Science, Pseudoscience, and Common Sense

*** Science, Pseudoscience, and Common Sense ***

This topic caught my attention last night. It originated

in my conscious after I was woken up in the middle of

the night by the noise from some drunken Ressies, which

has become a typical phenomenon for every Thursday

night. One has got to put up with it.

Though I am a bit curious to know why people get drunk,

I don't want to utilize this discussion mode in this

relatively mundane and boring stuff.

This should be enough for the background, I think.

They say that the scientist fixes his beliefs via the

thing called 'scientific method', but the layman often

relies on his common sence. What's the difference

between them? And what is pseudoscience?

Preample

Here are some interesting quotes which might stimulate

or our perception on the three terms.

" Those who see diversity as diversity, and the

principle as principle, will realize the truth." (The

Dhammpada, Verse 12)

" The world is not the thing. The symbol is never the

actual." (J. Krishnamurti, Book of Life)

" Science tells us what we can know, but what we can

know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know

we become insensitive to many things of very great

importance." (Bertrand Russell, A History of Western

Philosophy)

" Faith is to believe what you do not yet see; the

reward for this is to see what you believe." (St

Augustine, Sermons)

" Common sense is the best distributed thing in the

world, for everyone thinks he is so well-endowed with it

that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other

matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than

they already have." (Rene Descartes, Common Sense)

" Common sense is not so common." (Voltaire,

Philosophical Dictionary)

" All desires are illusions." (Kipling, Kim)

" There are consequences for your deeds. You will

experience them yourself." (Sida Thadphoothon, My

mother)

To be continued ---->

Science, Pseudoscience, and Common sense (Continued)

The scientist and the layman are different in their

views though both are human beings who are subject to

decay. Such differences are partly due to their

background, e.g. nurturing.

Kerlinger (1973) has pointed out that there are five

major differences.

First the scientist systematically builds his

theoretical structures, test them, for internal

consistency, and subjects aspects of them to empirical

test, realizing that the concept he is using are

man-made terms that may or may not exhibit a close

relation to reality. The man on the streets, on the

other hand, often blandly accepts fanciful explanations

of natural and human phenomena.

Second the scientist systematically and empirically test

his theories and hypotheses. The layman tests his

hypotheses too; but he tests them in what might be

called a selective fashion. In other words, the

scientist prefers objective ways of rationale, whereas

the layman is often happy with the selective ways.

Third, the ordinary man tends to accept explanations

that are in accord with his preconceptions and biases.

On the contrary, the scientist tries systematically to

rule out variables (things subject to variation) that

are possible 'causes' of the effects he or she is

studying other than the variables that he or she has

hypothesized to be the causes.

Fourth the scientist consciously and systematically

pursues relations among phenomena, but the layman's

preoccupation with such relations is loose, unsystematic

and uncontrolled.

Finally, the scientist, when attempting to explain the

relations among observed phenomena, carefully rules out

what have been called 'metaphysical explanations' or the

explanations that cannot be tested. The layman often

opts to such metaphysical explanations.

  Reference

Kerlinger, Fred (1973). Foundations of Behavioural

Research (2nd). Holt Rinehart and Winston Inc, New York.

To be continued. ------>    

What about the difference between science and pseudo (fake)-science?

Do you think subjects like astrology and theology are pseudoscience? Lots of people who think they are scientists think they are fake science. In particular, they regard astrology as simply an attempt to present unproven or unprovable claims in a "scientific" wrapping. However, more and more people are turning to astrologers for advice, esp. on relationships or carreer. People prefer holding on something when they are insecured or down. It is not surprising that astrologers can earn lots of money, and nowadays they even provide their services on the Internet. Amongst their customers are politicians and science teachers whose acts and beliefs are somehow dissonant.

How about subjects like physics and chemistry?

They are likely to be classified as science because, according to the positivists, they can be used to describe, predict, and ultimately to control something.

Science, according to Academic Press Dictionary of Science Technology, has three meaning, which are:

 1. the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts.

2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation.

3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy. (From the Latin word meaning “knowledge.”)

According to Bruce Railsback, science isn’t the following things:

-          Science isn’t a religion

-          Science isn’t art

-          Science isn’t technology

-          Science isn’t Truth

One of the well-known attempts to make the distinction between pseudo-science and science was the work of Sir Carl Popper (1902-1994). He built his philosophy of science on the search for a demarcation criterion by stressing the confirmability of theories and the test of their scientific status. His method has been used widely to separate true science from false science, and it is still being used nowadays (Poper 1963, quoted in Leahey 1997).

However, Popper realised that things were not so simple.

References

http://www.apnet.com/inscight/12231996/science1.htm. Retrieved from the Word Wide Web on 18 August 2001.

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html. Retrieved from the Word Wide Web on 18 August 2001.

Leahey, Hardy, Thomas (1997). A History of Psychology: Main Currents in

Psychological Thought. Prentice-Hall Inc, New Jersey.