bedeviled, Rutgers Univ Press.

Radford, B. (2008). “Problems with Cryptozoology.” Retrieved April 30, 2009, from http://doctoratlantis.com/wordpress/?p=9.
———–

[1] Levitt, p. 84
[2] Daegling, p. 72
[3] Ibid., p. 61
[4] Coleman, p. 16-18

Back to Sham Inquiry contents page.

Pretend science

Playing Pretend Science

In order to be technical, like science, pseudoscientists engage in a method of data gathering that is not haphazard or lazy. Intricate collection and analysis is often a part of pseudoscientific activity. They may produce enormous bodies of work. Commitment to a cause can prompt “energetic intellectual effort” [1]. The motives and ’sciencey’ feel of the whole endeavor wins over those nonscientists who can’t recognize that it simply fails to meet scientific standards. Yet, for all the diligent work, the accumulated evidence can still amount to nothing of substance.
The public is happy to admire science as long as they don’t have to understand it deeply. Sham inquiry plays to the admiration of science by the public. A lack of familiarity with how science is supposed to work is a major reason why the public has trouble recognizing counterfeit science. Add an ‘-ology’ to the end of whatever you study and it acts like a toupe of credibility – to hide the lack of substance. The public is vulnerable to pseudoscience that resembles real inquiry and genuine knowledge.
The following are three examples of current pseudosciences. They all don the accoutrements of science without delivering the substance [2]. The field of cryptozoology is the likeliest of the three to hold the interest of real scientists these days because it is associated with the genuine fields of zoology, anthropology and wildlife biology and chock-full of amateur scientists. Ghost hunting is predominantly nonscientists who enjoy using technology and the new view that it gives them on the world. Creationism is a entirely different beast grown completely from religious ideology and dressed in a cheap and transparent scientific costume. This sham does not even fool courts of law but it continues to exert tremendous ideological force on the public.

Cryptozoology
Ghost hunting
Creationism
——————-
[1] Haack, S. (1995). “Concern for Truth and Why it Matters”. The Flight from Science and Reason (1996). P. R. Gross, N. Levitt, M.W. Lewis, New York Academy of Sciences, p. 58.
[2] Bunge, M. (1995).“In Praise of Tolerance To Charlatanism in Academia”. The Flight from Science and Reason (1996). P. R. Gross, N. Levitt, M.W. Lewis, New York Academy of Sciences, p. 104.

Back to Sham Inquiry contents page.

So much information

WordPress has a new feature that allows me to blog from email. Very cool. Why did it take so long?

The reason why this is Awesome is that I frequently get ideas or come across links at work. I can’t post to the blog at work because WordPress is blocked (along with thousands of other useful sites). When I get home, there are 101 things to do before I can access the computer, stop my thoughts zipping madly around my brain for a moment, focus, and remember what it was I wanted to say.

I admit that I have to hurry through lots of reading these days. There is so much of interest out there. But, blogs and links to online news and commentary are my main way of getting information about the world. I no longer watch TV. It takes too long. So, I RSS my news feeds and subscribe to blogs. And, by the end of the day, my brain is overloaded and I am frazzled. Important point: I do not have personal email in a reliable portable device. Therefore, I do not Twitter. I think my head would explode.

I experience anxiety because I want to keep up with all the interesting breaking news, science, controversies and new woo-ness that is released every day. It can’t be done. There are too many great skeptical blogs, science news sites and witty commentators. So, here I am adding to the feeds. Or, I’m just talking to myself… something we all have to stop and do some times.

Weak evidence

Quality of evidence

A frequent complaint from the fringe is that the scientific community is dismissive of the actual evidence for their extraordinary claim. Proponents of psi or UFOs will cite reams of evidence. The scientific community’s standard response is “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. That is, the evidence must be high quality, obtained through rigorous testing, with all other explanations accounted for. Overly precautionary experiments are required to support theories that seek to overturn established knowledge. Rampant fraud and gullibility exposed in some fields, especially psi research, require that extra safeguards be used in this research. This is not a double standard because, as Gardner notes for conventional studies, “gerbils don’t cheat” [1]. But humans do, sometimes inadvertently.

Many poorly tested pseudosciences have a characteristic over-reliance on anecdotal evidence. Similar to anecdotes, myths and legends will be used to support a claim. This type of evidence can not be confirmed and is subject to mistakes and misinterpretation. Science considers anecdotal evidence very weak because of the degree of subjectiveness.

In the public view, anecdotal evidence is very persuasive. It is a primary means by which we communicate ideas to each other. To deny an eyewitness account suggests that the researcher considers the eyewitness a lier, under the influence of some altering substance or mentally unstable.

Collected modern and historical anecdotes, bits of circumstantial and questionable evidence, and non-replicated results form an impressive body of evidence to the nonscientist. Even the scientist may feel that there “must be something to it”. The important attention to quality is lost. Lots of weak evidence does not collectively make strong evidence. In an analogy, skeptical investigator Ben Radford equates this to trying to make a cup of strong coffee out of a lot of weak brew [2]. The scientific community is unimpressed and, quite justifiably, turns away.

————
[1] Gardner, M. (1981). Science Good Bad & Bogus, Prometheus Books.
[2] Radford, B. (2009). Personal communication, April 27, 2009.

Back to Sham Inquiry contents page.

Using Subterfuge

Using subterfuge to build a case

Pseudoscience proponents may resort to desperate measures to support and preserve a beloved theory – another sure sign that the theory does not qualify on the same level as a scientific one. The public generally falls for various forms of slippery techniques and logical fallacies that are used to promote pseudoscientific claims, such as:

• Falsifying scientific citations or quotes; using well-known scientist’s words out of context, changing them or entirely fabricating a reference;
• Deliberately misleading to a conclusion;
• Laying claim to authority based on special knowledge from inside sources (like the military, religious authorities or the dead themselves);
• Making decisive statements that are unconfirmed, previously discredited, or even outright lies;
• Speculation unsupported by evidence; outright leaps of faith and jumping to conclusions;
• Claims that other knowledge systems are as valued as science.

In the eyes of the public who will trust a knowledgeable-sounding and sincere source, crafty methods can convey the feeling that a reasonable case is being built. The public is not expected to look deep enough to see that hard facts are actually assumptions, rendering the whole field a hollow show [1]. It takes a lot of work, previous knowledge and some special access to discern the truth from falsity and determine which conclusions are valid. It is not reasonable to have to verify everything one hears all day.
————
[1] Levitt, N. (1999). Prometheus Bedeviled, Rutgers Univ Press. p. 92

Back to Sham Inquiry contents page.

Irrefutable

Science doesn’t work by beginning with the premise and searching for evidence to support it or, holding onto the premise no matter what evidence contradicts it. This is true close-mindedness.

A theory can be worded in such a way that it can never be shown to be false. This is made very easy by incorporating the supernatural. For example, “God did it”. How might one prove otherwise when the God or creator can suspend natural law indiscriminately?

Sham inquiry researchers will play down the importance of certain evidence and explain it away and ignore or rationalize failure. They will refuse to critically examine their logic. Instead, they resort frequently to special pleading. The fallacy of special pleading is when someone argues that a case is an exception to a rule based upon some characteristic that does not really warrant that an exception be made [1]. It’s an excuse. Using ad hoc explanations to explain away disconfirming evidence is a means to ensure that no conceivable piece of evidence produced will effect the outcome. The theory is nonfalsifiable.

Another fail-safe option to protect your theory against refutation is to place the burden of proof on the skeptic, which does not make logical sense. When this tool is used in an argument, one can conclude that rules of logic and fair play have been thrown out.

When a proponent asserts absolute certainty in their interpretation, and will not provide a reasonable answer to “What evidence would make your theory false?” (or worse, requires the scientist to “Prove me wrong”) it is a clear signal of pseudoscience. Intellectual honesty would require one to admit that any theory may eventually someday be proven false but can never be proven absolutely true.

————-
[1] Carey, S. S. (2004). A Beginner’s Guide to Scientific Method, Wadsworth. p. 19

Back to Sham Inquiry contents page.