Pseudoscience is a form of study often loosely based on applied science, or claims to be an applied science, but is backed by little or no evidence. The term is usually used in a derogatory sense to demote obscure and non-verified scientific claims such as cosmology or alternative therapies such as homeopathy.
Pseudoscience can often masquerade as an applied science, usually by incorporating well-known scientific facts with subtly placed and unproven claims or using scientific jargon or terminology to make a hypothesis sound more plausible, such as using words like quantum, dynamic or sub-atomic. Pseudoscience can be the result of a lust for fame, genuine ignorance to a subject or even simply a promotion of superstitious thinking.
Pseudoscience is well defined by Wikipedia as being…
“…A methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status. The term comes from the Greek root pseudo- (false or pretending) and "science" (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"). An early-recorded use was in 1843 by French physiologist François Magendie, who is considered a pioneer in experimental physiology.
Other classic features of pseudoscience are the failure or evasion to peer reviews. As mentioned in the first chapter, peer reviews are perhaps the most important aspect of the Scientific Method as it allows a hypothesis to be independently tested and verified. This process helps to refine theories based on poor reasoning and eliminate theories that are not properly tested or verified, such as most pseudoscientific claims. If a claim holds little water under careful inspection, peer reviews will often find the errors in the theory. Even accidental errors can be included in a publication and if a third party does not test the original hypothesis, the results cannot necessarily be trusted.
Pseudoscience can occasionally be hard to spot, but critical thinking can often highlight the problems with a pseudoscience claim. A good example of a particularly transparent pseudoscience claim, proposed as a money-spinner, is oxygenized water. This example was chosen as it predominantly incorporates accepted scientific claims, but applies various false or misleading assertions in order to reach an fabricated conclusion. The claim for oxygenated water is that if we pumped more oxygen into water, the water will help us perform better by allowing more oxygen into the body and brain. As we know, our body relies on oxygen to perform, and a lack of oxygen impairs our abilities. The market was aimed at primarily athletes as an alternative to sugary drinks, but I suspect it was predominantly aimed at idiots!
It first glance, it would seem plausible. It is a well-known fact that oxygen is a vital component in the functioning of our body, and more oxygen could logically boost performance, but we have to remember that too much oxygen is poisonous and, whilst there would certainly not be an unhealthy dose of oxygen in oxygenated water, is this excess oxygen actually beneficial?
Furthermore, oxygen is absorbed into the lungs, an organ very well evolved to cope with extracting large quantities or oxygen from it’s surroundings. The lungs are made with many crinkled, cauliflower shaped walls that dramatically increase the surface area and hence allow much more oxygen to be absorbed. The walls of the alveoli are also incredibly then to allow oxygen to be absorbed more efficiently into the body. This means then when we breathe in, out lungs fill with air and quickly absorb oxygen that can be transported around the body to where it is needed.
Liquids, on the other hand, flows not into the lungs but rather flow into the stomach, through the small intestine and into the large intestine where the water is extracted. Oxygenated water follows the same path and never reaches the lungs, so the excess oxygen in the water is never efficiently absorbed into the water and hence oxygenated water is no more beneficial than normal water.
This may seem a tame misunderstanding, but pseudoscience can have almost devastating consequences on both education and health. Perhaps one of the most commonly practiced for of pseudoscience in almost all cultures is alternative medicine or alternative therapies. Alternative therapies such as homeopathy have been known to replace conventional therapies such as chemotherapy in various cancer cases, and can have very real implications on the lives of others.
It can equally be pointed out that by very definition, alternative therapies do not, in practice, actually work. An alternative therapy is so named because the therapy is not supported by conventional medicine. This is because the therapy has either never been scientifically tested, or has been tested and failed the tests. These therapies usually offer no evidence as to how or why they work, or the evidence is fabricated.
If an alternative therapy is tested in a controlled environment and shows conclusive or tangible benefits, or the patient shows a defined improvement that can be attributed to the therapy in question, the therapy ceases to be an alternative therapy and becomes a mainstream or conventional therapy. Based on this, alternative therapies can never honestly be trusted over conventional therapies based on careful testing, accurately defined theories such as Germ Theory, and repeated tests and experiments.
However, pseudoscience often takes further strolls up the stream of absurdity, often into the realms of theology, philosophy and religion. Often people claim to use science to prove certain theological ideologies such as the existence of a God or gods.
The argument for the existence of God is certainly not scientific, and in the eyes of Science, God does not exist. That is not to say that there is no God, merely that there is not a scientific process to prove God's existence so therefore, in terms of Science, there is no God. Perhaps in another domain such as philosophy there could be a robust argument for his exist, though personally I remain dubious or the existence of a theistic or deistic entity.
Firstly, God cannot be directly or indirectly observed. Whilst in particle physics we may not be able to see many particles directly, we know that they exist from tracks left behind in bubble chambers. God, however, leaves no such tracks so there is absolutely no empirical evidence for the existence of God. God is also not falsifiable, i.e. there is not way to disprove or prove God’s existence. This does not adhere to the Scientific Method. To provide an explanation for how God could exist, a set of robust and empirical facts or hypotheses must be proposed and then tested. If there is no way to prove or disprove the hypothesis then the hypothesis cannot be appropriately tested. Therefore, we cannot test for God’s existence and therefore not scientifically prove or even assume God’s existence in any way.
But, as a skeptic to God, should an atheist or agnostic feel a need to disprove God? After all, the hypothesis is non-scientific and improvable, but even if this is not taken into consideration, it is the task of he who originally proposed the existence of a deity to prove this hypothesis by attempting to disprove the hypothesis.
If you were told that a pixie was hiding in your closet, you would most likely not choose to believe this. You would remain sceptical and ask for some form of evidence as to the pixies existence, or - in relation to other events - evidence to why this hypothesis is correct. It would not be up to you to disprove the pixie, as the hypothesis was not proposed by you. It would be up to he who originally postulated the existence of the pixie to prove to you the existence of the supernatural entity. This could be perhaps accomplished by opening the door. If there is a pixie, the hypothesis is correct, and if not, the hypothesis is most likely wrong. Now imagine that instead dwelling in the closet, the pixie was living in the sky. Does this analogy change in any way? It is still the endeavor again of he who originally postulated the existence to prove this hypothesis. We can no longer just open the door anymore, though, so the hypothesis must be tested in another way.
Examining the above analogy, you may have noted that, to adhere to the Scientific Method, you must attempt to disprove the hypothesis of the God’s existence that is impossible. As we cannot detect God in any way, we can’t disprove God in any way, so there is no way to test our hypothesis and therefore we cannot deduce a valid hypothesis, theory or law of God’s existence. Again, scientifically, God does not and cannot exist.
Among other problems with pseudoscience or religious claims such as God's existence, many attempt to prove God's existence based on the assumption that God exists and attempting to find evidence to prove this hypothesis. In practice, Scientists attempt to accumulate all available evidence and build their theories based on this evidence: no verified evidence is discarded. Science is able to change as technology and understanding progresses, but religion does not. It is stagnant in its view, and rarely accepts mistakes in the face of mounting evidence.
Nevertheless, I sincerely doubt, despite not being able to detect God either directly or indirectly OR being able to test the hypothesis that God exists OR supply an accurate hypothesis based on all the evidence that any theologians or members of the priesthood would attempt to disprove God in order to prove his existence. This undermines the concepts of faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment