Science and Its Pretenders

1
Science and Its Pretenders

• Chapter 7

2
Science and Its Pretenders

• The scientific method is the most powerful tool
  we have for acquiring knowledge.
• Scientists use the scientific method to acquire
  knowledge about the nature of reality. Many
  people dont think of science as a search for the
  truth, however.

3
Science and Dogma

• Its tempting to say that what distinguishes
  science from all other modes of inquiry is that
  science takes nothing for granted. But this
  statement is not strictly true, for there is at
  least one proposition that must be accepted
  before any scientific investigation can take
  place that the world is publicly
  understandable. This proposition means at least
  three things (1) The world has a determinate
  structure (2) we can know that structure and
  (3) this knowledge is available to everyone.
• Lets examine each of these claims in turn.

4
Science and Dogma

• What makes scientific understanding public is
  that the information which it is based is, in
  principle, available to everyone. All people
  willing to make the appropriate observation can
  see for themselves whether any particular claim
  is true.

5
Science and Scientism

• Some critics of science say that far from being
  an impartial search for the truth, science is an
  imperialistic ideology that champions a
  particular worldview, namely, a mechanistic,
  materialistic, and atomistic one.
• This ideology is often referred to as scientism.

6
Scientific Methodology

• The scientific method is often said to consist of
  the following four steps
• Observe
• Induce general hypotheses or possible
  explanations for what we have observed.
• Deduce specific things that must also be true if
  our hypothesis is true.
• Test the hypothesis by checking out the deduced
  implications.
• But this conception of the scientific method
  provides a misleading picture of scientific
  inquiry. Scientific investigation can occur only
  after a hypothesis has been formulated, and
  induction is not the only way of formulating a
  hypothesis.

7
Scientific Methodology

• Hypotheses are needed for scientific observations
  because they tell us what to look forthey help
  us distinguish relevant from irrelevant
  information.
• Scientific hypotheses indicate what will happen
  if certain conditions are realized. By producing
  these conditions in the laboratory or observing
  them in the field, we can assess the credibility
  of the hypotheses proposed.
• If the predicted results occur, we have reasons
  to believe that the hypotheses in question is
  true. If not, we have reason to believe that
  its false.

8
Scientific Methodology

• The goal of scientific inquiry is to identify
  principles that are both explanatory and
  predictive. Without a hypothesis to guide our
  investigations, there is no guarantee that the
  information gathered would help us accomplish
  that goal.
• Hypotheses are created, not discovered, and the
  process of their creation is just as open-ended
  as the process of artistic creation. There is no
  formula for generating hypotheses.
• Since many legitimate sciences dont perform
  controlled experiments, the scientific method
  cant be identified with the experimental method.
  In fact, the scientific method cant be
  identified with any particular procedure because
  there are many different ways to assess the
  credibility of a hypothesis. In general, any
  procedure that serves systematically to eliminate
  reasonable grounds for doubt can be considered
  scientific.

9
Confirming and Confuting Hypotheses

• The results of scientific inquiry are never final
  and conclusive but are always provisional and
  open.
• Just as we can never conclusively confirm a
  scientific hypotheses, we can never conclusively
  confute one either. There is a widespread belief
  that negative results prove a hypothesis false.
  This belief would be true if predictions followed
  from individual hypotheses alone, but they dont.
  Predictions can be derived from a hypothesis
  only in conjunction with a background theory. If
  a prediction turns out to be false, we can always
  save the hypothesis by modifying the background
  theory.
• A popular method for shielding hypotheses from
  adverse evidence constructing ad hoc hypotheses.
  A hypothesis threatened by recalcitrant data can
  often be saved by postulating entities or
  properties that account for the data.

10
Criteria of Adequacy

• Testability
• Since science is the search for knowledge, its
  interested only in those hypotheses that can be
  tested if a hypothesis cant be tested, there
  is no way to determine whether its true or
  false.
• Scientific hypotheses can be distinguished from
  nonscientific ones, by the following principle A
  hypotheses is scientific only if it predicts
  something other than what it was introduced to
  explain.

11
Criteria of Adequacy

• Testability cont.
• Karl Popper realized a long time ago that
  untestable hypotheses cannot legitimately be
  called scientific. What distinguishes genuine
  scientific hypotheses from pseudoscientific ones,
  he claims, is that the former are falsifiable.
  Although his insight is a good one, it has two
  shortcomings First, the term is unfortunate ,
  for no hypothesis is, strictly speaking,
  falsifiable because its always possible to
  maintain a hypothesis in the face of unfavorable
  evidence by making suitable alterations in the
  background theory. The second weakness in
  Poppers theory is that it doesnt explain why we
  hold on to some hypotheses in the face of adverse
  evidence.

12
A theory is testable if

• Such a theory must have noncircular utility in
  prediction. If I explained the recent gray and
  gloomy weather by saying it is due to top secret
  weather experimentation by the CIA, my
  explanation could not be used to make future
  predictions of similar weather. When will it be
  gray and gloomy again when the CIA experiment
  makes it that way again!
• In order for my explanatory mechanism for recent
  weather to be used for future predictions, the
  CIA experimentation would have to be directly or
  at least indirectly observable. My cited
  mechanism is not.
• If a theory is only predictive in hind sight
  (post predictive), BUT not predictive in fore
  sight, it is not testable

13
Criteria of Adequacy

• Fruitfulness
• One thing that makes some hypotheses attractive
  even in the face of adverse evidence is that they
  open new lines of research. That is, they
  predict hitherto unknown phenomena. Such
  hypotheses possess the virtue of fruitfulness.
• Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is
  the one that is the most fruitful, that is, makes
  the most novel predictions.
• If two hypotheses do equally well with regard to
  all the other criteria of adequacy, the one with
  greater fruitfulness is better.

14
Criteria of Adequacy

• Scope
• The scope of a hypothesis - or the amount of
  diverse phenomena explained and predicted by it -
  is also an important measure of its adequacy the
  more a hypothesis explains and predicts, the more
  it unifies and systematizes our knowledge and the
  less likely it is to be false the more evidence
  it has in its favor.
• Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is
  the one that has the greatest scope, that is,
  explains and predicts the most diverse phenomena.

15
Criteria of Adequacy

• Simplicity
• Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is
  the simplest one, that is , the one that makes
  the fewest assumptions.
• As weve seen, hypotheses often explain phenomena
  by assuming that certain entities exist. The
  simplicity criterion tells us that, other things
  being equal, the fewer such assumptions a theory
  makes, the better it is. When searching for an
  explanation, then, its wise to cleave to the
  principle known as Occams Razor (in honor of the
  medieval philosopher, William of Occam, who
  formulated it) Do not multiply entities beyond
  necessity. In other words, assume no more than
  is required to explain the phenomena in question.

16
Criteria of Adequacy

• Conservatism
• In general, then, the more conservative a
  hypothesis is (that is, the fewer
  well-established beliefs it conflicts with), the
  more plausible it is.
• Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is
  the one that is the most conservative, that is,
  the one that fits best with established beliefs.

17
Creationism, Evolution, and Criteria of Adequacy

• Ironically, even though creationists have taken
  to calling their theory scientific in an attempt
  to garner public support, they openly admit that
  its nothing of the sort.
• They dont see this as a problem, however
  because they dont believe that evolution is a
  scientific theory either.
• BUT evolution is testable.
• If the facts about the transmission of hereditary
  information had turned out differently, evolution
  might well have been abandoned.

18
Creationism, Evolution, and Criteria of Adequacy

• Creationism is testable because it makes a number
  of claims that can be checked by observation.
• For example, the universe is 6,000 to 10,000 year
  old, that all species were created at the same
  time, and that the geographical features of the
  Earth can be explained as the result of tidal
  waves created by the great Flood of Noah. All
  these claims can be tested. All of these claims
  conflict with well established scientific
  findings. So not only is creationism testable,
  it has been tested - and failed these tests.

19
Creationism, Evolution, and Criteria of Adequacy

• One piece of evidence that Darwin cited in favor
  of the theory of evolution is that there is a
  progression among fossils from the simplest, in
  the oldest strata, to the most complex, in the
  most recent layers.
• Creationists claim that this evidence is no
  evidence at all becausethey saythe age of rock
  strata is determined by the complexity of the
  fossils it contains.
• In other words, creationists claim that
  evolutionists argue in a circlethey date rock
  strata by the fossils they contain and then date
  fossils by the rock strata in which theyre found.

20
Creationism, Evolution, and Criteria of Adequacy

• Creationists dont deny that the simplest fossils
  are often found at the lowest point in fossil
  beds. They account for this vast by assuming that
  after the great Flood of Noah, the simplest forms
  of life (marine life) would be the first to be
  deposited on the seafloor.
• The fact is, however that no geological or
  anthropological evidence indicates that a
  worldwide flood occurred during the past 10,000
  years.
• The age of the universe can also be calculated
  independently.
• This disagreement about the age of the universe
  and living things points out one of the major
  failings of creationism It does not cohere with
  well-established beliefs.

21
Creationism, Evolution, and Criteria of Adequacy

• If the creationists cant make up for this lack
  of conservatism by demonstrating that their
  theory has greater fruitfulness, scope, or
  simplicity than evolution.
• Creationism is not a fruitful theory because it
  hasnt predicted any novel facts. It has made
  some novel claims - such as that the universe is
  from 6,000 to 10,000 years old, that all
  creatures were created at the same time, that
  there was a worldwide flood, and so-on - but none
  of them has been borne out by the evidence.
  Evolution, on the other hand, has predicted that
  the chromosomes and proteins of related species
  should be similar, that mutations should occur,
  that organisms should adapt to changing
  environments, and so on, all of which have been
  verified. In terms of fruitfulness, then,
  evolution is superior to creationism.

22
Creationism, Evolution, and Criteria of Adequacy

• Evolution is also superior to creationism in
  terms of simplicity. Simplicity, remember, is a
  measure of the number of assumptions a theory
  makes. Evolution assumes a lot less than
  creationism.
• Creationism, then, assumes the existence of a
  supernatural being with supernatural powers.
  Since evolution makes neither of these
  assumptions, it is the simpler theory.
• The major advantage of evolution over
  creationism, however, is its scope, or
  explanatory power
• With respect to each criterion of adequacy -
  testability, conservatism, fruitfulness,
  simplicity, and scope - creationism actually does
  much worse than evolution. Consequently, the
  creationists claim that creationism is as good a
  theory as evolution is totally unfounded.

23
Creationism, Evolution, and Criteria of Adequacy

• Creationists often object that various organs or
  limbs couldnt have evolved gradually because a
  half-formed organ or limb has nor survival value.
  What good is half a wing? they ask. The answer
  is that half a wing is better than none.
• So intermediate stages in the development of
  organs and limbs are not only possible, they are
  actual.
• Irreducibly complex biochemical systems pose a
  problem for evolutionary theory because it seems
  that they could not have arisen though natural
  selection.

24
Creationism, Evolution, and Criteria of Adequacy

• A trait such as vision can improve an organisms
  ability to survive only if it works. And it
  works only if all the parts of the visual system
  are present. So, Behe concludes, vision couldnt
  have arisen through slight modifications of a
  previous system. It must have been created all
  at once by some intelligent designer.
• So on the contrary to what Behe would have us
  believe, the parts of an irreducibly complex
  system need not have come into existence all at
  once.

25
Creationism, Evolution, and Criteria of Adequacy

• Creationists often attack evolution by citing a
  specific fact that they believe evolution cant
  account for. But notice how hypocritical this
  strategy is. On the one hand, they claim that
  evolution is untestable (and therefore
  unscientific), while on the other, they claim
  that it fails certain tests. They cant have it
  both ways. If evolution is untestable, no data
  can count against it. If data counts against it,
  it cant be untestable.
• Whats more, two of the facts often cited by
  creationists are simply false, namely, that there
  are no transitional fossils and that evolution
  has never been observed.

26
Creationism, Evolution, and Criteria of Adequacy

• Creationists maintain that if one species evolved
  into another, there should be fossil remains of
  intermediate or transitional organisms. But,
  they claim, the fossil record contains gaps where
  the intermediate organisms should be. So, they
  conclude, evolution did not occur.
• Nevertheless, biologists have discovered
  thousands of transitional fossils.

27
Creationism, Evolution, and Criteria of Adequacy

• Creationists also assume that any data that
  counts against evolution counts in favor of
  creationism. But to argue in this way is to
  commit the fallacy of false dilemma, it presents
  two alternatives as mutually exclusive when, in
  fact, they arent.
• Given the manifest inadequacy of the theory of
  creationism, why does it persist?

28
Intelligent Design shows signs of an intelligent
designer?

• What about the structure of the human eye?
• What about our need for vitamin C and our total
  inability to manufacture it internally? Humans
  and guinea pigs are two of the few animals who
  cannot make their own vitamin C.
• What about the fact that every swallow puts us at
  risk of suffocation?
• What about the only 2-5 difference between human
  DNA and chimpanzee DNA?
• Why does our DNA contain genes for cancer,
  Alzheimers, Huntingtons disease, schizophrenia

29
The Irreducible Complexity Argument

• ID proponents argue that some biological systems
  are irreducibly complex meaning that they
  consists of multiple interacting components and
  these components fit and work together so well
  that if just one is removed or altered, the
  system become non-functional
• Is this an example of intelligent design If the
  loss of a single component destroys a systems
  function, such that the system is unreliable, if
  this points to a designer, it points to a sloppy
  inept designer!

30
ID proponents being shy about the creator

• ID proponents have been reluctant to come out and
  say that God was the creator, as they want to
  argue that ID is not the same as Creationism, see
  Behes on the record statements (page 207 in your
  text).
• ID is a theory of creation with an unknown
  creator and a means of creating that is also
  unknown. Would such an argument work in a
  criminal case?

31
Intelligent Design isnt the same as
Creationism???
32
Why does the Lords Prayer say

• And lead us not into temptation?
• Why would the designer create such apparent
  evidence of evolution to apparently fool so many
  of us?
• Is the Lords prayer line above asking that God
  not fool us or please do not test us?

33
Parapsychology

• Creationists do not use the scientific method to
  test their hypotheses, but parapsychologists do.
• Parapsychology is the study of extrasensory
  perception (ESP) and psychokinesis.
• There are three main types of ESP telepathy, or
  perception of anothers thoughts without the use
  of the senses clairvoyance, perception of
  distant objects without the use of the senses
  and precognition, perception of future events
  without the use of the senses. Psychokinesis is
  the ability to affect physical objects without
  the use of the body, that is, by simply thinking
  about them. These phenomena are often grouped
  together under the heading psi phenomena.

34
Parapsychology

• J.B. Rhine began his research into psi phenomena
  in 1930 at Duke University.
• Using a deck of cards designed by his colleague
  Carl Zener, Rhine tried to determine whether it
  was possible for a subject to correctly identify
  the symbols on the cards without coming into
  sensory contact with them.

35
Parapsychology

• In 1934 Rhine published his results in a book
  entitled Extrasensory Perception. (Rhine coined
  the term.) Out of nearly 100,000 attempts,
  Rhines subjects averaged 7.1 correct
  identifications per run. Since only five correct
  identifications per run would be expected by
  chance, the odds against Rhines results being
  due to chance are well over a googol to one.
• On the basis of his research, Rhine concluded
  that there must be some form of nonphysical
  energy at work.
• But is Rhines conclusion really the best
  explanation of the evidence?

36
Parapsychology

• The criteria of simplicity and conversation tell
  us that, when we are attempting to explain
  somethingWe should accept an extraordinary
  hypothesis only if no ordinary one will do.
• Rhines early research, however, does not require
  an extraordinary hypothesis. It can be fully
  explained in terms of quite ordinary forms of
  information transfer.
• Given all the opportunities for sensory leakage,
  there is no reason to believe that anything
  extrasensory was going on.
• The best explanation of Rhines results, then, is
  that the subject, either consciously or
  unconsciously, sensed the identity of the cards
  by ordinary means.

37
Parapsychology

• Until we learn enough about Rhines energy to
  make an independent determination of its
  existence, there is no good reason to believe
  that it exists.
• If Rhines energy really existed, others should
  be able to detect it in the same sorts of
  situations that Rhine did.

38
Parapsychology

• We should accept an extraordinary hypothesis only
  if no ordinary one will do.
• Because there are so many ways that an experiment
  can go wrong, we cant be sure that an effect is
  real (rather than an artifact of the experimental
  setup) unless it can be repeated by others. But
  in the field of parapsychology, there are no
  repeatable experiments. Even the same
  researchers, using the same subjects, cant
  achieve similar results every time.
  Consequently, there is good reason to doubt that
  psi is real.

39
Parapsychology

• Thats not to say the psi is unreal, however. No
  amount of evidence (or lack of it) could prove
  that, because its impossible to prove a
  universal negative.
• Parapsychologists have their own explanations for
  the inability of others to replicate their
  experiments, however. One of the most common is
  the sheep-goat effect (aka the experimenter
  effect) studied extensively by Gertrude
  Schmeidler. According to this hypothesis, the
  results of psi experiments are influenced by the
  attitudes of the experimenter doubts the
  existence of psi (a goat), the experiment wont
  succeed if the experimenter believes in the
  existence of psi (a sheep), the experiment will
  succeed.

40
Parapsychology

• But what of experimenters like J. Crumbaugh and
  John Beloff who claim that they began their
  research as sheep? Dont they show that the
  sheep-goat effect is mistaken? Not according to
  this argument, which holds that while such
  experimenters may have consciously believed in
  psi, they must have unconsciously doubted it.

41
Parapsychology

• The ad hoc character of this hypothesis should be
  obvious. Theres no way to test it because no
  possible data could count against it. Every
  apparent counterexample can be explained away by
  appeal to the unconscious.
• According to Ray Hyman, over 3,000
  parapsychological experiments have been
  performed, many by competent investigators. Some
  experiments do appear to be successful. But none
  are consistently repeatable, and many of the most
  impressive experiments have turned out to be
  fraudulent.

42
Parapsychology

• The evidence currently available does not
  establish the existence of psi beyond a
  reasonable doubt because the experiments upon
  which it is based are not repeatable.
• There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence for
  psi phenomena.
• Many individuals have had experiences that they
  believe are inexplicable in terms of known
  physical laws.
• But as we shall see in Chapter 3, many strange
  experiences can be accounted for in terms of
  well-known perceptual processes, such as
  hypnogogic and hypnopompic imagery, pareidolia,
  cryptomnesia, selective attention, subjective
  validation, the Forer effect, the auto kinetic
  effect, and so on.

43
Parapsychology

• Recognizing that if psi exists, it must be an
  extremely weak force parapsychologists Charles
  Honorton has tried to detect its presence by
  reducing normal sensory input to a minimum.
• Subjects in his experiments are put in a ganzfeld
  designed to block out sensory information. The
  ganzfeld is produced by putting Ping Pong balls
  over the subjects eyes and headphones over their
  ears. A bright red light is shone through the
  Ping Pong balls and white noise played through
  the headphones.

44
Parapsychology

• Unfortunately, it was found that in four-fifths
  of Honortons trials, sound was leaking from the
  film clips into the receivers headphones. A
  review of the experimental protocol also revealed
  that the experimenter was not sufficiently
  isolated from the sender, and the experimenter
  could receive hints about what the sender was
  sending.