FAUX SCIENCE
The inclusion of the word scientific or historic in the title of an organization does not establish it as being either scientific or historic. Using qualified research methods to collect data and issue reports determines credibility. For example, check out the following two web sites:
These titles are very impressive and suggest unbiased scientific endeavors, but first acquaint yourself with the measures of true science as discussed below, visit these two web sites, and decide.
A recent article in the Skeptical Inquirer (Teaching Skepticism via the CRITIC Acronym and the Skeptical Inquirer, by Wayne R. Bartz (1), September/October 2002, pp 42-44) offers some good insight into what a critical thinker should expect from a true science. Below we have elaborated on some his basic ideas.
Footnotes:
1. Wayne Bartz, a recently retired college professor and clinical psychologist, submitted his article as an adaption from his future book - The Ultimate Liberation: From Religion and Other Popular Delusions.
2. Russel Kay, "Its the Law!," Computerworld, August 12, 2002, pp 28.
3. The Cambridge Psychial Reseach Society has the mission to promote the existence of psychic pheno- menon. It would have been more meaningful to seek some organization would have done REAL research as to the source of the disturbance.
Quality of the Evidence
Is the evidence based of measurement techniques generally acceptable to the professional scientific and historic community? Can it be duplicated in repeated testing? Is it testimonial or anecdotal? Quality control engineers designate this attribute as Reproducible and Repeatable or R & R and have standardized methods for its conduct. Thus far, no matter how hard the paranormal advocates try, psychic phenomena routinely fail R & R.
Has the evidence been gathered using double blind procedures with appropriate controls? Have both conditions of necessity and sufficiency been tested in order validate causality and rule out coincidence. A popular myth is that Bermuda Triangle is mysterious because of the unusual disappearances in that region. To validate his claim, the investigator shows a long history of peculiarities: planes lost, ships lost, etc. He adds the usual anecdotal evidence of personal interviews with people who have experienced strange phenomena there. We're sucked into the illusion until we ask, "how often have similar events occurred in other regions of the world with comparable, but totally normal, weather patterns."
Verified in Independent Peer Review and Collaboration
Peer Review is fundamental to the scientific method. No theory, no claim is considered valid in real science until it has been duplicated in independent testing. The scientific method is as follows:
- Make measurements, then document the experimental setup, the error analysis, and the
experimental technique as detailed as possible so others can repeat it and critique it.
- Propose a cause for the effect being measured, demonstrating both necessity and sufficiency.
- Publish results in peer-reviewed professional journals and wait for independent collaboration through
repeat of the experiment or a rederivation of a proposed algorithm or mathematical model.
- Accept or validate no work as valuable until it has independent collaboration by a competitor.
Why are there no peer reviewed professional journals for the paranormal? Why do paranormalist almost always refuse to present their claims for skeptical review? True science demands skeptical review; faux science rejects it.
Reasonableness of the Proposed Cause.
Is the explanation for the claim consistent with the physical laws of the universe? Quacks, illusionists, and paranormalists like to skirt this requirement by saying the effects they are measuring are beyond the realms of science. They will remind everyone that until recently science was not able to measure radiowaves or radioactivity. They are correct. But they fail to acknowledge that when radiowaves and radioactivity were assumed to exist, measurements were repeatable and reproducible regardless of the investigator. That is not the case with claims of the faux scientist.
When extra-ordinary claims are made (that either violate known science or are beyond the realms of science and generally accepted phenomenon) then extra-ordinary evidence is required (at the absolute minimum it must be reproducible and repeatable). No less is demanded from real science.
Document the Claim.
Glasgow's Fourth Law (2), If you can't describe it in writing, you can't build it. If you haven't described it in writing, don't try to build it. It it's so small it doesn't need documentation, then it doesn't do anything worthwhile.
The underlying principle is that unless a claim can be succinctly and unequivocally defined, researchers may not be able to communicate or compare their analysis with peers. Each could assume a different initial hypothesis and/or that hypothesis could change over time as it the results are challenged, eventually obfuscating the initial claim. In order for scientific research is to add to the general knowledge base, it must be understood and accepted by the general scientific community.
Bartz adds in his article that the claim must also be falsifiable. The claim this house has ghosts is meaningless, unless there is a proven method to validate it. Although thousands people say they have seen ghosts, that is not a validation that ghosts exist. Ghosts have no measurable effect.
Determine the Motivation or Agenda of the Claimant
In business it is called stakeholder analysis. Does the claimant have something to gain in making his claim? If he does, anticipate bias. Even the best of us, find it difficult to perform an unbiased test when the end result has an effect on our prestige, power, finances, etc. We accept and promote the creeds consistent with our personal belief systems, often unconsciously by looking only at supportive evidence while ignoring or rationalizing away contrary information. For example, make a major purchase and what does the buyer want to hear? He wants to hear how great his house, car, or piece of Florida property is, not that it has termites, is a lemon, or is swamp.
Expect lamp chops, when you send the wolf to watch the sheep. Expect validation when you send the Psychical Research Society (3) into investigate paranormal phenomena.
For the purpose international security many governments have engaged in the past half century into extensive research into the paranormal. One of the more famous was Stargate, in which the American government investigated claims of remote viewing and eventually rejected it. Many universities had paranormal research departments. Most have been dismantled, again due to rejection. Give reasonably intelligent people a potentially valid hypothesis and they will explore it. In the converse, if reasonable intelligent people have abandoned exploration, it was probably because the hypothesis is assumed not longer valid.
