It's Time To Bring Pseudoscience Into the Science Classroom 470
Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "'Roughly one in three American adults believes in telepathy, ghosts, and extrasensory perception,' wrote a trio of scientists in a 2012 issue of the Astronomy Education Review. 'Roughly one in five believes in witches, astrology, clairvoyance, and communication with the dead (PDF). Three quarters hold at least one of these beliefs, and a third has four distinct pseudoscientific beliefs.' Now Steven Ross Pomeroy writes in Forbes Magazine that it's time to bring pseudoscience into public schools and universities. 'By incorporating examples of pseudoscience into lectures, instructors can provide students with the tools needed to understand the difference between scientific and pseudoscientific or paranormal claims,' say Rodney Schmaltz and Scott Lilienfeld." (Read more, below.)
"According to Schmaltz and Lilienfeld, there are 7 clear signs that show something to be pseudoscientific: 1. The use of psychobabble – words that sound scientific and professional but are used incorrectly, or in a misleading manner. 2. A substantial reliance on anecdotal evidence. 3. Extraordinary claims in the absence of extraordinary evidence. 4. Claims which cannot be proven false. 5. Claims that counter established scientific fact. 6. Absence of adequate peer review. 7. Claims that are repeated despite being refuted. Schmaltz and Lilienfeld recommend incorporating examples of pseudoscience into lectures and contrasting them with legitimate, groundbreaking scientific findings. For example, professors can expound upon psychics and the tricks they use to fool people or use resources such as the Penn & Teller program "Bullshit". But teachers need to be careful or their worthy efforts to instill critical thinking could backfire. Prior research has shown that repeating myths on public fliers, even with the intention of dispelling them, can actually perpetuate misinformation. "The goal of using pseudoscientific examples is to create skeptical, not cynical, thinkers. As skeptical thinkers, students should be urged to remain open-minded," say Schmaltz and Lilienfeld. "By directly addressing and then refuting non-scientific claims, science educators can dispel pseudoscience (PDF) and promote scientific skepticism, while avoiding the unhealthy extremes of either uncritical acceptance or cynicism.""
I don't think people care (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you show them that what they believe is bullshit, they still choose to believe it.
Just look at religions all over the world.
Re:I don't think people care (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Those people are (mostly) a lost cause. The point of this is to equip youngins with critical thinking skills.
Re:I don't think people care (Score:4, Insightful)
When you actually have had experiences that you cannot scientifically explain you tend to realize that there is this huge domain called the Universe At Large and then there is this much smaller domain called What Mankind Currently Accepts And Understands.
It seems like you are conflating science's inability to explain non-natural phenomena with some kind of arrogance.
I'd also add: At no point in the history of mankind has a greater understanding of some phenomenon led us closer to a supernatural explanation. I'm not sure why you'd expect your experiences to be special in this regard. Is there stuff we don't know? I sure hope so, or science would become boring very quickly. Are there things that happen that science can never explain? Maybe. But until we are out of stuff that it can explain, it is kind of hard to get very worked up about it.
Unfalsifieable (Score:5, Insightful)
The core problem with psuedo-science is a lot of it is unfalsifiable. Sure, you can show in a double-blind study that magic magnet bracelets have no significant effect on mood or back pain, but ghosts, ESP, etc? At most you can prove that individual instances are hoaxes, but you can't scientifically disprove their existence as a class. To claim they are bullshit as a class is itself an unscientific claim - at worst they are a hypothesis unsupported by evidence.
Of course there could still be great value in bringing them into the classroom to compare and contrast with scientific claims and the methods used to verify them - given the number of people willing to dismiss inconvenient science as a "belief" as though it had no more certainty to it than any random religious or pseudo-scientific doctrine our schools are clearly doing a poor job at conveying the qualitative difference in the level of certainty science brings to the table. But debunking should not be part of the science curriculum, it just isn't possible and claiming otherwise harms the very integrity of science we're trying to convey.
Re: (Score:3)
It's the same problem as proving that God doesn't exist, essentially--you're getting suckered into accepting that the wrong thing needs to be proven.
Consider: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is one (unprovable) thing to claim God exists. It is quite another (unprovable) thing to claim that God has a specific list of rules for you to follow, and a specific set of rewards and punishments lined up for them, and specifically wants you to give me a specific amount of money.
Why draw this distinction? Because it is widely understood that belief in God helps maintain psychological health, especially when under pressure. It is a critical element of the most effective addiction-recovery programs as
Re: (Score:3)
We all need some sort of anchor for our worldview, yeah.
I happen to derive mine from the notion that there is an essential unity of all being.
If people want to put a beard on that, and call it "God", I don't have a problem with it. However, I have issues with anyone claiming to speak on its behalf, particularly when such claims involve long lists of rules that appear to benefit one race/nationality/social class at the expense of others, or that direct us to do things that are clearly counterproductive.
FWIW,
Re: (Score:3)
The core problem with psuedo-science is a lot of it is unfalsifiable.
And we definitely need to update our education to include that if something is unfalsifiable, then it should, for practical purposes, be considered false.
Re:Unfalsifieable (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah yes. You're right in pointing that out. Yes, we need to allow for the subjective and many areas of human experience are in fields where truth doesn't matter - art, literature, music - who cares if a moving song is true or just a story?
The pseudo-sciences, however, don't peddle in those areas. Astrology doesn't claim to tell a nice story, it claims to be able to say something about your character and future events.
So I refine my demand to include only those fields that claim truth values.
Numerous fully falsifiable studies have shown that almost nothing "objective" will have a sustained impact on our emotional well being
I read some of them, and beg to differ in details. Continuing your example, yes money does not make us happy. However, lack of money can make us unhappy. There's a fairly low value (I think it was the equivalent of $50k per year) above which additional income doesn't change your happiness value anymore. But below that, and especially when you're struggling and have Existenzangst, then it does.
Meanwhile "woo woo" stuff like meditation and friendship show very definite improvements in well-being.
I think meditation is an excellent example, precisely because it has been extensively researched. And we now know that it does, in fact, work. We also know that all the esoteric bullshit in some forms of meditation is entirely unnecessary. That's science at work, right there.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah yes. You're right in pointing that out. Yes, we need to allow for the subjective and many areas of human experience are in fields where truth doesn't matter - art, literature, music - who cares if a moving song is true or just a story?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that truth "doesn't matter" in those fields. Rather, they pursue truth through different forms of expression, kind of in the sense of Plato's forms. [wikipedia.org] There's "truth" in a Picasso painting, a Frost poem or a Beethoven piano sonata. It's just not the kind of objective, rational truth that science pursues.
The pseudo-sciences, however, don't peddle in those areas. Astrology doesn't claim to tell a nice story, it claims to be able to say something about your character and future events.
This, exactly. And I'd go further: in general, adherents to pseudo-science are either deceived about the truth, or have bought into the deception despite the refutation of ps
Unfalsifiable does not mean untestable (Score:3)
The point of bringing these into the classroom is not to prove they are bogus - the point would be for kids to think how they would go about proving that the belief(s) in question are right or wrong.
What if you find that 98% of the people who buy magnetic bracelets feel better, and have a significant effect on back pain? If three double-blind studies said so, would you believe it, even if it makes no sense?
How would you test to see if ghosts exist? Magic? Gnomes? What would you actually test for? You could
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely; however, I suspect there would be a strong temptation to attempting to engage in debunking. Everybody likes to belittle the idiots, the only disagreement is who the idiots are.
>What if you find that 98% of the people who buy magnetic bracelets feel better, and have a significant effect on back pain?
I would go buy myself a set of magnetic bracelets, that's what. Science is a process for seeking understanding - "not yet understood" is a completely different concept than "false", though there d
Re: (Score:3)
But you are ignoring the placebo effect...intentionally, given that you mention "double blind studies". Magic magnetic bracelets WORK (to an extent), because people believe that they are being treated.
FWIW, many currently FDA approved drugs have an effect weaker than the placebo effect as measured in double blind studies, and also come with significant side effects. Of course, in actual use their effect is compounded with the placebo effect, so they're better than the first statement would indicate, but t
Re: (Score:3)
That' just it though - the magnetic bracelets don't "work", it's the placebo effect doing the work, and all the claims on the box are complete pseudo-scientific BS. Now I'm all for studies researching how to maximize the placebo effect and use it to enhance treatment (for example why is Viagra a little blue pill? At least in part because studies have shown blue pills work better than other colors thanks to the placebo effect. At least in the US, presumably there's a cultural component to placebo effects
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you show them that what they believe is bullshit, they still choose to believe it.
Just look at religions all over the world.
Look, this is true, and there's a very good reason for that. The way our brains have evolved has made magical thinking inevitable. I'm sure I don't have to reiterate the current science, which most of you have already read/heard. Even those of us who consider ourselves rational, and most definitely not superstitious, are susceptible to magical thinking at times. I'm an atheist - have been since childhood - and yet I find myself, on those occasions when I buy a lottery ticket, asking the gods to please let m
Re: (Score:2)
While I've never had the opportunity (okay, for values of "never" equaling "not in the last decade") to pollute someone's survey, I'd be delighted to tell them I believed in ESP, witches, the devil, just to see the looks on their faces....
Re: (Score:2)
Or fanboys. ;)
Fixed that for you...
Re: (Score:2)
The Religious Right will have your head on a plate (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't teach critical thinking in schools. The Texas state Republican party platform is explicitly opposed to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bleh, I ment AL, not AZ :)
Most of us would not know the difference anyway. This is an international forum, so please avoid 2LAs and zip-codes.
Alabama? Alaska?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Religious Right will have your head on a pl (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't teach critical thinking in schools. The Texas state Republican party platform is explicitly opposed to it.
--
I piss off bigots
Your sig is ironic since your opinion is quite bigoted. There is a great deal of pseudoscience belief on both sides of the isle. The left has irrational beliefs on nuclear power, GMO foods, etc. There was an article in the Washington Post about Democrats believing in horoscope and astrology more than Republicans/Independents: http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Shh.. you will bust his bublble and make him snap. You all know how dangerous a critical thimker can be when he finds out he is wrong. He will use his mentsl powers to give you migrain headackes from acrosd the county.
Don't forget anti-vaxers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I bet a major reason why conservatives are into organized religion is because organized religion is by its nature authoritarian.
By contrast, pagan and new age stuff are pretty much anti-authoritarian and very individualist (but just as stupid as organized religion).
Re:The Religious Right will have your head on a pl (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post is ironic since it's a pure straw-man attack. It's also just stupid. Can you find a school board anywhere that's pushing for astrology,etc. in the classroom?
Re: (Score:3)
None of what you say say changes the fact that the Religious Right is vehemently opposed to teaching critical thinking and is using their political power to ensure that it is not taught in schools. Democrats may read tea leaves, but they don't insist that reading tea leaves be part of the science curriculum.
Re: (Score:3)
As a left-hander, I submit that the article you linked to consists of roughly equal parts of wishful thinking and of hogwash.
Re: (Score:3)
Rhetoric, psychology and logic. Students should be trained to automatically pick apart and analyze any argument or assertion they come across, note its underlaying assumptions and measure any "wiggle room" the speaker is leaving for themselves.
Only works if the teacher isn't the one in three (Score:3)
Re:Only works if the teacher isn't the one in thre (Score:5, Funny)
When I was in high school, one of our teachers told us voodoo magic was real
I bet the teacher has a Geforce now. You can't change these people.
Re: (Score:2)
When I was in high school, one of our teachers told us voodoo magic was real
I bet the teacher has a Geforce now. You can't change these people.
Ah, yes. Enjoy this obligatory metaphorical response. [imgur.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Well, he was partially right. Some of voodoo magic is chemical or potion based. See for example zombie powder which is actually a combination of drugs (one to induce a coma in a death-like state and another to make the person pliable and open to suggestion in a trance-like state).
Now if he was talking about voodoo dolls and curses? No, that's bunk. They only work on people that fully believe in it, giving a huge placebo effect that has been scientifically researched and documented. In fact, one scienti
Pseudo-science in the Survey! (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is that the "size" of an electron depends on its state as anyone with an understanding of undergrad quantum mechanics should know. So did students answering 'no' to this question do so because they had no clue about atoms and electrons or because they actually understood the quantum wave description of the atom?
Apart from that the survey is very poorly worded for example the statement: "There are phenomena that physical science and the laws of nature cannot explain.". I could easily say "strongly agree" to that and think "dark matter" which is something that physical science cannot explain at the moment but which I'd hope we will eventually explain. So does the statement mean "cannot ever explain" or "cannot at the moment explain"?
So perhaps the survey authors ought to worry a bit more about pseudo-scientific surveys and a little less about pseudo-scientific beliefs among undergrads.
Re: (Score:3)
Apart from that the survey is very poorly worded for example the statement: "There are phenomena that physical science and the laws of nature cannot explain.". I could easily say "strongly agree" to that and think "dark matter" which is something that physical science cannot explain at the moment but which I'd hope we will eventually explain. So does the statement mean "cannot ever explain" or "cannot at the moment explain"?
This also jumped out at me. A few of these questions could definitely use a once-over from a linguist. There's a difference between "cannot" and "does not currently".
There are other examples in there where the correct answer is the closest approximation, but not the whole truth.
Re: (Score:3)
Look, I have a troll who will post some bullshit on absolutely everything I write.
I'm curious - is he just the worst troll ever, or is this a trick to pump links to his stupid windows tool around to improve his SEO?
Re: (Score:3)
Notice you shut up too. Hahaha why's that?
Because there's no need to make a fool out of you anymore, you're doing a perfectly good job on that all by yourself. It's been a long time I laughed this hard, thank you. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Right now I'm still laughing too hard and I definitely wouldn't give his sorry ass the validation of changing my .sig.
Maybe I'm naive, but I still trust that the /. readership is smart enough to see this guy for what he is. I mean, just look at the style of his comments. If /. supported the blink tag, he'd be using it, wanna bet? :-)
Re: (Score:3)
What you're describing here are pedantic objections, though, of which there will always be some to any question that isn't qualified to absurdity.
For your example, the rest mass of an electron is smaller than the mass of any atom, so the wavefunction of any electron will be smaller than that of any atom at the same velocity (de Broglie wavelength) and in the same environment (the "state" you describe is a function of being part of an atom, it doesn't apply to free electrons). Or simply, since an electron is
I agree with this (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of the pseudo-science out there has, in a sense, adapted to having common knowledge applied. Take vaccines for example. A class might teach how they work, discuss the history of how they have stopped many diseases, but what is one to do when presented with the latest anti-vaccine goal-shifted argument, like the 'too many too soon' line? When you have people who will continuously invent new arguments as their basic premise is yet again demonstrated to be false, it is best to teach people the basics of pseudoscience along with science, so that the former can be spotted for what it is. The same applies for a slew of other common nonsenses, which could be used as case studies. I suspect giving clear case studies may be particularly beneficial. My personal anecdote, I was raised to believe in young earth creationism, and it was the realization that I was being expected to commit the same kinds of errors as homeopaths & other woo-woos that helped me to realize that what I had been taught was wrong in a great many ways.
Re: (Score:2)
...a slew of other common nonsenses
Very insightful. People won't learn common sense without seeing the contrast between common sense and common nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm. Yes, some of them do. That is why you sometimes need booster shots.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. Don't believe something because "a scientist" says it. A scientist should provide evidence for the claims they make. Once lots of evidence has been collected, scientists form a consensus about the claim. That doesn't mean the claim is correct, but if you're going to argue that the claim is incorrect, you had better put forth very compelling evidence if you want to convince anyone.
2. Just because you prove some evidence provided by a scientist is incorrect does not mean a particular conclusion is incorrec
Witches Are Real (Score:5, Informative)
It's a real religion with real practitioners.
Re:Witches Are Real (Score:4, Informative)
Beat me to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And its time to stop ignoring and demonizing them just because of our historic Christian past.
Re: (Score:3)
And as effective as any other religion.
Re:Witches Are Real (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a real religion with real practitioners.
So as "true" and "trustworthy" as all the other religions then...
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much, perhaps slightly more trustworthy than more established religions. But don't believe the origin myths. There's no evidence that modern witchcraft much predates the Golden Dawn society. (There are isolated witches who claim a family tradition that is older. Perhaps they are correct, or some of them are correct. Much of modern Wicca derives from the Alexandrine tradition, which is recent.)
OTOH, origin myths don't have much to do with validity...whatever that means when applied to a religion.
So who's going to defend the principal (Score:3)
This is one of the more compelling arguments for national standards where local administration would have the excuse that they were "forced" to follow imposed guidelines. Otherwise, every nutter in the community will rally to tar and feather the administration.
It's time to bring SCIENCE into classrooms first (Score:5, Insightful)
And this isn't even a slight at the push for Creationism or similar bull on our kids. It's that we don't even teach our kids how science works. Maybe because else they could instantly debunk crap like Creationism as the pseudoscience it is.
Our school system still works along the lines of "it is that way because I say so". Critical thinking, which is the basis of the scientific method (because "doubting" basically IS the scientific method) is not what is asked for. What is wanted is simple acceptance of what you're told, rote learning and parroting. It's a rare class where you actually get to use applied thinking. Most of the times, what's required is simply rote learning, "sponge" learning as I love to call it. Soak up the crap, release again when required, no need to retain anything or do anything else with it.
As long as we don't teach our kids that science is NOT soaking up and spitting out what you get told, teaching them other pseudosciences on top of Creationism is something I'd consider rather harmful. They might not be able to tell the difference to real science, because from their point of view, there would be none.
Re: (Score:2)
An excellent point.
Re: (Score:2)
Something I never understood, how did the creation story get so much later evidence in science?
The creation and big bang closely match. There was nothing and it exploded.
The great flood. Lots of water from the deep.. Now we find moons or planets with underground oceans.
How did ancient writings get some wild concepts right? Proving creationism and thus God isn't likely to happen with scientific method, but there may be more than psedoscience to it.
Re: (Score:3)
Critical thinking doesn't mean that you should mindlessly doubt everything. It's about as bad as mindlessly believing everything.
The basic premise of critical thinking means that you face a theory, ponder its validity and unless you can disprove it, it's valid. If you can offer up a competing theory, all the better. Then you can pit them against each other and see which theory describes the observation better.
That's critical thinking. It doesn't mean pissing on everything you get told, it means simply that
A lot of progress needs to be made first (Score:2)
Science education at the primary level has long emphasized the products of science, with little regard for the process. Science teachers are a product of this system as much as everyone else. Most of them just aren't equipped to draw a distinction between science and pseudoscience.
Mumbling something about falsifiability isn't going to fly without motivating it and showing evidence, whether or not they have internalized those concepts themselves. Holding them to higher standards won't help, as there aren'
Issues with this... (Score:2)
It's never wrong to attempt to apply science to, well, everything in the universe. The summary mentions those beliefs that have been scientifically tested and failed to show any repeatable results. It's likely all those things have their foundations in faith, imagination, fear,... rather than some particle or wave that a scientist could test for. But...
"4. Claims which cannot be proven false."
I guess these Schmaltz and Lilienfeld guys are teachers, and not scientists; otherwise they would have never penned
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, Science is never about adding truth, but removing falsehood.
(By definition what is left must be closer to the truth)
Apparently these authors never heard of PEAR which proved human consciousness could influence random numbers.
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
https://www.princeton.edu/~pea... [princeton.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab (Score:5, Interesting)
https://www.princeton.edu/~pea... [princeton.edu]
"The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program, which flourished for nearly three decades under the aegis of Princeton University's School of Engineering and Applied Science, has completed its experimental agenda of studying the interaction of human consciousness with sensitive physical devices, systems, and processes, and developing complementary theoretical models to enable better understanding of the role of consciousness in the establishment of physical reality."
Disclaimer: I worked in a joint program with them when I was managing the PU robotics lab in the 1980s. The program was funded in part by the McDonnell Foundation (of McDonnell-Douglas) in part because supposedly strange unexplainable things happened in fighter cockpits especially to pilots under stress in emergency situations. Rather that give the money just to the PEAR lab, it was decided to give the money to a group of labs that would work together somehow exploring aspects of human consciousness (or something like that, not saying how effective all that was). Dean Radin is the researcher who connected the groups back then and has been active in parapsychology work since: http://www.deanradin.com/ [deanradin.com]
Another person active in this field of consciousness studies is Charles Tart (unrelated to PU, but interesting in the field).
http://www.paradigm-sys.com/ [paradigm-sys.com]
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/... [ucdavis.edu]
Related items at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (founded in 1973 by Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell) which include mention of Dean Radin and Charles Tart:
http://www.noetic.org/search/?... [noetic.org]
Mainstream science has been apparently useful, even if it is more the tinkerers and engineers who actually invent and bring to production useful things. But ultimately, if we are honest with ourselves, we have to admit we don't very much understand the nature of consciousness or the deeper nature of reality, which together, as much as we think we know about them, still form a "great mystery" (a term some Native Americans used for God and such). And, no, mapping a few or even many neural pathways or having a chemical analysis of brain neuro-transmitters does not equate to understanding the mystery of consciousness. As Charles Tart points out, there is a step where many otherwise good scientists move from apparently solid ground in their specialties to claiming fallacious things like "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" and so create essentially a new religion of "Scientistic Materialism".
http://blog.paradigm-sys.com/a... [paradigm-sys.com]
"His [Tart's] and other scientists' work convinced him that there is a real and vitally important sense in which we are spiritual beings, but the too dominant, scientistic, materialist philosophy of our times, masquerading as genuine science, dogmatically denies any possible reality to the spiritual. This hurts people, it pressures them to reject vital aspects of their being."
Anyway, mass compulsory schooling in "classrooms" (intended by 1920s eugenicists to segregate people by social class so they interbreed and stratify, see Gatto) is also in general another way of hurting people: ... Our official assumptions about the nature of modern childhood are dead wrong. Children allowed to take responsibility an
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com... [johntaylorgatto.com]
"The shocking possibility that dumb people don't exist in sufficient numbers to warrant the millions of careers devoted to tending them will seem incredible to you. Yet that is my central proposition: the mass dumbness which justifies official schooling first had to be dreamed of; it isn't real.
Re: (Score:2)
Typos:
"What we need if more and deeper" should be "What we need is more and deeper".
"learning technical school" should be "learning technical skills"
And I should have been clearer that is was the same James McDonnell who created both the foundation and the aerospace company, not that the foundation itself is owned or controlled by the company.
Re: (Score:2)
"the same James McDonnell who created both the foundation and the aerospace company, not that the foundation itself is owned or controlled by the company."
Wasn't it (the aerospace company) taken over by Boeing?
Critical Thinking (Score:2)
The real problem is that people in western countries forgot to practice critical thinking which is part of the scientific method. One central question is "Why is something?" and "How does something work?". Such thinking also results in questioning yourself, criticizing your ego. For example, the recent dispute between Kay and Linus Torvalds about the use of certain kernel parameters is a perfect example.
Why? (Score:2)
Why are scientists increasingly concerned about what some people in our society think and believe? I don't want to sound argumentative, but surely a good scientist does what a good scientist does? We are not here to force a particular world view on everyone, just carefully research and explain the world around us. In any scientific discipline there will be people with different perspectives and often these differences of opinion can boil over into quite hostile interactions. Discourse, argument and differen
Re: (Score:2)
"Why are scientists increasingly concerned about what some people in our society think and believe?"
Well, if you're an astronomer studying the effects of asteroid impacts and their likelihood, you may come across evidence that it has happened in the past and that their effects are rather devastating. As we may well be able to develop the technology to divert an asteroid on a collision course. People running around that the earth is only 10 kY old are not helpful then.
Climate change same thing.
Bert
Re: (Score:2)
Because public opinion dictates politicians' stomach for funding science. Unless you are a conservative Republican who believes science just happens, increasingly liberal Democrats are starting to believe the same thing. It's almost as if they were doing the nasty together and spawning stupidity.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe scientists have grown weary of having to compete with complete nonsense as if it somehow had equal merit?
Maybe it's not just scientists who feel this way?
You're doing the same sort of false equivalence thing that Fox News does with the "fair & balanced" bit.
I personally do not care if people want to believe in ghosts, gods, psychic powers and the like. I care that these same people can appreciate the work I do, understand it and (hopefully) find it interesting.
Your wishing for the impossible does not make it any less so. People who believe in nonsense are not going to appreciate sense.
I don't think you understand what the scientific method entails, or what "falsifiability" actually means.
Re: (Score:2)
just getting that out of the way; I'm pretty certain we must disagree about something.
Dangerous territory (Score:3, Interesting)
Any time you are trying to tell someone what not to think, or what not to believe, you are entering dangerous territory. This is even more important when state sponsored - aka the public educational system. If schools do their job right, then students will be able to make their own informed choices on what to believe or what not to believe, and even if a student does not adhere to what the school "wants" them to believe, that is okay - the school has done their job either way. Direct comparisons against things schools do not espouse is not necessary or appropriate in any shape or form.
To be perfectly clear, let me explain what I'm NOT talking about. Take cigarette smoking for example. There are hard scientific studies showing that smoking causes specific health problems, so it is appropriate for a school to teach that smoking is bad and then provide the evidence. Now on the other hand, suppose there are people in the world who believe smoking is beneficial (and certainly those people are out there). Is it the school's job to incorporate that into their anti-smoking teaching and attempt to specifically discredit or call out the opposite viewpoint? No. That isn't necessary or even feasible. What this story is talking about crosses far into this kind of territory.
Just push critical thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
People in general are gullible and believe whatever they hear. Being skeptical, double checking facts, looking at references...those are things people don't even think about anymore (well, they never did, its not new).
Schools need to push more on THAT. Teaching people to prove what they say, that its not because everyone says something that its true, and to learn how to separate facts from made up stuff. The rest will follow.
Psuedo-what? (Score:3)
The lines between science and superstition and religion are very fuzzy and often arguable. Possibly the best indicator of this stuff is that somebody wants me to believe it. I believe many weird things, but I don't try to convince anyone else.
"Claims that cannot be proven false". Yes, science operates on statements that can be proven true or false. And the statement cannot be proven one way or another, that doesn't mean it's false. Did God create the universe? Nobody can prove it 'yes' or 'no'.
"Adequate peer review"? How many witches were burned at the stake. Wasn't that peer review?
Just because something is non-scientific doesn't mean it's false. And sometimes even false things can be useful. Example: every paper (flat) map you've ever seen is wrong, but useful and not very wrong.
headline (Score:2)
Fuck you slashdot and your ever more clickbaity headlines. I've been coming here for nerdstuff since the 90s but it makes me angry now more often than it teaches me anything.
Lame, dudes. Super lame.
Cognitive biases (Score:3)
This will not end well (Score:2)
It has the potential to challenge the underpinnings of religions. And it threatens the authority of leaders in general, depriving them of a supply of blind and willing followers.
its worse than that (Score:2)
That's nice but... (Score:5, Insightful)
While not an advocate for pseudo science, it's illuminating to consider how these seven symptoms can be applied to the practice of regular science:
1. The use of psychobabble – words that sound scientific and professional but are used incorrectly, or in a misleading manner.
Most specializations are rife with jargon, often using words that have been incorrectly appropriated from the English language and had their meaning changed. To test this at home, apply a spell check to a scientific paper.
2. A substantial reliance on anecdotal evidence.
Anecdotal evidence is there to guide your research (though not to validate it). It doesn't need to appear in your paper, but it is a critical part of the discovery process.
3. Extraordinary claims in the absence of extraordinary evidence.
I think this is a prerequisite to getting published in Science or Nature. Your claims have to be sensationalized to sell. Take your convenience sample with ten data points and spin it until it's ground breaking!
4. Claims which cannot be proven false.
Anything described as "universal" or "ubiquitous" probably falls into this category.
5. Claims that counter established scientific fact.
A dialectic is necessary to advance science. Surely you don't want dogmatic group-think to predominate?
6. Absence of adequate peer review.
Have you been through a peer review process? Why aren't you making eye contact with me?
7. Claims that are repeated despite being refuted.
You mean the type of stubbornness necessary to overcome the inertia of the currently dominant paradigm? So I should withdraw my research if a single group publishes a study indicating that they "were unable to reproduce" my results?
Or...we could just do a better job of (Score:5, Insightful)
teaching the scientific method. Those students who can absorb (and not all can) the concept of disciplined critical thinking, do not need to have examples of pseudoscience discussed, as those examples become self evident to the properly educated. Any teacher who says "I believe" in evolution, red shifted star light, plate tectonics, etc., has already lost this battle. Saying instead "We are compelled by evidence, observation, and rigorous testing, to accept this explanation, until such time that further evidence, observation, and rigorous testing compel us to change our opinion." is the only correct way to teach science. That many teachers fall short of this ideal, is painfully obvious. Discussing faux science is a waste of precious time.
IAAP (Score:3)
So, I started the lecture that day with a bunch of pseudoscientific garbage. I told them that if you start with something small and multiply it up to a large scale that you'd get large errors but that you could get shockingly good measurements if you started with something big and narrowed it down to the small. For example, if you measured a single floor tile and then multiplied by the number of floor tiles in the room then you'd compound your errors and end up being off; however, if you measured the whole room's square footage and then divided by the number of floor tiles then you'd be really close to a good, precise answer. The kids are nodding their heads by this point. Well, as a professor of chemistry and physics, through the various colleges and universities I'm affiliated with, and the journal publications that I have access to, I can get some very reliable data, astrophysical readings, and other star charts. If I start with data at that scale, and then narrow it down to the scale of say, Earth, then you might be surprised what kind of predictions I can make. Now, I've ran some calculations for you, following the models, along with some computer assisted predictions, and I have some for you to take a look at. These aren't common newspaper style predictions but ones made with access to high level resources. I'm going to ask you to do an evaluation of the model so it's really important that there isn't any talking. I need you to see your work and your opinion alone. We will share after you have completed your written evaluation.
At this point, I'm still talking but I'm handing out pieces of paper. They're folded in half, and on top there is written a last name with a date of birth that I've pulled from their records. I tell them that they are customized to the individual and I'd like you to evaluate them by striking through anything that seems like it doesn't apply to you, underline anything that you agree with, and put a box around anything that is spot on. You'll get a chance to share in a moment, but please keep this to yourself until everyone is done writing.
I have several kids out of the 20 some odd that are having trouble keeping quiet because they're freaking out saying things like, "how do you know this!?" and, "this is scary!" but I try to calm them down until everyone is done. Of course, everyone's says the same thing: "You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. Security is one of your major goals in life."
Because of the authority that I've established by this unit, I've only ever had one kid give me the, "I know what you're doing look but I'm playing along." The kids are shocked as
Re: (Score:2)
FTL proof will be given to mankind in 2024.
--
"By 2024 the Fermi Paradox will be shown to be incomplete."
Re: (Score:3)
This is different. While slashdotters might believe in the possibility of an scientific and technological advancement which is yet not realized. These pseudoscience believers think the things they believe in exist even that there is no prove or even prove that they are wrong.
Furthermore, even if your argument would be true, that both believes are structural identical. This would not make your argument valid. As it is a problem that people believe in pseudoscience, it is also a problem when another group bel
Re: (Score:2)
Look, all the ancient alien theorists cannot be wrong. The sky-people will be along any day now to validate their claims...yes, even the Greek fellow with the electric hair and suntan from hell...errr....alien radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, so? (Score:4, Insightful)
Big bang isn't certain, but it certainly is falsifiable. Every experiment set up to date has verified it, though.
Unverified? You mean 'not in the Bible'? (Score:3)
In Science, there is no distinction between verification and supporting empirical evidence. The question of whether or not something is scientifically truth is entirely empirical. Scientific theory is the best description of these observations that we have at any given point. It is probable that every scientific theory yet invented will be superseded at some point by a better explanation.
You should know all this. Either your nick is well-earned or you're just playing games with semantics.
To address the spec
Re: (Score:2)
True! Including critical thinking. And that you have to question things where you only have believe in but no prove.
Re: (Score:2)
Thou shall not eat lobster.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Some science teachers are idiots (Score:4, Informative)
After going through the woes of public education with 4 kids I can tell you that it's no fun for the teachers. Teachers are there to teach however nowadays they're overburdened with school administrations and core curriculum/testing laws that give them little leeway to be creative or to inspire kids to learn more and get the best education possible. Couple that with the facts that there are a lot of at-risk kids out there and parents who consider schools responsible for everything and we now have teachers who have to deal with a lot more things that parents should have to deal with vs. just teaching. What needs to happen is more positive involvement in our public schools both by parents and by other people who could help. There are lots of engineers and scientists out there who could contribute to STEM education in public schools if they were only given the chance and that way you would alleviate some of the pressure on teachers to be everything to everybody and focus on curriculum and learning in the classroom instead of whether or not the teacher understood the concepts you were presenting. It sounds like he was trying to inspire your understanding by having you play tug of war with the sphere, nowadays he'd probably have been repromanded for creating a situation that could have injured the students.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientist teaching: Kids, here are the principles of evolution ***principles***. Here's why we believe it to be correct ***beliefs***.
Parent: What the hell are you teaching my kids, stop inflicting your beliefs on them. Teach the controversy.
School Administrator: Dear Parent, we're sorry for our Visiting Scientist's misapprehension of the controversy and we aim to provide a quality education.
Parent: "Misapprehension of the controversy", so you think I'm stupid.
Parent's Lawyer: My client and I are willing to
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Roughly one in three American adults believes in telepathy, ghosts, and extrasensory perception," wrote a trio of scientists in a 2012 issue of the Astronomy Education Review.
Yes we must use government institutions to regulate what people believe! If we start young we can change the next generation.
Really if you want to see pseudoscience in action take a good look at all the assumptions behind cosmology and astronomy. Redshift = distance is an ASSUMPTION and Edwin Hubble himself was the first to point that out. Or start being honest enough to teach students that LOTS of biologists as well as physicists like Sir Hoyle have valid doubts about the theory of evolution, and no
Re:needs some (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Roughly one in three American adults believes in telepathy, ghosts, and extrasensory perception," wrote a trio of scientists in a 2012 issue of the Astronomy Education Review.
Yes we must use government institutions to regulate what people believe! If we start young we can change the next generation.
That's one spin you could put on it.
Another choice is "How is a country full of people that believe nonsense going to survive the 21st Century?"
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, whether or not folks in those areas are speaking English is debatable.
Round these parts, we talk "Merican", boy. An doncher ferget it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:needs some (Score:4, Insightful)
Global warming nazis seem to have lots of mod points today :)
1. The use of psychobabble – words that sound scientific and professional but are used incorrectly, or in a misleading manner.
"consistent with"
2. A substantial reliance on anecdotal evidence.
computer models
3. Extraordinary claims in the absence of extraordinary evidence.
poor proxies taken as irrefutable, designed with algorithms that generate hockey sticks out of red noise.
4. Claims which cannot be proven false.
the worst part of the AGW trope - no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Every observation is considered "consistent with".
5. Claims that counter established scientific fact.
AGW doesn't hit this so much, since it's mostly a "heads I win, tails you lose" assertion.
6. Absence of adequate peer review.
AGW is notorious for "pal review"
7. Claims that are repeated despite being refuted.
Ah, the "97% of scientists" claim :)
Re: (Score:2)
Climate Change is real - the climate has changed in the past and is still changing...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The witches in the Wicca religion are the witches the Christians burned. They might not have mystical powers but they have a lot of the same paraphernalia and rituals. The witches in our cultural memory are stereotypes aimed at these people. There is not two distinct ideas of witches, there is one real group of people called witches and the propaganda aimed at demonozing them. They might not really go around hexing our crops, but they very much are witches.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems the south park equation needs to be adjusted 1 in 4 Americans is retarded.
It seems that America just grown more stupid now its 1 in 3.
Judging by all the anti-intellectual fluff I've seen posted already in this thread, I suspect that your estimate may be a bit generous.