Characterising Science Appropriately

[Dr B]

There seem to be two general types of debate on science / pseudoscience / paranormal type issues.

One type of debate centres around the contents of a theory (does factor x cause factor y / is factor x associated to factor y in any way, what are the mechanisms and so on). These are the most enjoyable discussions because, on the whole, all parties are happy with the methods, controls, validity, reliability, stats etc. We may quibble over the detail - but we are happy that the results are sound.

However, the other type of debate never gets to consider the contents of a theory because the methods are so questionable that it would be perverse to do so. This seems more prevalent in paranormal discussions. Why? I think one problem is what many people understand science to be and how it operates. This means when others see an argument over 'no baseline conditions' it can appear to those unfamiliar with the field, to be nit-picking. It is of course, absolutely fundamental to ensure against self-delusion.

There are some odd views of science out there, how it works, and how it does what it does. When added to a poor understanding of scientific theories - i think even bigger problems can emerge.

A crucial job for all of us is to make sure we characterise science appropriately. There are indeed limitations to science - but they are rarely the ones you read about in pop-media. Can we enter useful discussions with each other if many people do not appreciate or understand how science really does work in the first place? Any thoughts anyone?

[Admin]

I think that it's quite true to state that most people, including many who do 'investigations', do not understand even the most basic tenets of science.

One of the things I'd like to do for the main site is to describe the basics of testing and the requirement for certain conditions to be included; baseline measurements, control groups, etc.

In fact we could use the dowsing test protocol as an example as it's not a highly complex test (unless you want to make it so to avoid being tested ;)) and it includes all the basics.

If people can get a grasp of the basics, it should be easier to get somewhere when things are a little more complicated.

[Dr B]

This chap seems pretty clever ;D and has written an interesting article :trumpet:

http://www.assap.org/newsite/Docs/Seven%20fallaciesv5.pdf

[vbloke]

I don't know who the author is, but he seems keen on

Verbose language and prose :D

Excellent work, Dr B - I shall peruse it fully later.

[Admin]

The "I'm Offended" fallacy. ;D

Yes, it really is a red-herring and a bloody annoying one at that.

Great paper by the way. O0

[Jocky]

No time to read this right now Doc, but I'll look forward to it. Might even post a link to it on PA :D

Seriously, I am constantly baffled by the difficulty people seem to have at grasping scientific methodology. The basic idea seems quite straightforward and intuitive to me :-\

The thing which seems to give most people trouble is the need to have direct relevance between the design of an experiment and the hypothesis which it is meant to test. I seem to talk to a lot of people who like methodologies designed along the following lines:

"I have whacky theory A about phenomenon X. I have a whole bunch of machines which go ping when I wave them at X. All those pings shows that X is caused by something, and obviously that something must be A. When you point out that the provenance of the pings is unrelated to A, it merely shows that you are too close-minded to understand my brilliant discovery".

Or maybe it's just the company I've been keeping ;)

[Dr B]

Why thank you for the nice comments. Its something i wrote a few years ago with the other more extensive critical thinking document which can be downloaded from the ASSAP site (or pm me for it with your e-mail address).

It does indeed cause debate and has been of great use to my students. This year i decided to tidy it up a bit and make it more widely available. Unlike many of the books on logical fallacies i have tried to concentrate on the types of generic errors in reasoning about science that many people make in conversation (i.e.,\ getting offended / science does not have all the answers / science is limited / etc) along with some familiar favourites (entitled to my opinion / science is closed minded).

Since i started it - i notice Shermer's book came out with a similar though different section in it. I think mine compliments that quite well as he concentrates on more formal fallacies etc. Anyway, I hope most find it useful.

John - Teek - I am happy for you to have both documents for the website if you want to provide readers with something more substantial than factsheets. I know both documents are long at 16 pages - but the reports i have been getting back are very positive indeed. Alternatively, feel free to borrow from them - its not as if i invented the fallacies ;D ;D ;D

[Admin]

Thanks Jason. It might be worth splitting it up into sections for web usage as people tend not to read long pieces on the web.

[Dr B]

Sure, or simply place it somewhere as a download PDF with an abstract or something.....

There are people out there looking for more information as well as 'MacKnowledge' yer know ;D ;D ;D

Only kidding. Anyway - will send you a copy soon. O0