Science Under Siege

[nkt]

Buffy, you are right that this is only an issue in the USA. Anyone in a UK school who tried to preach Intelligent Design would be mocked off the school board or laughed out of the classroom.

I'm going to change my sig!

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I agree with the pseudo science point. The only course of action is to defend the scientific method. The course of action is NOT to defend a specific position or theory.

Great! Now, I don't expect you to agree that ID is pseudo-science, and we can discuss that elsewhere, but your post is a great example of how people who are enamoured of pseudo-scientific opinions argue that they are valid science; something that means that simple defense of the scientific method in abstract is effectively useless. So I'll apologize in advance for using you as an example of what I mean:

Rule 1: Denigrate existing accepted scientific theories by saying that they are not "proven." This sets up the argument that any theory is open to question, and thus any other opinion is equally valid. This is most effective by setting up an objection that is simple and easy to understand, even if it is misleading:

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Buff, you and I have argued before about my position that the evidence in support of speciation by mutation is thin. I don't mind folks talking about the evidence in support of it. I really mind folks assuming it is "proven".

This particular argument (no proof that mutation causes speciation) I've come to discover in my recent research is a statement that is used exclusively by proponents of ID, and Evolutionary scientists all have to respond, "well, its not that simple, you see speciation is in the eye of the beholder" and a long list of other such complications. This is very effective because it forces the scientist into a position of having to educate those who are not familiar with the complications to lose the attention of the audience, and effectively lose the argument. Of course, the critical issue is the attack is based on the notion of "not proven" when the state of "proven" is uncommon in natural sciences in general, but more importantly is *not* an essential element of the scientific method. By simply saying its not proven conclusively, it makes it easier to argue that opinions with convincing but not conclusive evidence are no better than opinions with no evidence whatsoever:

Rule 2: Propose a theory and say that its not contradicted by any data:

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Anyone could argue that ID is a different view of the existing scientific-method-supported facts. Anyone could offer scientific-method-compliant studies to support their positions.

ID certainly is not inconsistent with observed facts, but that's somewhat irrelevant, since there's no testable way to validate any of the proposed conclusions. Saying that an alternate theory of flight is that angels fly behind birds and planes and hold them up invisibly and that planes crash when evil people fly in them. This theory is completely consistent with observed facts. Its fanciful and entertaining! And *no one* can prove it wrong! Is it scientific? Well, you'd really need to come up with some experiment to detect the Angels. You could come up with an theory and even data that might show that current theories about lift and turbulence could not possibly explain the data, but unfortunately, due to the scientific method, you could not conclude convincingly that therefore Angels must be the cause.

Rule 3: Since pseudo-science usually ends up getting hit with data that often disproves it, pick arguments that can be endlessly regenerated: <insert Irreducible Complexity argument here, which is the only supporting "evidence" of ID, is a wonderful misapplication of probability, and proves nothing, but which you thankfully did not mention!> The great thing about ID is that it has an endless supply of examples of stuff that's "too complex" to explain by natural processes. In the case of the "angels cause flight theory" it was the obvious explanation 500 years ago, and would have been used by any self-respecting naturalist theologian to explain the observed data. Lo and behold along comes Otto Lillienthal, the Wright Bros. and a host of others to follow who turn flight into an activity easily explainable without supernatural causes. ID actually does fine until it gets to the point where the jump is made from "too complex for us to explain" to "it must have been designed". The scientific method *always* allows future discoveries to replace currently accepted theories, but does not the allow the notion that the *absence* of data or theories *justifies* another theory without any backing evidence. Sure stuff is complex. Sure its not always explainable in a "proven" fashion. But that last leap *is* one of faith, and that is what keeps it from being a scientific theory.

Erich von Daniken was also famous for this tactic when in his public appearances was faced with clear evidence that his arguments were false, and would simply pull out another picture of a spacecraft runway or figure only visible from the sky. If your theory is a conjecture that has many different applications, you can endlessly come up with examples that can only disproved piecemeal, because you're not making any predictions that can be verified or validated (note, not "proven"!).

Rule 4: Make the issue political, or accuse the opposition of politics:

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Politics are not science. ... Most of this discussion about "religion" in science is not religion at all. It is political behavior of an advocacy group.

In this case you switch sides to the scientific and true religious view. (Yay! ) The most vocal ID is political, and one of its primary sideshow arguments is that disallowing teaching of ID is "religious persecution": to this extent it is about power. Its political proponents do see it as a zero-sum game, with the current "tactics" to "use ID as a stepping stone to Creationism" and to "teach the controversy, so people won't know its not science." Machiavellian to the max! Its of course notable that those who are most sincere about ID--and I mentioned Discovery Institute, which I think is political, but they believe in "non-Creationist" ID enough to advocate *not* teaching it in schools until they've had the time to come up with more "scientifically acceptable proof"--do not have an agenda, but also are willing to work patiently for acceptance. That's a good thing.

One thing that comes out of all this that *is* in line with your argument is that the worst thing for science to do is dismiss pseudo-science out of hand. It should be considered and refuted just as any other theory. To do anything else rightly does invite the public at large into thinking that the "ivory tower types" just won't listen. Its tiring and in spite of pretty clear evidence that the second law of thermodynamics cannot be violated, we will be endlessly explaining why various perpetual motion machines won't work. Simply pointing to the second law *doesn't* cut it! You do need to explain to the *proponents* and immediate observers why their particular machines won't work (of course, if they build one and it doesn't work, they "just haven't perfected it yet, but it will work"!).

The only issue I see here is that there is a danger in "making all opinions equally valid theories" which actually forces everyone to become a scientist, when we know that they won't. As an advanced society, there is a need for a scientific community that can be trusted to work through issues and present to the rest of the populace the "probable truth". The thing that keeps this honest is an open society that keeps a "scientist caste" from becoming in-bred and untrustworthy. To this extent, attacks by pseudo-science perform a useful purpose, but if science is taught to the general population as something where any idea is valid and facts are all twisted to suit political agendas, then we are on a sorry road indeed.

Thanks for being such a good sport, Bio!

Cheers,
Buffy

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Rule 1: Denigrate existing accepted scientific theories by saying that they are not "proven." This sets up the argument that any theory is open to question...

This is how science works.

... and thus any other opinion is equally valid.

It IS equally valid if it is consistent with the observed, reproducible facts as demonstrated via the scientific method.

..This particular argument (no proof that mutation causes speciation) I've come to discover in my recent research is a statement that is used exclusively by proponents of ID.

That certainly refutes the fact, doesn't it? Who cares who believes it? It is interesting to note that this is categorically untrue (since I am not an ID proponent) and is only a specious approach to denigrate an argument by false association. This approach is CERTAINLY not science.

By simply saying its not proven conclusively, it makes it easier to argue that opinions with convincing but not conclusive evidence are no better than opinions with no evidence whatsoever

That is ludicrous. Weight of evidence is everything.

Rule 2: Propose a theory and say that its not contradicted by any data.

If you include parsimony in this, it is prefectly reasonable. You are certainly straying a long way from science yourself.

ID certainly is not inconsistent with observed facts, but that's somewhat irrelevant, since there's no testable way to validate any of the proposed conclusions.

I guess I can't answer this because I really don't know what you are refferring to as ID. There are many valid and/or falsifiable experiments that could be used to tease apart the ID view from the conventional view. Let 'em have at it.

.. Saying that an alternate theory of flight is that angels fly behind birds and planes and hold them up invisibly and that planes crash when evil people fly in them. This theory is completely consistent with observed facts.

And it is not parsimonius.

Rule 3: Since pseudo-science usually ends up getting hit with data that often disproves it, pick arguments that can be endlessly regenerated.

Careful. You are about to describe the techniques that are used to support the ever-evolving view of gradualism via mutaition.

...The scientific method *always* allows future discoveries to replace currently accepted theories, but does not the allow the notion that the *absence* of data or theories *justifies* another theory without any backing evidence...

Sort of. But the absence of data is always a concern if data is expected. Read C1ay's article about the new chimp genome. It actually says that 50 human genes were "deleted" to get the chimp genome. Certainly a poor choice of words. But are we going to suggest that we got 50 functional genes developed by random processes in 6 million years??????? This strains credulity. Anyone with a calculator should automatically suggest that there would have to be a defined mechanism to generate 50 new genes that quickly, and set up a research plan to find the mechanism. But no, the article is rife with discussion of the "advantageous" mutation. This is assumption, not science. In fact, it is pseudo-science. Weak thinking is everywhere. So what?

Rule 4: Make the issue political, or accuse the opposition of politics...

Isn't this what you are doing to defend your position? So far, you have attacked my misgivings about speciation by mutation by saying 1) ID folks believe that (false association) 2) It is like angels holding up airplanes (non parsimonius) 3) ID folks are political (like the opponents aren't). This is raw politics.

The most vocal ID is political..

A syllogism

Its political proponents do see it as a zero-sum game, with the current "tactics" to "use ID as a stepping stone to Creationism"

So what? Political discussion is seldom based on facts. What does this have to do with the science of it?

One thing that comes out of all this that *is* in line with your argument is that the worst thing for science to do is dismiss pseudo-science out of hand.

Science dismisses pseudo-science by referencing data retrieved via the scientific method.

The only issue I see here is that there is a danger in "making all opinions equally valid theories"

Parsimonius explanation of data. Parsimonious explanation of data. Equal weight in data consistency and parsimony results in equally "valid" theories.

[HydrogenBond]

Hi Buffy:

I do not mean to sound like an ID person. I am a scientist playing the Devil's advocate. I do the same to ID people. I prefer science because it is willing to pull its head out of the sand and look for a rational explanation of the world around it ,based on the laws of nature. ID says that the laws of nature are the mind of God, who can transcend space and time, making things happen; poof here we are! Their God does not worry their pretty little heads with all the details. But as a scientist, I am curious and would like to know more about these details.

When it comes to the evolution of reality/life the two camps both have their short comings. ID uses a God of order while slacking on the details; it had to be orderred to form so fast. While Evolution relies on a God of Random so it can open up endless options for itself, both real and illusionary; the scientific truth is in there somewhere.

What I believe needs to happen is orderred science. Let us take away the convenience of randomness and require science go back to logic without the enormous flexibility and convenience of randomness. This change of orientation would narrow down the possible options. Then we go from there.

As far as living state goes, the theory of genetic mutations is too nebulus. It allows anything to happen both real and imaginary, leading to endless debate and opinion within science. The one thing that we all agree upon is that there was a positive progression over time. But what made mutations progress in a positive way? The current answer is equally nebulus; selective evolution. Selective evolution is equally nebulous because its also allows endless scenarios both real and illusionary.

Once science allows its scientists to deal in illusions using the scientific method, science is promoting alchemy. I can not defend alchemy any more than I can defend ID. But with the random approach there is no meter stick to tell the difference between the illusions and real science, since they both use the very same methods and apparatus of science.

This is a subtle point. For example, there is a new theory about dinosaur extinction connected to greenhouse gases and earth temperature rising. It is supported by some observational data and computer models. The asteroid scenario is also supported by solid science, but in this case the earth gets cold. These are two mutually exclusive choices so they can not both be true at the same time. Using simple logic, at least one must be an illusion even though it is based on solid scientific method. Solid scientific method based on a faulty or fanciful premise.

Logical orderred science is where all the greatest discoveries of science come from. Random science is good for a lot of little baby steps, so it does have practical use. But random science also makes many random mistakes along the way; alchemy. The drunk takes his long random walk home. While the sober man walks straight home in less time. The drunk man can see pink elephants, while the sober man can only see gray ones.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Actually what I'm really asking is what we *do* about it.

Well, (IMHO) allowing other ideas into schools, no matter how idiotic or biased, will give students an opportunity to discern for themselves which theories are most supported by evidence, reason, science, etc. by comparing and debating amongst themselves. Sounds kinda like the real world, doesn't it? That IS what they're supposed to be learning isn't it: HOW to think and not WHAT to think (since you seem to be so concerned with their being misled.) *end harmful ID promo*

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

It IS equally valid if it is consistent with the observed, reproducible facts as demonstrated via the scientific method.
...
Equal weight in data consistency and parsimony results in equally "valid" theories.

So you're saying that anything goes, and the only thing that should be used to distinguish science and the pseudo variety should be "data consistency" and parsimony? Be careful here, because the Principle of Parsimony is a guide, not a proof, and it in fact is highly subject to interpretation. Who are you to say that the Angel Theory of Flight is extraneous or more complex than Aerodynamics? Why? Normally parsimony is applied to this because in science, naturalism is preferred to spiritualism because it allows for reproducible testing. The "Angel Theory" also contains no data, so none of it is inconsistent!

More importantly however is the point that you passed over from my previous post that many of these pseudo-scientific theories there is indeed a jump into spiritualism with the invocation of "therefore it must have been designed" or "it must be Angels" which by definition can't be tested, and is only backed up by computational "impossibility" which by definition can't show anything more than "we don't know yet," and in the case of Angels was certainly true in the past, although now we do.

Originally Posted by Biochemist

There are many valid and/or falsifiable experiments that could be used to tease apart the ID view from the conventional view. Let 'em have at it.

Originally Posted by Southtown

Well, (IMHO) allowing other ideas into schools, no matter how idiotic or biased, will give students an opportunity to discern for themselves which theories are most supported by the evidence. That IS what they're supposed to be learning isn't it: HOW to think and not WHAT to think.

So again this brings back the issue that's really key here is education of the masses. Or as I like to put it "is there in beauty, no truth?" As a public policy issue, it is impossible to conceive of a society in which the masses are told "you cannot believe anything you hear. you must decide for yourself and do all your own experiments. all opinions are equally valid and there is no truth." To keep the "experts" honest and have an open and progressing society, everyone must have the *opportunity* to do so, but to have a situation where there is no voice of reason or authority means that we can have little opportunity for consensus. If everyone was as smart as you guys are, then there'd be no problem at all with this approach. The problem is though that in the real world, most people to depend on experts, but what you're advocating is a public education policy of "trust no one." Is that really a good approach? Especially as our technology and science goes far beyond the ability of even really really smart people to understand a small fraction of everything to any level more than basics?

I think there's a strong argument that says that its good for the experts to thrash things out until there is a consensus of opinion by the people who *do* have the ability to understand all of the relevant nuances. This should not be done by some exclusive club, and everyone should be invited to join in on the interpretation. But when it comes to school curricula, its a good idea to teach "what we think is true" and why, along with critical thinking, so that people learn to "trust, but verify". Without that trust we do limit our ability to progress. Does every individual need to re-prove gravity?

I agree more than anyone that critical thinking is one of the most important things we can teach. Our schools are in fact being pushed away from this oddly enough, and its not because of scientific dogma! The question you have to ask if you think ID or String Theory ought to be taught to 8th graders is *because* it will teach critical thinking, is will simply presenting two opposing view points of any topic in a fair and balanced view without criticizing either side result in building critical thinking skills? Generally critical thinking is tought by presenting the two views and then *showing how one is correct*. Unfortunately, that is not the goal that is being sought by ID politicians, although the string theory folks have no problem with the notion that the subject should be left for grad students.

Originally Posted by Biochemist

That certainly refutes the fact, doesn't it? Who cares who believes it? It is interesting to note that this is categorically untrue (since I am not an ID proponent)...

Ya have a bunch of us fooled Bio! This was not intended by itself as the refutation by any means, in fact the only point which I guess you missed was that its quite possible to phrase arguments that are purposely intended to gloss over the intricacies of the counter-arguments, and this phrase happens to do so as I explained by making "speciation" an absolute which the current conflicts between morphological and genetic typologies makes very clear. I'm very sorry you took it so personally...

Cheers,
Buffy

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Buffy

As a public policy issue, it is impossible to conceive of a society in which the masses are told "you cannot believe anything you hear. you must decide for yourself and do all your own experiments. all opinions are equally valid and there is no truth."

We are educating future scientists. They will inherit the torch in the race for the truth and should be trusted to make their own decisions. We should only teach them discernment. And the reciprocal of religious freedom is a church state, even if the mandate ends up as non-religious. What would qualify as impossible is the control of the peoples' beliefs. Even to attempt it... how inhumane can you get?

And no matter what truth we teach them, if we do not teach discernment first, they will thoughtlessly forsake the truth for whatever else comes along next.

Originally Posted by Buffy

The problem is though that in the real world, most people to depend on experts, but what you're advocating is a public education policy of "trust no one."

And it got that way by using the current "only teach theory 1 and allow no discussion" approach. Are you afraid that the evidence will point the other way?

Originally Posted by Buffy

Is that really a good approach? Especially as our technology and science goes far beyond the ability of even really really smart people to understand a small fraction of everything to any level more than basics?

People aren't perfect, and you can't "fix" everbody. That's the common mentality: "We can convince everyone to comply somehow." It just won't work. People will use the generosity as toilet paper. What should suffice is a system that works for those who wish to participate and allows consequences for those who don't. Even if some never turn around, their demise will teach others what consequences go with certain choices. Then they can decide for themselves what to do, and some will take heed. We just can't go around revoking freedom of choice. (Personal philosophy, got it from the bible.)

Originally Posted by Buffy

But when it comes to school curricula, its a good idea to teach "what we think is true" and why, along with critical thinking, so that people learn to "trust, but verify".

I'm not suggesting we leave them ignorant of current scientific consensus. But, verification would be rather non-involved without comparitive alternatives. You need a couple crash-test dummies that they can sink their mental teeth into and really draw blood, if you know what I mean. Seriously, throw them the easy ones, and they will get a quick feel for discovering superior reasonability. You don't throw three years olds a 90mph fastball, do you?

Originally Posted by Buffy

Without that trust we do limit our ability to progress. Does every individual need to re-prove gravity?

What does trust have to do with science? I thought it was supposed to be pure scrutiny and peer review. But trust ? And gravity isn't debated as existing, but the students could benefit from discussing what it might consist of or what might cause it.

Originally Posted by Buffy

Generally critical thinking is tought by presenting the two views and then *showing how one is correct*. Unfortunately, that is not the goal that is being sought by ID politicians, although the string theory folks have no problem with the notion that the subject should be left for grad students.

That level of critical thinking is useful until the students reach opposition, then they're in new territory.

And I can't defend the ID lobby or whatever they're called. I know there's extremists out there who aren't interested in playing ball. My opinion is mine, and its reasoning I have formed myself. Therefore, I know how to argue it, and I know when it's beaten.

[Buffy]

Hey, South, all good points. I could only disagree with what you're saying if I was taking the absolutist position of saying only one "truth" should be taught, which I'm not, so I won't disagree! Its important to realize that teaching of critical thinking is not limited to teaching only the method, the critical step in any learning process is to show examples and then provide homework or projects or papers to write where the student has to think for themselves. And to drive the point home, this should be done with both clear-cut as well as grey issues, so that people get the feel for both, just as they'll run into in the real world.

The only thing I like to draw the line on is exactly what you point out:

Originally Posted by Southtown

...the reciprocal of religious freedom is a church state, even if the mandate ends up as non-religious. What would qualify as impossible is the control of the peoples' beliefs. Even to attempt it... how inhumane can you get?

Which is why when something veers into religious belief, its not a good idea to "teach" it. The point I'm trying to make of course is that there is a distinction between science and belief systems, and what is of concern to me is the the notion that belief systems are trying to gain a foothold is school curricula by saying "we're exactly like science! its all the same thing!" This ends up being a big can of worms of course, because you all of a sudden have to give "equal time" to everyone, so we gotta get the Hindu and Wiccan views in too (although of course this is simplified by the folks that say that America is a "Christian Nation" so all other theologies should be left out because they are minor as well as being wrong!). Attacking this notion by saying "science is a religious belief" does a disservice to science and society as well as deeply religious scientists past present and future. What I'd really like to get a discussion going on here is what is that distinction that differentiates the two, And I'm convinced that the core of that is what is the *essence* of critical thinking, and acceptance of a scientific consensus as a foundation is an absolute requirement.

I think you catch most of my drift when you say:

Originally Posted by Southtown

I'm not suggesting we leave them ignorant of current scientific consensus. But, verification would be rather non-involved without comparitive alternatives. You need a couple crash-test dummies that they can sink their mental teeth into and really draw blood, if you know what I mean. Seriously, throw them the easy ones, and they will get a quick feel for discovering superior reasonability. You don't throw three years olds a 90mph fastball, do you?

And unfortunately, what people who are advocating certain contentious issues be introduced to 13 year olds, *not* as part of a critical thinking exercise but as simply a requirement to expose them to one other wholly unsubstantiated belief system without any pointers as to its inapplicapbility as a scientific theory is tantamount to that fastball.

I have a hard time believing that the best way to teach critical thinking is simply to say, as some others argue, "here's the methodology, look at all of the alternative theories and come to your own conclusions, and we don't want to give you *any* examples because that would be biased: you're smart enough to figure it out on your own." Why bother teaching *any* math or science, its all "beliefs" right? It all might be overturned tomorrow by the next discovery since none of it is "proven", and if we told you *anything* about why most people seem to believe one of these many theories that we're throwing at you, then you'll think we're biased and you will lose all faith in anything. Just trust your brain."

Oh how I wish we *could* do that, its just that it seems to me that it doesn't fit in with a reality where most folks don't care and never will. Thomas Jefferson would be rolling in his grave...

Cheers,
Buffy

[paultrr]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

This issue seems a little inflated. In spite of the hoopla over events like the introduciton of ID into schools, this is much ado about nothing.

A substantal number of basic science sorts are theistic. This does not mitigate their impact on science.

I've mentioned this myself before about not everyone out there who subscribes to science, evolution, etc at the same time has no belief in say a Creator of some type. I would say that the most vocal/ published amd known tend to have no belief in such. But over the years I have met many who do. Einstein, in a couple of comments he made irrespective of his own view about God did not see science and religion as having to be in conflect. I also see some major differences between some of the more recent ID ideas and much older more traditional fundamentalist Seven-day creationism. Evangelical Christianity is not all of the hard core fundamentalist attitude and one needs to bear that fact in mind when you discuss how to counter-attack, so to speak.

I think that as long as the normal methods and practices of science(ie Theory and trial by observational and experimental evidence) are followed open dialog on alternative theories to the standard evolutionary picture are possible. We, at this current juncture in physics have many alternative theories and counter theories going when it comes to the search for what's termed the Grand Unified Theory or TOE. None of this is found counterproductive to the search for the truth. What we need to be on guard against is a rejection of the scientific methods themselves in favor of pseudo-science or religious dogmaticism. But within the framework of acceptable scientific method and practice there is room for open discussion and debate.

[paultrr]

I rather agree with the heart of what Buffy is saying in that last post. People, teachers especially, have the right to present science as they see the facts. We scientists tend to get very much emotional about our science as do those who are religious get emotional about their beliefs. One can present alternative ideas and at the same time make a clear presentation of exactly how oneself see it without having to step on toes are be politically incorrect, so to speak. Religion has not got the right to dictate how one believes any more than say athiesm has to right to tell everyone they cannot believe.

The heart of real religion is faith which makes it more a personal thing than anything else. The heart of the Christian faith is a relationship or at least its supposed to be. Here again we are talking about something that is personal. One can have a personal relationship and still subscribe to science. Science is a tool of discovery. The one who the relationship is supposed to be with is called Truth. The two do not have to be exclusive of each other. Nor do they always have to be seen as enemies.

I am against fundamentalistic attitudes weither it comes from an athiest or a Christian or some other faith out there. I have problems with the current ID presentation. But at the same time its a far better approach than the older literal seven day camps version of science. Their approach lacked any real science behind it. At least the ID camp is willing to admit perhaps "God" used evolution as his tool. What they want to debate is the issue of how evolution really works which in some ways is perhaps worth debating. New Ageism is more pseudo-science than anything else. Sorry you closet New Agers. But that is the bottom line there. And I personally divorce real paganism/pantheism from the New Age movement and believe it would be in their best interest to do the same also. As for Christians having any part with such a movement as that of the New Age group there nuts if they do. Chrstians would be far better off siding with us scientists since at least both groups are after the truth, not mysticism.