Repost: Scientific stereotypes and pseudoscience.

[TZ]

Since we have some visitors that seem to not really understand what this group is about I am reposting an old OP of mine...
Lately, there has been a lot of threads concerning what I would dub "pseudoscience" (ESP, extra-terrestial visits/UFO ghosts. etc)
and in every thread the same old tired stereotypes of scientists/rationalists/skeptics keep coming up. I am tired of them. I thought I would address a few of them. I have always been aggravated by generalities especially those based in misconceptions

1) Scientists are closed minded. Not true for the most part. Scientists are by nature skeptical of data that has not been rigorously tested through the scientific method. And its not in their training (or nature) to accept something as the truth merely because someone SAYS its true. Thats why so many of us ask for peer-reviewed data. To us, thats the best way to evaluate a claim or theory. Observational evidence, while it has its place, is not good proof--ask anyone involved in court cases..forensic evidence is considered superior to eyewitness in some ways. For example--the Beltway snipers in 2002...The witnesses were all "sure" that a white box truck was involved. One person had seen it at one seen and so people looked for that and overlooked the real vehicle--a maroon Chevy Caprice. A LOT different. So can you understand why scientists aren't going to take a bunch of blurry photos and questionable eyewitness accounts as being "the truth"?
Have I met dogmatic scientists? Sure, but for the most part most scientists are willing when the data is shoved in their face to accept new paradigms which leads to steeotype number two..
2) Science is a religion/faith based/afraid of anything that challanges their beleifs.No, I would argue that is true of religion which by definition is faith based. Scientists however observe the known world and find that patterns exist (when I say patterns I mean principles of science like photosynthesis, cellular respirataion, law of gravity, etc). When something is presented that goes outside of the bounds of those observed principles scientists are extremely skeptical. A lot of "inventions" or "devices" that are talked about here are usually totally unproven scientifically, yet there are too many people who believe based on the claims of the inventor and their "believers" that they are the next big thing. Maybe after rigorous scientific testing the "devices" might have merit but that needs to be seen. The example I have seen is multiple postings about a device that claims it can eliminate malignant tumors based on vibrations. Fine, lets see the studies that prove that out..in the appropriate physiology..but it does fly in the face of accepted biology. Yet its hailed as "the cure for cancer" and gets raves while I post about something much more promising and based on sound science of using viruses to target and destroy cancer tumors gets ignored by many of the same people who hail the unproven device as "the cure".
3) Scientists who dispute "common wisdom" must have an agenda..ie are shills in the pay of someone, aren't true progressives, are secret agents for the right etc...Sometimes things that are widely held beliefs aren't scientifically accurate. The old chestnut that anything natural must be good and science goes agaisnt nature is the big one in my mind. How many natural things can kill us in truly horrendous ways? Ebola is natural. Rattlesnake venom is natural. Hell predators like sharks are natural. Nature is not pretty. But sometimes the things that people think are "unnatural" aren't even that. Take vaccines..which have been labelled by some as "chemicals". No. They are modified microorganisms. Sometimes they are simply microorganisms that have been heat killed..Vaccines basically expose us to the pathogen we are trying to protect agaisnt in a way that causes minimal sickness..vaccines work WITH the immune system. What is more natural than that? Unless of course you think that no intervention in the saving of lives should ever be done..that we should just let "nature" take its own course? Oh and those who think all herbs are natural..They are just as much "chemicals" as anything in modern meds (vinegar is acetic acid for example). And some of these so called natural cures are EXTEMELY DANGEROUS. Laetrile for example is promoted as a treatment for cancer...When it really is a compound with CYANIDE in it. Digitalis (fox glove) in very small doses can be good for the heart but in larger doses is deadly to humans....
Finally not so much a stereotype as another way that people try to justify pseudoscience is the "statistically significant" findings that are often pushed as proof of something. So feeding a rat compund x causes the cancer risk to double..Sounds bad right? Well when you look at the statistics you see that the risk jumps from .5% to 1%. A big jump statistically perhaps but really insignificant in terms of how much of a risk it is. This type of fear mongering seems to happen all the time here...And we pretty much object to the admin manipulating us through the use of fear (terrorism) so why is okay for us to do the same thing to others?
Also I have had people push studies on me as proof of ESP where the success rates were statistically significant from random...the success percentages were 20-40% for the most part. To which I must say: Would anyone go to a doctor that was only right 30-40% percent of the time? I don't think so. Can you imagine the outcry if the FDA approved a drug that was only effective 30-40% of the time.....Critical thinking skills are very important and too many people seem to not only lack them but attack those who are trying to apply them



As someone who cares passionately about science, rationality and of course the future of this country, I thought it was important to share my POV on this. I will get off my soapbox now...

In short Indigo Children has no scientific basis and therefore falls under the category of psuedoscience and therefore is going to get little to no respect from this group. If that is not your opinion, you do NOT belong here.

[uriel1972]

1. Hear,hear nt.

:applause:

[beam me up scottie]

2. Indigo/Crystal children = scientology for the left

Nobody likes to be told they're not special.

Thanks for the timely reminder, Sue. :)

[GoneOffShore]

3. Thanks for the repost.

[Starry Messenger]

4. Thank you, TZ

This forum is one of my favorites to lurk in. I was starting to wonder what the heck was going on in here lately. Good post.

[bluedawg12]

5. That was excellent!

Here is what came to mind after reading this post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Method

The Discourse on the Method is a philosophical and mathematical treatise published by René Descartes in 1637. Its full name is Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason, and Searching for Truth in the Sciences.
<snip>

The Discourse on the Method is one of the most influential works in the history of modern science. It is a method which gives a solid platform from which all modern natural sciences could evolve. In this work, Descartes tackles the problem of skepticism which had been revived from the ancients such as Sextus Empiricus by authors such as Al-Ghazali<1> and Michel de Montaigne.

Descartes modified it to account for a truth that he found to be incontrovertible.

Descartes started his line of reasoning by doubting everything, so as to assess the world from a fresh perspective, clear of any preconceived notions.

The following quote from Discourse on Method presents the four precepts that characterize the Method itself:

"The first was never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such; that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and to comprise nothing more in my judgment than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of doubt.

The second, to divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible, and as might be necessary for its adequate solution.

The third, to conduct my thoughts in such order that, by commencing with objects the simplest and easiest to know, I might ascend by little and little, and, as it were, step by step, to the knowledge of the more complex; assigning in thought a certain order even to those objects which in their own nature do not stand in a relation of antecedence and sequence.

And the last, in every case to make enumerations so complete, and reviews so general, that I might be assured that nothing was omitted."

By clear and distinct he suggests the evidence of the senses.

The enumerations have in time developed into many forms. He suggested drawing boxes on a paper, and connecting them. This idea has led to a multitude of graphic thinking aids that we use today.

There is so much to be said on this topic. So much money and hope are wasted on sham cures annually, and even if they do no physical harm, they may do financial harm to those least able to absorb the error.

The pillars of scientific research are peer review and reproducibility by others, As you mentioned, the claim of "statistical significance" can be misleading.