Science and Skepticism

Did you know the government is hiding an alien spacecraft? Or that there is a secret method of producing free energy? Unless you have been living under a rock, you probably are aware of those two claims, and many others that seem very attractive, but probably too good to be true.

Science has produced marvelous technologies and has improved the quality of life for millions of people. Medicine has lengthened life expectancy and eradicated diseases that used to devastate whole countries. Science has displaced faith as the favored means of gaining knowledge. It is through science that we know the age of the universe and the origins of humanity. Science is powerful. It can destroy as well as create. The most horrific weapons of the last century were produced by scientists. If ever there was a human construct that deserved respect, it is science.

It is not surprising that non-scientists have tried to use science to further their monetary, religious, or political interests. A cottage industry has sprouted up around New Age beliefs that purport to have science on their side. Creationists, unsatisfied with the answers science provides about evolution, have established their own “science” that is guaranteed to reach conclusions they are comfortable with. Even in the political arena, charlatans misinterpret laws to convince people that they can get away with activities that are, in fact, illegal. Let’s not forget the conspiracy theories! The two main categories, alien conspiracy theories and government conspiracy theories, claim to have evidence to support their conclusions.

Skepticism is related to science. It uses the same rigorous standards for proof regarding extraordinary claims we confront in our everyday lives. Skepticism operates on subjects such as psychic powers, paranormal claims, alternative medicine, free energy machines, and other common assertions that would seem to turn the scientific world upside down. The motto of the skeptic is Carl Sagan’s quote “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof,” followed closely by Christopher Hitchens’s postscript “That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

The use of scientific-sounding verbiage to support dubious claims, or the misappropriation of real scientific terms for non-scientific purposes, is called pseudoscience.

What is the difference between science and pseudoscience? It not a difference in the conclusions they reach—though they do reach very different conclusions—it is a difference in the methods they employ to find the truth.

One of the key concepts in science is falsifiability. All science deals with falsifiable claims. That means that a claim must have the possibility of being proven false through observation or experimentation. For example, I can claim that the sun appears to rise in the east and set in the west. I could test that claim by observing where the sun appears in the morning. If it ever rises in the west, my claim is false. A non-falsifiable statement is one that can never be proven false by any empirical means. The existence of deities, for example, is non-falsifiable. No empirical evidence can be gathered to prove that there are no deities anywhere in the universe. Any non-falsifiable claims made by cultists, conspiracy theorists, politicians, or salesmen cannot claim to have science on their side. If they do, it should be a red flag. A good chain of questions to ask yourself when confronted with an extraordinary claim is: “Is this falsifiable? What could prove it false? Has anyone tried to prove it false? If so, what was the result?”

A powerful tool available to the scientist and the skeptic is Occam’s Razor. It is a tool of economy that allows us to avoid following an infinite path of unsupported ideas that lead nowhere. Occam’s Razor has sometimes been misinterpreted to mean “the simplest solution is usually the correct one.” I have seen this misrepresentation of the law lead an unfortunate Creationist to reason that God’s creation of the universe survives Occam’s Razor because it is the simplest solution. The razor actually means “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.”(1) Positing a god at the beginning of a universe does not provide a simple solution for a complex problem. It creates a whole new set of problems. How, then, do you explain the god? What falsifiable claims can you make about this being, if it is a being? We are multiplying entities beyond necessity. Occam’s Razor saves us from traveling down that road to nowhere.

Occam’s Razor is one reason why conspiracy theorists are not Skeptics, in the sense that I am using the word. Conspiracy theories connect dots that are not necessarily connected, they make claims that are not necessarily supported by evidence, and they use half-truths and misinterpretations of data to support their ideas. It is impossible to argue with a conspiracy theorist. Their claims are falsifiable, but they can come up with excuses to explain away any contrary evidence even faster than you can knock down their arguments. If Occam’s Razor were applied, the whole line of questioning would be avoided. That is not to say the truth is necessarily obvious, or that wild theories might not contain some truth. The problem is the method by which they try to reach the truth. If they ever hit on the truth, it will be by accident. Much if their time is spent tilting at windmills.

One reason why pseudoscience is so attractive is because it gives an alternative to some of the uncomfortable answers provided by science. Pseudoscientific religions are happy to tell you that you are consciously in control of the universe, and they have quantum physics to prove it. Isn’t that comforting? Science doesn’t tell us what our individual fates will be. Science has not found a super-being with an ultimate plan for our lives. It is possible—just possible—that we are actually biological creatures living on the crust of an odd little planet in the middle of an ordinary solar system flying across a universe that doesn’t even know we exist. Those who can’t accept this possibility want an alternative, but they also want the science stamp of approval. Because science has been so successful at describing the universe and creating technology, alternative claims are not likely to be taken seriously unless they at least sound scientific.

People buy into pseudoscientific claims because they seem legitimate to the layman. Science has long, unpronounceable words; pseudoscience has long, unpronounceable words. Science has complex concepts that are counter-intuitive and difficult to understand; pseudoscience has the same. On the surface it can be difficult to tell the difference, but that is the point. There would be no value in pseudoscience if it were easily distinguishable from real science.

Pseudoscientists like to taut the early rejection of the discoveries of Galileo to show that ideas that seem unbelievable at first are later accepted as true. Rather than submit their writing to the rigors of peer review, they complain about the peer review process. Rather than conduct experiments that can be repeated by others, they complain that mainstream scientists don’t give them a fair shake. They believe scientists do not accept their ideas because scientists are afraid to change. In reality, science is the human institution that is most prone to change. Science changes more than religion, government, and industry. When new facts are presented, scientific theories adjust, and the scientists who discover them win big prizes. Those new facts must go through the tough verification process, though. That is what the pseudoscientists are missing. To be accepted as true, a new fact must survive all attempts to prove it false.

A typical New Ager or UFO enthusiast is probably attracted to pseudoscience out of a genuine personal need to fill a void in their lives. They do not intend to deceive other people. For those who create and purvey pseudoscience, the motivation is far less pure and innocent. For every crackpot theory and irrational idea, there is somebody trying to make a buck from it. Publishers do not print books that offer erroneous cures as an act of charity. Pseudoscience is often used to mask fraud. Ignorance is certainly not bliss when it comes to products that could affect health and wellbeing. The experts who put their faces on television to promote products that have no basis in science are only experts at taking people’s money. They often prey on the most vulnerable—those who have suffered a tragedy, or those who are afflicted with diseases that modern medical science cannot cure. Pseudoscience is not a victimless crime.

Around every corner there is someone trying to deceive us. They may tell us that their pill will make our sex organs more appealing, or that they can help us lose weight without dieting, or that they have a different perspective on history that justifies their political ideology. Skepticism gives us a means to avoid being deceived. It is not perfect—skeptics sometimes fall into the same traps as the credulous. Even so, we are less likely to be deceived if we demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. If someone wants to sell us something, they should expect their claims to be interrogated, the evidence to be examined, and every effort be taken to prove them wrong.

Skeptics are often criticized for holding irrational beliefs despite their abhorrence of irrational beliefs in others. As noted before, Skepticism and science is more about the method than the conclusions. For a skeptic, sometimes there just isn’t enough evidence to reach a firm conclusion. The instinct of the skeptic is not to just accept a belief on faith. If we find it necessary to hold a belief without adequate evidence, it will only be held contingent on new data. A skeptic should never be afraid to put any of his beliefs through the validation process. It helps us find errors and correct them. It also helps us grow and change as we face new challenges.

The scientific method and skeptical inquiry become instinct to their practitioners. It is a very honest and open way of thinking. It accepts the fact that we can be wrong about anything, and continual self-examination is needed to correct our errors. It allows us to reach conclusions, but it cautions against arrogance and close-mindedness. It does not treat all hypotheses as equal, because some hypotheses will turn out to be false when tested. It does, however, give all hypotheses a fair shot. Isn’t that the very definition of a free society with civil public discourse?

© 2008 Bryan Lower

Feedback: