/fringe/ - Fringe

09/06/14 (Sat) 21:33:43 No. 16682

Title: Pseudoscience
Author: John Suchocki, Instructor
Affiliation: St. Michael’s College, Colchester, VT


For a claim to qualify as “scientific” it must meet certain standards. For example, the claim must be reproducible by others who have no stake in whether the claim is true or false. The data and subsequent interpretations are open to scrutiny in a social environment where it’s okay to have made an honest mistake, but not okay to have been dishonest or deceiving. Claims that are presented as scientific but do not meet these standards are what we call pseudoscience, which literally means “fake science”. In the realm of pseudoscience, skepticism and tests for possible wrongness are downplayed or flatly ignored.

Examples of pseudoscience abound. Astrology is an ancient belief system that supposes there is a mystical correspondence between individuals and the universe—that human affairs are so special that they are influenced by the positions and movements of planets and other celestial bodies. When astrologers use up-to-date astronomical information and computers that chart the movements of heavenly bodies, they are operating in the realm of science. But when they use these data to produce non-testable astrological revelations, they have crossed over into pseudoscience.

A shaman who studies the oscillations of a pendulum suspended over the abdomen of a pregnant woman can predict the sex of the fetus with an accuracy of 50%. Downplaying all the times he was wrong, the shaman can easily collect hundreds of testimonies of success. These testimonies, however, are incomplete evidence for the shaman’s ability, hence they do not qualify as scientific. His claims are pseudoscientific. An example of pseudoscience that has zero success is provided by energy-multiplying machines. These machines are alleged to deliver more energy than they take in. We are told that the designs are “still on the drawing boards and in need of funds for development.”

Humans are very good at denial, which may explain why pseudoscience is such a thriving enterprise. Many pseudoscientists themselves do not recognize their efforts as pseudoscience. A practitioner of “absent healing”, for example, may truly believe in her ability to cure people she will never meet except through email and credit card exchanges. The pressure to make a decent living in today’s fast paced and often heartless society can be overwhelming. That said, books on pseudoscience greatly outsell books on science in general bookstores. Today there are more than 20,000 practicing astrologers in the United States. Do people listen to these astrologers just for the fun of it? Many do, but science writer Martin Gardner reports that a greater percentage of Americans today believe in astrology and occult phenomena than did citizens of medieval Europe. Very few newspapers carry a daily science column, but nearly all provide daily horoscopes.

Meanwhile, the results of science literacy tests given to the general public are appalling. Some 63% of American adults are unaware that the last dinosaur died long before the first human arose; 75% do not know that antibiotics kill bacteria but not viruses; 57% do not know that electrons are smaller than atoms. In his book The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan wrote that a truer measure of public understanding in science would come from asking deeper questions such as: “How do we know that dinosaurs died before the first humans arose?”, “How do we know that antibiotics kill bacteria and not viruses?”, or “How do we know that electrons are smaller than atoms?” The results of a test with such questions would no doubt be even more disheartening.

What we find is a rift—a growing divide—between those who have a trusting understanding of science and those who perceive science as stiff and unimaginative or, worse, beyond common intelligence. Many view this as a battle between knowledge and ignorance, between skepticism and gullibility, between stepping into the future or stepping back to our past. With the rise of pseudoscience, it appears that ignorance, gullibility and a nostalgia for the good old days of demons and infectious diseases are on the winning side.

09/06/14 (Sat) 21:55:28 No.16684

09/07/14 (Sun) 00:02:45 No.16693>>16697

File: 1410048165289.jpg (39.72 KB, 620x793, abcjp2.jpg)

>>16682
>The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan wrote

Great book by a great man. Cosmos was the most beautiful documentary I have ever seen, and I rewatch it often to grasp that larger perspective and be inspired by it all over again.

He indeed often mentioned in the book how it is the education system that has failed us, how science is presented in ways that do not serve to inspire or spark curiosity in the common man.

He constantly tried to think up of new ways to get the public interested and inspired my science, by way of our natural curiosity, pic related, a plan he typed out for a possible series of childrens books, focused on science.

Also it was by watching Cosmos and reading Demon Haunted World that my mind began to open up, new interests were acquired and a new perspective and way of thinking as well, critical thinking, as well as an open mind about things that may be dismissed outright by most people of society, like astral projection/OBE/NDE etc.

I read somewhere that he planned to make a sequel series to Cosmos entitled "Ethos", which was to focus on spirituality more and how science can also benefit from it, on ways of uniting rather than dividing the world.

Great man.

09/07/14 (Sun) 00:22:25 No.16697>>16703

>>16693
For a jew he didn't seem so bad. Still a decent chance he was part of their agenda but probably not such a diehard zionist slavedriver.

09/07/14 (Sun) 00:54:48 No.16703>>16704>>16705

File: 1410051288637.jpg (107.65 KB, 620x925, v_sagan_cosmos25_02.jpg)

>>16697
He was agnostic, born in the US, inspired by his parents and books about science, science fiction etc.

He truly was a great individual, cared passionately about science and astronomy as much as he cared about making sure the public understood and appreciated these things as well.

I think watching Cosmos will easily make you a more well rounded and curious person in just one viewing of all the episodes. Not the reboot Cosmos which is the shitty one where its all watered down and they throw CGI and shitty cartoons at your face with every scene staying no longer than a few seconds, rapid cutting BS.

No one can speak as eloquently and passionately and ineffectually about history, science, society, astronomy, etc as Sagan could.

He was also a staunch pacific and nuclear warfare activist, he even co-wrote a paper explaining the nuclear winter that would arise after a major nuclear exchange between superpowers that will leave the world in darkness and ashes. So there is no way he would have any support of the Samson Option had he knew of it.

I find it hard to see how he could have been part of any ulterior agenda, he could be counted among the great humans of our time in my opinion, for bringing so much knowledge and inspiration to the world and basically pioneering the scientific documentary, using the style of "Civilisation by Kenneth Clark" but with a larger focus on science.

09/07/14 (Sun) 00:55:56 No.16704

File: 1410051356592.jpg (77.27 KB, 575x459, sagan-stands-hands-planet-mode…)

>>16703
>ineffectually

hah, meant infectiously*

09/07/14 (Sun) 01:13:53 No.16705

>>16703
Oh don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed his work. Anyone with jewish ancestry must be regarded with suspicion though. As far as I can tell he didn't live for the establishment of zion, instead being directed into intellectual pursuits by his curiosity.

If he was still alive he probably wouldn't be put to death, which says a lot coming from me. Like the thousands of jews supporting the Third Reich he would likely be put to good use.

09/07/14 (Sun) 18:04:37 No.16724

>>16682
>those who have a trusting understanding of science

Understanding I could accept, trusting sets my teeth on edge. Science is a method, not a body of doctrine and people who have not only presented themselves as scientists but have been accepted as such by their peers have been dangerously wrong on a pretty regular basis. Not that I'm surprised though, a lot of the people who bang on about about pseudoscience look pretty unskeptical of things and people they consider to be on their side.

09/08/14 (Mon) 05:28:32 No.16748

Science only models the universe doesn't tell us what it really is.