Most people have at least some vague idea of what science is all about. After all, many of the incredible accomplishments that have completely transformed human life in the last few centuries are credited to scientific advancements. Instead of going around the world in 80 days (a feat Jules Verne considered science fiction), we can now do it on passenger airlines in less than 80 hours (even with stops for refueling). Devastating diseases such as smallpox and rinderpest (commonly known as "cattle plague") have been totally eradicated. We have observed galaxies as they were when the universe was less than 4 percent of its current age. Twelve men have walked on the Moon. The Higgs boson -- the fundamental particle that gives mass to all other fundamental particles -- has been discovered. The average human life expectancy has more than doubled since medieval times. The list just goes on and on.
Still, the continuous attempts by various pseudosciences to gain respectability as scientific theories constitute, in my humble opinion, a clear and present danger. To understand the difference between genuine science and pseudoscience, let's examine the ingredients of the scientific method. Ever since the works of such giants in the philosophy of science as Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, and Hume, we know that one has to start with a collection of data through experiments or observations (Figs. 1 and 2 show two of the most advanced facilities for collecting such data). In the next step, the scientist formulates a hypothesis that attempts to explain the phenomena that have been observed. Successful hypotheses are those that not only stand up to further testing but make specific predictions that can be tested by new experiments or observations. Of those hypotheses, the ones that concern a multitude of phenomena can mature to become comprehensive theories, and those that are found to universally hold true, independent of place or time, gain the most distinguished status of laws of nature.
Over the years, even this carefully constructed paradigm has been subjected to serious philosophical criticism, especially concerning the problem of induction. Induction is the process that leads us from a finite number of observations to such universal conclusions as "all bodies on Earth fall with constant acceleration." Clearly, from a strictly logical perspective, such arguments cannot be rigorously valid -- we have not observed all the bodies on Earth (my high-school teacher used to say, "And if you see a body that does not obey this law, please let me know immediately!"). Philosophers of science have attempted to address the logical problem of induction in two main ways. First, Austrian-born Karl Popper argued that as long as hypotheses are falsifiable, in the sense that experiments or observations exist that would disprove them, science can maintain its objectivity. Popper suggested that a theory should never be considered confirmed, no matter how much evidence has been collected to support it. Rather, we should accept theories until they have been falsified. Note that the key criterion here, distinguishing science from pseudoscience, is falsifiability. Unless a theory is able to make definite predictions that can be checked and shown to be wrong, it cannot be considered scientific. In case you wonder, the theory does not necessarily need to be mathematical in order for it to make clear predictions. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, for instance, predicts a very particular sequence in the geological record. The finding of even one fossil of a modern rabbit in a rock that is 3 billion years old would destroy the entire theory.
A second partial response to the problem of induction is offered by what is known as the Bayesian confirmation theory -- that our trust in theories comes in degrees that can be quantified by the theory of probability. In other words, we should attach high credence only to universal theories that are repeatedly tested and borne out by observations. Bayesian confirmation theory attempted to create what one might call "positive" scientific knowledge, to complement Popper's account for "negative" ones. However, philosophers of science are, by their very nature, a skeptical crowd. Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend, for instance, argued that our prior theoretical ideas influence which observations we make and what interpretation we attach to them. Others countered that even if it is true that a number of different theories may be compatible with a given body of data, this does not mean that we cannot logically choose among such theories, since typically some would be better supported by the data than others. In conclusion, while it is certainly true that history teaches us that many past scientific theories eventually turned out to be false, even those false but genuinely scientific theories contained a significant element of truth. The bottom line is clear: Science investigates strategies for achieving predictive success, heuristic fruitfulness, and simplicity.
Follow Mario Livio on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Mario_Livio
Examples please.
Given that I'll go with rephrasing Michael Shermer from 'The Believing Brain':
Science is how we tell the difference between what we would like to be
true and what is actually true.
Science-vs.-Oligarchism
[True scientific method, by its deepest nature, is, like Classical poetry and drama, inherently metaphorical in the substance of its most deeply underlying character and meaning. -DP]
This was typified for modern science earlier by the breakthrough in scientific method presented to modern physical science by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia. This tradition of trends in modern science, has been continued again, and, again, during the just concluded century, as, typically, by the most crucial among the discoveries of such exemplars as Max Planck and Albert Einstein, and as greatly amplified by treatments of both life-as-such, and human creativity, by V.I. Vernadsky. This principle of discovery demands that we carry that principle, as in retrospect, over into the related, self-reflexive category of Riemann's treatment of the physics-implication to be considered in the concluding, third section of his habilitation dissertation, without need of much further detailed argument on that subject than is supplied in that document there."
http://tinyurl.com/993fq7k
Subtle point, seemingly... but not really, crucial and very core.
"Rather, we should accept theories until they have been falsified." In other words, anything is possible, but you've got to prove it, just like Einstein when he challenged Issac Newton and won.
However, evolutionists also claim that the earliest form of life was bacteria, which has virtually remeained unchange throughout time. Hence, since modern bacteria are said to be the first form of life, does that not disprove evolution as well as the 3 billion year old rabbit fossil??
And, if a theory is disproven or shown to not be the sole rational for observed phenomenon, does that not also qualify the field of study to be a 'pseudoscience'??
Today, there is so much corruption within those claiming to be scientitsts that it becomes near impossible for a layperson to believe much of anything, which scientists claim to be proof.
The perfect examples of this are the pseudosciences of evolution and man-made global warming -- both treated like they are scientific fact.
Phew... what a relief that science does not actually claim that, at all. There were early single cell life forms that are SIMILAR to modern bacteria. These organism are about as similar to their mothern brethren (biologically speaking) as a rabbit is to Pisanosaurus. Both the rabbit and Pisanosaurus can run and stand on their hind legs... other than that...
"And, if a theory is disproven or shown to not be the sole rational for observed phenomenon.."
If that happens, a theory is replaced by or embedded into a better theory with a wider range of application. Happens all the time. Newtonian mechanics, for instance, can be derived from quantum mechanics, from special relativity, from general relativity as well as from statistical mechanics and from fluid mechanics as a limit of these theories. QM and relativity can not be derived from each other, they are actually mutually exclusive, yet they are perfectly fine theories that can co-exist over all as of now measurable phenomena and all theories come with their limits built in, which explicitely state at what point a different theory or sets of theories are needed. No big deal.
Guss you didn't know that. Happens to a lot of "conservatives".
:-)
First, the father of evolution, Darwin, based his conclusions not on the scientifc method, but on the fact that the Church of England's creation account [young earth] did not correlate with his observations/findings.
Second, because each species owes it's existence to the natural selection decisions of its predecessor species and such decisions occur generation after generation, extinction is impossible if evolution is true.
Third, the mass extinction at the end of the Pleistocene makes it impossible for the extent of land life to have speciated and changed genera in less than 14k years according to Darwin's theory.
Regarding the fraud of man-made global warming, as glaciers melted over Greenland, a village dating back to the 1600's was discovered. Hence, the earth, prior to the industrial age, was warmer.
Not a penny of taxpayer money should be wasted on these two pseudosciences.
Evolution does not require that every organism MUST change over the long run through time. If their formation is optimal for their particular environment then the small changes generation to generation will eventually just keep their genetic makeup wobbling in about the same place. Change only continues in one direction if it's selected for.
So, there's your lesson.
For instance, if humans knew there would be a global ice age in a few years, we all would try to mate with Eskimos in order to survive. Yet, most mate with their own race, while a portion of each race mate with those of another race. The same process takes place the succeeding generation.
Let's take for example humans that are half white and half black. In order for that mix breed to become extinct, it would be necessary for all the half bred people to die off. But, in addition, every one in the black and white races would also have to become extinct in order to prevent more natural selection decisions creating the half breed people.
Likewise, every ape, whom evolutionists claim is a predecessor species to humans, would also have to become extinct in order to eliminate any means to make humans. The chain of events goes all the way back to the original form of life.
As one can plainly see, it is impossible for extinction if evolution theory was correct.
I always thought organisms no matter how complex changed over time to adapt to their changing environment.
:-)
But they do fall into traps, and superstition.
They have no methods for testing their theories inn a rigorous way.
I have seen cats and dogs become phobic about lines on the floor because once it was a snake.
Random conditioning also creates false theories in humans and animals as well. That is when we get a random pain or pleasure with some condition at the same time, will lead to trying to recreated that condition even when it works only once in a while and has nothing to do with the desired outcome.
So there is a fundamental difference between natural learning and science.
Exemplified by the way Gottfried Leibniz, first, and then repeatedly exposed both René Descartes, and also John Locke during the 1690s, and later, as inherently, intrinsically... incompetent on matters both mathematics and physical science.
That their axiomatic (replacing mind, with "axiom") ontological presumptions, could be so thoroughly deconstructed by Leibniz... and for them to yet be allowed to re-appear as "giants," is telling.
Also... anything touched by Darwin, by definition, has to be deconstructed and done over, doubtless from the ground up.
You're obviously, not one of them.
Darwin is a joke; the money trail from the British East India Tea Company through Malthus to Darwin is, also, well established.
Thus, you have neither the qualifications, nor, truth be told... the aptitude, or curiosity to engage anyone, these subjects.
So, please go inflict your nihilist mediocrity on someone else.
...::chuckle::...
So ignorant, so dumbed down... so in love with your chains; you are as funny as you are tragic.
"It's" funny too: I have to put a classical education into the Huffingtonpost word limit.
Or have the nonsense stand.
Proven so more than once.
Thus this tack, I spose.
If there is a disagreement between scientists, it will ultimately be settled by more evidence.
Note what is missing. Private revelations, internal feelings, hidden secret data, and other subjective or unverifiable events. When any of these are in the picture, be skeptical. They are usually the signs of pseudoscience, superstition, or con jobs.
"One thing science hasn't figured out how to do, is how to get people to stop having legions of children"
Russia has figured it out. Germany has figured it out. The US has figured it out. Even China has figured it out. Me thinks you are, at least, 50 years behind the curve?
:-)
:-)
:-)