Pseudoscience
In honor of all the “insults” our fellow bloggers have been throwing against science, I could only smile and refer to Carl Sagan (quotes are from Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World):
Pseudoscience is easier to contrive than science, because distracting confrontations with reality–where we cannot control the outcome of the comparison–are more readily avoided. The standards of argument, what passes for evidence, are much more relaxed. In part for the same reasons, it is much easier to present pseudoscience to the general public than science.
At the heart of some pseudoscience (and some religion also, new age and old) is the idea that wishing makes it so. How satisfying it would be, as in folklore and children’s stories, to fulfill our hearts desire just by wishing. How seductive this notion is, especially when compared with the hard work and good luck usually required to achieve our hopes. (Page 14)
Religions are often the state-protected nurseries of pseudoscience, although there is no reason why religions have to play that role. Anyway, it’s an artifact from times long gone. (Page 15)
Pseudoscience differs from erroneous science. Science thrives on errors, cutting them away one by one. False conclusions are drawn all the time, but they are drawn tentatively. Hypotheses are framed so they are capable of being disproved. A succession of alternative hypotheses is confronted by experiment and observation. Science gropes and staggers toward improved understanding. Proprietary feelings are of course offended when a scientific hypothesis is disproved, but such disproofs are recognized as central to the scientific enterprise. Pseudoscience is just the opposite. Hypotheses are often framed precisely so they are invulnerable to any experiment that offers a prospect of disproof, so even in principle they cannot be invalidated. Practitioners are defensive and wary. Skeptical scrutiny is opposed. When the pseudoscientific hypothesis fails to catch fire with scientists, conspiracies to suppress it are deduced. (21)
It is a supreme challenge for the popularizer of science to make clear the actual, tortuous history of its great discoveries and the misapprehensions and occasional stubborn refusal by its practitioners to change course. Many, perhaps most, science textbooks for budding scientists tread lightly here. It is enormously easier to present in an appealing way the wisdom distilled from centuries of patient and collective interrogation of nature than to detail the messy distillation apparatus. The method of science, as stodgy and grumpy as it may seem, is far more important than the findings of science. (Page 22)
Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. (Page 25).
The scientific way of thinking is at once imaginative and disciplined. This is central to its success. (Page 27).
One of the reasons for its success is that science has built-in, error correcting machinery at its very heart. Some may consider this an overbroad characterization, but to me every time we exercise self-criticism, every time we test our ideas against the outside world, we are doing science. When we are self indulgent and uncritical, when we confuse hopes and facts, we slide into pseudoscience and superstition. (Page 27)
Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend, as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science–by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans–teaches that the most we can hope for is the success of improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, and asymptotic approach to the universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always be lewd us. (Page 28).
One of the great Commandments of science is, “mistrust arguments from authority.” (Scientists, being primates, and thus given to dominance hierarchies, of course do not always follow this commandment.” (Page 28).
Because science carries us toward an understanding of how the world is, rather than how we would wish it to be, its findings may not in all cases be immediately comprehensible or satisfying. It may take a little work to restructure our mindsets. (Page 29).
“Spirit” comes from the Latin word “to breathe.” What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word “spiritual” that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science. On occasion, I will feel free to use the word. Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, only grasp the intricacies, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of the relation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. (Page 29).
Not every branch of science can foretell the future–paleontology can’t–but many can and with stunning accuracy. (Page 30).
If you want real accuracy (here, 99% accuracy), try amniocentesis and sonograms. Try science. Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. … There isn’t a religion on the planet that doesn’t long for a comparable ability–precise, and repeatedly demonstrated before committed skeptics–to foretell future events. No other human institution comes close. Is this worshiping at the altar of science? Is this replacing one faith by another, equally arbitrary? In my view, not at all. The directly observed success of science is the reason I advocate its use. If something else worked better, I would advocate the something else. (Page 30).
Again, the reason science works so well is partly that built-in error correcting machinery. There were no forbidden questions in science, no matter stay sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths. That openness to new ideas, combined with the most rigorous, skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, since the wheat from the chaff. It makes no difference how smart, august, or beloved you are. You must prove your case in the face of determined, expert criticism. Diversity and debate are valued. Opinions are encouraged to contend–substantively and in-depth. (Page 31).
Some people consider science arrogant-especially when it purports to contradict beliefs of long-standing or when it introduces bizarre concepts that seem contradictory to common sense. I can earthquake that rattled our faith in the very ground were standing on, challenging our accustomed beliefs, shaking the doctrines we have grown to rely upon can be profoundly disturbing. Nevertheless, I maintain that science is part and parcel humility. Scientists do not seek to impose their needs and wants on nature, but instead humbly interrogate nature and take seriously what they find.We are aware that revered scientists have been wrong. We understand human imperfection. We insist on independent and-to the extent possible-quantitative verification of proposed tenets of belief. We are constantly prodding, challenging, seeking contradictions or small, persistent residual errors, proposing alternative explanations, encouraging heresy. We give our highest rewards to those who convincingly disprove established beliefs. (Page 33).
Which leaders of the major faiths acknowledge that their beliefs might be incomplete or erroneous and established institutes to uncover possible doctrinal deficiencies? Beyond the test of everyday living, who is systematically testing the circumstances in which traditional religious teachings may no longer apply? (Page 34).
Science, Anne Druyan notes, is forever whispering in our ears, “Remember, you’re very new at this. You might be mistaken. You been wrong before.” . . . No contemporary religion and no new age belief seems to me to take sufficient account of the grandeur, magnificence, subtly and intricacy of the universe revealed by science. The fact that so little of the findings of modern science is prefigured in Scripture to my mind casts further doubt on its divine inspiration. But of course I might be wrong. (Page 35).
March 18th, 2009 at 1:59 am
Again, the reason science works so well is partly that built-in error correcting machinery. There were no forbidden questions in science, no matter stay sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths. That openness to new ideas, combined with the most rigorous, skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, since the wheat from the chaff. It makes no difference how smart, august, or beloved you are. You must prove your case in the face of determined, expert criticism. Diversity and debate are valued. Opinions are encouraged to contend–substantively and in-depth.
Man. This is music to my ears! Thanks for posting this ya Yazan.
One should wonder, when those fanatic believers in pseudo-science get ill (I do wish them health though), do they rely upon heartfelt and sincere wishes? or do they run to the nearest GP and ask for treatment? similarly, how are we supposed to find cure for cancer? how are we supposed to find alternative sources of energy? how do we grow more crops per square km.? is it by keeping a bright outlook on life or by relying solely on science?
March 18th, 2009 at 2:26 am
Yazan
In 1980 and as soon as it was released, I bought Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” from a mall bookstore in Lafayette, Louisiana. I was very much interested in astronomy and the jacket of the hardcover looked exceptionally fascinating.
I had no idea at all that this single book “COSMOS” and that this humble man CARL SAGAN would forever change my outlook on life.
I was a lost soul back then, riddled with religious guilt, infected by the virus of science. What I have learned to accept unquestioned was too much of a burden on my intellect. What science advocated made me lonely and scared.
I have no idea how many science books I’ve read after Cosmos. I can’t recount the number of times I re-read the “divine” text and (its) explanations. In the last 30 years, science has made giant strides forward. If we take only this period into consideration we will deduct without the slightest shadow of a doubt that religion could not keep up with the pace of 3 decades let alone eons and eons. Carl Sagan, however, by simply admitting that he might be wrong and accepting the glorious notion that science is a self-correcting endeavor has immortalized his work.
He will remain correct… forever.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:52 am
@DJ,
I feel the same way. Science may well be our only chance to refrain from our imminent self-destruct instinct, and fortunately this fact is accepted more and more.
This is just another proof of that:
http://www.syriangavroche.com/2009/03/blog-post_16.html
@Abu Fares,
When my dad crossed back to Syria in 1994, hiding in a friend’s military jeep, the only two things he carried back was Sadeq al-Azms “The Mental Taboo” and the arabic translation of Sagan’s “Cosmos.” That’s how I got to meet Sagan. After I came to Japan, I had the chance to catch up on his earlier and later writings which left me all the more fascinated.
Literature that advances the idea of how science has changed, not merely our present, but the outlook of our future, is not new or novel, nor western or imported. Mahfouz’s masterpiece Awlad Haretna is centered around it. I pride myself to be a part of this endeavor, by being merely a part of this human race who started it. It takes a lot of courage to admit to ourselves that we might be all alone in here. But those “billions and billions” of constellations Sagan always refers to makes our mere existence all the more sensible, yet all the more genius.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:39 am
BTW Yazan, any idea about the Arabic translation of Cosmos. I think you mentioned it to me once.
When I was serving in the army I had so much time on my hand that I took it upon myself to translate Cosmos. After I completed about a third of the book my (tour de force) was finished. Somehow, absurdly and stupidly, I lost the manuscript.
But since it’s available I would like to get a copy of it, as a matter of fact many copies and give to all those I care about and who can’t read English as gifts.
Let me know if you have the publisher information, …etc.
Thanks
March 18th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Abu Fares,
The book was translated and published as part of the [عالم المعرفة] books. It was the issue number 178.
I am not sure where you can still get a printed issue, but you can download it from here.
http://www.archive.org/details/aalam_almaarifa
March 18th, 2009 at 9:01 am
This is brilliant, thank you for introducing me to Carl Sagan, Yazan.
Even though these arguments against homosexuality through presumed “science” are much easier to refute than arguments of “values” and religion, for it is much easier to address the flaws in the former argument whereas it is “politically incorrect” to address the flaws in the later.
March 18th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Thanks Yazan for the link
I’ve been looking for this for a very long time. A few years down the line when my son tells me he’s confused and needs a second opinion I can throw this great book on his night table and let him discover on his own the wonders of science.
Razan
I missed you.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
moi aussi kteer ya Abu Fares :))
March 19th, 2009 at 7:27 am
Razan,
Ahlain w sahlain!
Carl Sagan is one of the most brilliant minds of our century.
Well, science is not supposed to refute “values” or “religion” simply because they are based on different systems. Science cares very little about these anyway, and in a perfect world their paths would never meet.
March 19th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Yazan this post is more than ridiculous. You are automatically erecting a dichotomy of “rational/scientific” and enlightened individuals fighting yet another battle with the dark, religious (shock horror!), and stiflingly conservative riff raff who blog mainly in Arabic of course. The basis of your argument is dialectical to the extreme and is based on common and misguided notions of what both Islam and science mean to us human beings. I would advise you not to get dragged into this regardless of the many pats on the back you might get for going for either position. Better to be hated by knowledgable enemies than to be praised by fools.
Speaking of fools. I’ve been watching this charade unravel over the past few weeks with some dismay. This has been mainly because of the many Syrian bloggers who are yet again reduced to squabbling about nonsense thanks to the ramblings of an incoherent and uneducated blogger-ess that we all know. There is a wonderful world to blog
Incidentally Carl Sagan is indeed brilliant and I grew up adoring science thanks to this man. What I don’t see is how anything he’s ever said opposes Islam. If you could just give me some clues then I might see your point of view.
March 19th, 2009 at 8:52 am
*Sorry, there is a wonderful world to blog about out there.
March 19th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Wassim,
This post was not about religion in any way, and certainly not about Islam. Religion and Science belong to two different worlds, I’m afraid.
It is not my mission, nor my duty to refute Islam (regardless of whether that is possible or not), and this was certainly not the point of this post or any other. The furthest I would go to is to explain why I don’t consider myself a Muslim, but again this post is not about that either. It is a simple reaction when someone speaks so foolishly in the name of Science. This post was in response to the absurdity of the “Scientific” arguments everyone seemed to be bringing. I think it was a well deserved reply, and an invitation for them to read about what Science is.
I am glad you share the same feeling about Sagan, and I am still not sure what is it in this post that you object to?
(Just in case my english failed me in the introduction, my anger comes because these “Scientific evidences” they bring are an insult to Science, not because their belief is).
March 19th, 2009 at 10:57 am
I would argue that poor Farah has done more of an effort in backing up her argument than our disastrous have-a-go Syrian heroes of “science” have done in some of the posts I’ve read so far. She’s certainly done more than copy and paste somebody else’s response to a different issue, thinking it the ultimate put-down just because the “authority” of Carl Sagan said it. You are angered because she has challenged the sanctity of science as you understand it, daring to question what she sees as wrong and daring to formulate an argument against it in whatever capacity she is able to do , bless her cotton sock!. I think it is you and some of the readers above who should listen to Carl Sagan and practice what you preach.
March 19th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Wassim,
Spare me your guilt dance will you. She is “quoting” a book that (even in the mere quotes) makes so disgustingly obvious and shallow factual errors that it isn’t even worth a mention.
Take a look at the book yourself, won’t you!
http://www.amazon.com/My-Genes-Made-Me-Do/dp/1563841657/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
March 19th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Yazan, I just want to clarify that my comment wasnt about science refuting Islam or values at all, I was talking about two arguments that we see in the blogsphere against homosexuality, one that is based on religion, fixed values and what have you, and the other is trying to look academic and scientific.
Now my comment is simply saying that it is easier to refute the “argument” that is based on “science” than to refute the “argument” that is based on religion, values…for reasons I mentioned on the previous comment.
Wassim, this is not the first time nor the last i am afraid that you enjoy to hurt me in comment section of people’s blogs. I think you should know that I have no mutual feelings towards you nor to other bloggers who despise and there are quite of them. I get angry sometimes but i do think things over when i calm down but i am afraid that’s not your case nor the case of others. that’s quite unfortunate cause it’s easier to get rid of people than dealing with them.
March 19th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Yazan,
Well as they say a knowledgeable enemy is better than an ignorant friend. By the way I would agree with your position if there was no Allah and in that case anything goes, but because there is, and because He has told people not to do this, I follow His guidelines. If I were her I would not need to use such a weak backing to my position, still, each to their own. I still say that at least she’s made an effort and to ridicule and dismiss her without engaging what is in fact a very valid and brave position to take, especially in today’s morally bankrupt climate, is a little unfair to say the least.
Razan,
I don’t enjoy hurting you here or elsewhere. What I do commit myself to is not accepting the wrong wherever it is and if that means telling the truth about the ignorance of your positions then I must do it as a moral obligation. I know it hurts, but I just can’t be a part of your deterioration, which has taken place slowly over the past few years. Unlike people who clap and cheer you in the sad claims you make, I don’t find it funny in the slightest and, lest an unwitting reader actually take you seriously, it is important for at least one person to always stand in the face of moral and intellectual bankruptcy. Finally I think you know quite well that I’ve dealt with your arguments here and elsewhere effectively, and I’m always ready to do so. When I call you ignorant it’s not because I’m getting rid of you, it is because it is true and I challenge anyone to show otherwise. Knowing you are ignorant is not an insult, it just opens the door to learning.
March 20th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I don’t believe in science or religion, but I definitely find it extremely amusing that this homophobic campaign feels so weak in its moral claims and values that it must resort to a false version of science for back-up. That said, it is apparent they have very little understanding even of the religious claims. I haven’t researched this extensively, but I don’t think there is anything in the Islamic texts to indicate the existence either of people called heterosexuals or homosexuals. These are both made up categories and self-identifications. That is not meant to undermine them, but rather to point out that they are categories that cannot be anachronistically inserted into a religious jurisprudential discourse. For the sake of argument, there is probably nothing wrong from an Islamic perspective with “being a homosexual.” The only wrong, perhaps, is being a sexually-active homosexual. But that, supposedly, is just as wrong as cheating on your spouse or having a sexual relation outside of wedlock.
March 20th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Yaman,
You are correct in your assumptions, though perhaps flaky on your reading of Islamic texts, but nonetheless, your claim that the categories of “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are made up is spot on. Just to remind you that this is amongst the claims I made in a previous post on the subject which might interest some of our more enthusiastic protagonists in this sham of a debate.
http://maysaloon.blogspot.com/2008/06/evil-homosexuality-arab-and-islamic.html
I would not support this campaign, but I would certainly not be amongst the voices you mentioned in your Kabobfest article championing this idiocy. I’m disappointed that you allow other ideological and philosophical commitments you hold to put you in a position where you cater, as you did in that article, to the bankrupt morality of the bewildered herd.
March 21st, 2009 at 2:16 am
Razan, DJ, Abu Kareem, Abu Fares and myself being the Bewildered herd with the bankrupt morality. :)
Always fun to have you here Wassim, and good luck on your moral crusade.
March 21st, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Thanks Yazan, you know it just wouldn’t be the same with out me.
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I wish I had included your older post, Wassim. In any case, I’m quite happy cheering on the bewildered herd.