The Gamut of Scientific Hardness — from Relativity and Quantum Physics down to Homeopathy and Flat Earth

1 Introduction: The Problem
„Pseudoscience is easier to contrive than science, because distracting confrontations with reality — where we cannot control the outcome of the comparison — are more readily avoided.“
Carl Sagan, US-American astronomer, 1934–1996.

It is paradox: The distinction between science and pseudoscience is for many people more difficult than ever. Despite two thousand years of Science, we have probably a similar degree of acceptance of pseudoscience in the population today as in ancient Rome, e.g. regarding astrology. But in ancient Rome there was almost no substantial knowledge about stars (planets and stars were just points of light; the planets on magic paths). Today we know that the moon is a rocky holey ball and that Venus is a scorching sphere with a poisonous hot atmosphere — and any connection to chances in our love life is absurd.

There are several reasons explaining this uncertainty in the public, or at least the impression of uncertainty:

1. The painful breakdown of traditional concepts. Examples include „a creator of the world“, who is also a kind of arbitrator for all humans individually, and „life after death” which could finally balance all injustices in the world. The conception of the world has been simple, straightforward and coherent. What was regarded as „unknown“ was regarded as divine or estimated to be explained later. Today, many pillars of religion are lost, as e.g. a life after death or physical miracles. There are questions and gaps in the personal world for everybody.

2. Modern science has shifted the fundaments of science into non-understandable areas of thinking, only accessible to non-understandable mathematics. In many areas of knowledge, the amount of learning has increased tremendously and, in particular, includes a vast number of „learning effects“ contradicting apparently „common sense“. Space can be curved, time can be shortened or dilated, there is real chance without traceable cause. But this is all not „belief“ or „opinion“- it is proven. There is no escape from these strange and hard-to-believe effects.

3. The experience of perceived inferiority. The overwhelming amount of „I-do-not- understand-stuff“ generates the embarrassing feeling that there might be people much smarter than me. One psychological counter-measure is the downplaying of the relevance of these areas of knowledge and resistance to adopt new facts in these fields at all. A psychological consolation is the construction of an own (pseudo‑) truth probably even in contradiction to the dominating counterpart. An (almost) innocent example is the widespread bias against mathematics. Not so innocent is the development of hate against „the adepts“. The aversion to science is dangerous in a democratic society where there is the risk of self-amplification by electing the corresponding politicians.

4. People with low education tend to overestimate their own ability to understand the world. This matches with the illusion of superiority in those areas, even with respect to experts. This attitude corresponds to the popular Dunning-Kruger effect in psychology. Dunning and Kruger had tested this hypothesis by experiments with students, e.g. on tasks in logical reasoning. After the tests, the students had been asked about their ranks in the group. The incompetent students overestimated their rank, the competent students underestimated theirs. The latter effect is often observed with scientists who cannot grasp the lack of knowledge of „normal“ people in their field or, even worse, some unbelievable wrong notions in their heads.

It is well known that two opposite psychological effects — feeling inferior and feeling superior — can be held in the same person as „Cognitive Dissonance“. But it is also known in creating stress in the individual and tensions in the society.

5. The ease of information distribution in the Internet and the ease to find like-minded people. The Internet has de facto removed the distance between people, at least information-wise. Therefore it is very easy to distribute some messages, increase and amplify their outreach and to form a community around an idea or a theory or doctrine. Of course, the facility of information is also available for proper science and the truth, but often there is more dubious information than proper scientific info. and it is easier to find. This is particularly true for commercially relevant areas, e.g. in health or medicine. False theories in general come in various contradictory „solutions“. The false side therefore has the trend to sectarianism. The correct info (“the truth”) has one big advantage: In science, there is the tendency to converge under the pressure of undeniable results of repeatable experiments. But the false voices are pervasive and appear quite often in the Net in a fashionable, seductive and professional guise.

2 The Proposal of a Scientificality Scale
„Therefore Agassiz says, when a new doctrine is proposed, it goes through three stages. First, people say it is not true; then, that it is against religion; and in the third stage, that it was long known.“
Karl Ernst von Baer, German-Baltic natural scientist, 1792–1876.

The quote mentions Jean Louis Rodolphe Agassiz, a Swiss-American natural scientist, 1807–1873. This is a historical polemic description of the road of an idea from the beginning to the establishment. A mundane version stems from the English Science Fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke who distinguishes the stages
(1) “It’s crazy — don’t waste my time.”
(2) “It’s possible, but it’s not worth doing.”
(3) “I always said it was a good idea.”

These roadmaps of ideas are valid (if successful) for the life cycle from first conception to acceptance in the main stream. The example of Arthur C. Clarke was the rise of the idea of possible manned spaceflight to become reality.

These three stages are more humorous or witty phases of ideas between concepts to accepted science. We try to establish a simple system to classify Science and Pseudoscience as seen at a certain point of time. For this, we use the concept of a continuous scale or gamut.

Scales are common in science to describe the degree of a quality (Bordes, 2017); examples are scales for

Wind force (Beaufort),

Earthquake energy (Richter),

Earthquake damages (Mercalli),

Collision probability of an asteroid with the earth (Turin),

Sexual orientation (Kinsey),

Mineral hardness (Mohs).

The hardness scale of the German geologist and mineralogist Friedrich Mohs (1773–1839) seems to be a model for a metaphor on the scientificality of a doctrine. Mohs hardness gives an ordered („ordinal“) scale for minerals using the scratch resistance of minerals. The harder material scratches the softer one and gets a higher Mohs hardness value ascribed. Fig. 1 shows a geologist’s kit to determine the Mohs hardness of a mineral in the field. The mineral scale starts with soft Talc, the softest mineral, (Mohs hardness 1, the left upper probe in the box) and extends in nature to the hardness of diamond (Mohs hardness 10, right lower probe). The higher in the scale, the harder is the material and the stronger are the chemical bonds and the more they are crosslinked. In quantitative physical measures, the hardness scale is extremely non-linear („absolute hardness“). If the hardness is measured through abrasion, the wear ratio between talc and diamond is about 1 to 4.6 Million (following the „Rosawil scale“).

Fig. 1 A geologist’s Mohs kit. An analogue for a scale of sciences.
Source: Wikimedia Commons, Hannes Grobe.

It seems natural to transfer the notion of hardness from the physical scale for minerals to a metaphysical scale for the rigorousness of knowledge. For a qualitative classification of science and pseudoscience, we introduce a double-sided scale with positive (for science) and negative values (for pseudoscience).

Fig. 2 Scientific Hardness Table with Examples after Hehl (2012).
Translation from the book „Die unheimliche Beschleunigung des Wissens“ (The uncanny acceleration of knowledge), in German, 2012.
Publisher VdF at the ETH Zurich, Zurich.

For numerical assignments, we use ordinal numbers from +3 through 0 to -3, equivalent to the range from top science down to (hopefully) obsolete and discarded doctrines.

Given the set of problems in measuring, we abstain at the moment from defining a more fine-tuned scale. Also the geological Mohs-scale of hardness is not utilized beyond half steps. The scientificality hardness scale is shown in the table in Fig. 2.

Level +3: Fundamental scientific
The meaning and the importance of objects in the top level „+3“ is „fundamental scientific“. Fundamental refers to knowledge, i.e. laws and data, about the cosmos from the largest dimension of the universe to the smallest in particle and subparticle physics. The range extends from general relativity for the universe as a whole, down to the standard theory of elementary particles. Located in level +3 are those fundamental physics areas. This implies science with a certainty and accuracy level beyond common human precision in human natural life.

The philosophical implication of „fundamental scientific“ is probably the least understood and least appreciated of all levels. It is a different level than every day science. This level corresponds to areas of our knowledge beyond mundane comprehension, everyday notions and regular high-precision: precision is typically up to „16 digits“ as, for example, the frequency of the hyper fine transition is measured to 6 834 682 610.904 324 Hertz. The GPS-systems we employ internally need a similar precision. The fundamental laws are valid with this precision to our knowledge in the whole universe; the elementary constants too. As far as we know, they hold true for the universe since the beginning.

These fundamental laws have a common glue: mathematics. Humans have developed a lot of mathematics. Some parts of this maths are intellectual toys, but others are more discoveries in nature and human inventions at the same time. The discovery (not invention) of mathematics as skeleton of physical laws solves the question of induction, the philosophical problem brought up by the British philosopher David Hume (1711–1776). The limited certainty or human questionability drawn from a couple of experiments is replaced by the mythical certainty of mathematics. This combination or even fusion of physical nature with an exact mathematical skeleton, creates a system of this superhuman level of precision and connectivity. This idea has been popularized by the physicist Eugene Wigner in a lecture named: „The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences“(1960).

We illustrate this in Fig. 3. In the picture, a magnetic crane picks up ferrous pieces of metal. The pile of metal is lifted and stuck together through the magnetic field which magnetizes the whole assemblage and glues it to the magnet like magic. The metal pieces signify the network of observations and laws. The magnetic field symbolizes the mathematics in the universe, and the magnetic forces the cohesion of the physical world at level +3.

Fig. 3 A magnetic crane to unload metal.
An analogue for the role of mathematics in the fundaments of science.
After Walter Hehl (2018).
Source: WikiHow: How to sell scrap metal.

Level +2: Established Scientific
Many human systems of knowledge use also mathematics, but rather than as some auxiliary means than inner values. Statistical mathematics has been developed in the field of psychology, for example. This is the level of typical academic education with knowledge of various levels of certainty. Some of the teaching contents are unrenounceable as, e.g., the evolution; others are probably nevertheless subject to change in the long run. For example, the presumed distance of the galaxies as estimated in the 1920‘s, had to be doubled in the 1950’s. On the other hand, there is a human mechanism trying to improve the reliability: the collective appreciation by peers resp. their critical rejection. The limits are dubious authorities twisting the opinions and determining the „truth“, maybe even by cheating. In natural sciences, the countermeasure can be the request of repeatable experiments. But often experiments are not easy to perform and contain flaws. This wise quote from Galileo Galilei from the year 1632 refers to the authority issue and warns:

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”

Of course Galilei voted for experiments.

Level +1: Transient Scientific
Systems of knowledge accumulate the ideas and works of thousands, or even millions of people. It is a collection of many small and big ideas. The main carriers of scientific work are probably PhD-students. At the beginning of a project, the Prof. typically asks the applicant for the topic he would like to work on. Maybe he proposes:

„There is a bump in this curve we do not understand. It is probably exciting — are you interested?“

It is not very favorable for the student when the result of his investigation two years later is nothing exciting. The starting idea was, as seen post-mortem, just hair-brained. For the home institution and the Prof., this is still a valuable outcome as long as a scientific paper can be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The underpinning of the science world are scientific papers: According to several sources, there have been:

1. More than 50 million scientific papers published from 1665 up to 2009,
2. 2.5 million new scientific papers are published each year
3. In around 30 000 journals.

In addition, there are non-reviewed web sites with scientific and less scientific reports. Of course, there is a coming and (often) going of ideas and proposals.

At level +1, the scientific journalist is in search of topics with a wow-effect for the public, or even for other experts. This is comprehensible and useful, but does have consequences. In areas which are in particular attractive, maybe even emotional, the result of this information explosion gives the impression to the public of generic uncertainty, of toing and froing, contradictoriness and of unreliability of science in general.

It would be particularly sad if the deepest insights of science, for example in the physics of the cosmos or in biology around evolution, would be regarded as uncertain only because the rigid core of knowledge is mistaken for the level-1-style of frontier research, or with some questioning of external details.

Level 0: Neutral
Systems for change, growth and, in general, for creativity, need some space for freedom of thoughts. Such space is called a „sand box“, set aside from the real world to think freely in a „brainstorming“ mode. Originally, brainstorming is a method to find new problem solutions within a group session in a room. People in the meeting are asked to come up with ideas around a topic spontaneously and freely without repression. For science, we have as working space the whole world science community, often non-experts included. Motivation in science is often just reputation, appreciation or fame; in applied science accompanied by the desire to achieve patents and develop business opportunities.

Fig. 4 illustrates these levels of science between 0 and +2, and with potential human weakness. To symbolize the anthropomorphic feature within these levels of science, we use Lego toy building blocks. The growth in scientificality is reflected in the growing coherence and structure from left to right: From unordered ideas to sets of connected structures, and finally large or even very large pragmatic systems, here symbolized in the toy New York Empire State Building.

Fig. 4 Symbolic Transition and Buildup of Human Knowledge Systems
from singular and spontaneous ideas (Level 0) to connected systems (Level +2).
The anthropomorphic aspect of these science levels is illustrated by using Lego building blocks as components.
Pictures:
Lego-engineers-club, worldlegochallenge, worldlegochallenge

Another simplistic view of the sequence in growing hardness are „Idea-Level“, „Project- or PhD Thesis-Level“ and finally „Textbook-Level“.

There exists a long philosophical discussion about scientificality; most famous is probably the criterion of falsifiability as defined by the British-Austrian philosopher Karl Popper: It is nonsense to want to prove a physical theory as complete as a system of logics, but you might disprove some statement or prediction which causes the system to collapse. (In most cases of a failing prediction, people modify the theory). But to make it clear: A change in the Level +3 — system has to reserve the established measured core of laws and values with the mentioned 16 digits. This is similar to the mechanics of Albert Einstein not annihilating the mechanics of Isaac Newton — the new mechanics is an extension; the old one the limiting case for small velocities. On the other hand, if some scientist wants the Level +3-system to be extended, a measurable effect has to be found and proven. Even extremely attractive ideas, such as string theory or multiverse, are so far more natural philosophy than science. Maybe a good notion is parascience, because these areas are outside the ordinary academic doctrines but still within the university.

In many areas of science, and particularly in the humanities (in German the „Geisteswissenschaften“), the basic problem is the vagueness and indeterminacy of the involved objects: the basic elements and the claimed relations are „soft“ as metaphorically illustrated in Fig.5. It is neither possible to precisely define the circumference of a cotton ball, nor have rigid connections in between.

Fig. 5 A heap of cotton balls as metaphor for „soft“ sciences‘ systems.
Picture source: alibaba.com

The classical examples of some „soft sciences“ are e.g. classical psychoanalysis and psychology by Sigmund Freud and Alfred Adler. After the philosopher Karl Popper, the notions and conclusions of these soft sciences are so soft that they are immune against any critique: the argumentation (or „scientific analysis“) can easily be adjusted by 180°. Popper states 1962 in „Conjectures and Refutations“ that
„every conceivable case could be interpreted in the light of Adler’s theory, or equally of in Freud’s.“

„Sciences“ of that level of softness are more literature than science. But of course there is a lot of valuable knowledge nevertheless in science between level 0 and +2. But one has to be aware that in a numeric comparison, we have here „human“ certainty values (in probability terms) of typically 0.3 („statement is true“) vs. 0.6 („is false“) for e.g. sociological assertions vs. „superhuman“ precision with 16 digits in physics for fundamental universal constants!

Popper had been rather rigorous to denote the doctrines of Freud et al. as pseudoscience. Strictly speaking, this is of course justified. But there is a grey area between science and pseudoscience which is necessary to allow progress. As you learn in history of science, there are many false ideas in science which are forgotten and not taught in common textbooks. We distinguish two levels of pseudoscience depending on the claimed feedback to reality (Fig. 6). This drawing illustrates that new ideas might have multiple impacts:

1. First, the new idea might entail a sequence of additional, questionable pre-requirements (right side),

2. Second, if the new idea works, it might have impacts on established science (left side). This could uncover an error in established science. In this case, this impact would become normal science. If not, this impact would be in a disconcerting contradistinction with confirmed.

Level -1: Exterior to Science
Pseudoscientific assertions where the followers do not claim any connection to reality are presumably not too interesting. They are probably considered more as fairy tales. This is also the situation of those fashionable post-modern physical theories at the margins or deepest depths of physics, as long as they do not show some specific provable new feature accessible to an experiment.

In Fig. 6, the left side illustrates the real world as explained by the tower of sciences from level +1 to +3 (at some point in time). Perhaps it would be preferable to reverse the pyramid to show some broadening in quantity when going up the science ladder starting with physics.

Fig. 6 Classification of Pseudosciences depending on the asserted relation to reality.
Left are the set of established doctrines and facts; right are those additionally required when a new idea or doctrine is introduced.

New ideas without connection are trivial; pseudosciences with weak connections are presumably also tolerable. Strong interactions may have repercussions which threaten the established science.

A friendly pseudoscientific story demonstrating Level -1 „truth“ is the 1950 comedy film „Harvey“ based on a play with the same name. The best friend of the protagonist is a Pooka, a Celtic mythical animal (Fig. 7). Because there is no direct interaction of the Pooka with reality, we regard this as innocent and as a Level-1-action on the scientificality scale.

The situation with the second example, astrology, is more important. In fact, astrology comes in two flavours following just the classification of Fig. 6 „innocent vs. strong“ and at the same time the segmentation of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. Both classes of astrology are based on the position of the planets as seen from earth at the time of birth. The level -1 part of astrology (limited connection in Fig.6) is called natural astrology, and predicts from the horoscopes the general conditions of nature for human activities, e.g. „is it a good day today for an operation“ or „is it a good day for a battle“?

Fig. 7 Harvey, a 6 foot 3.5 inch invisible rabbit.
After a comedy play and film. The rabbit is only visible for the main protagonist.
Oil painting by Igor Novikov. Property of the author.

In the middle ages, natural astrology was regarded part of the natural sciences and empirical „knowledge“. It is different to the „hard“ part of astrology called „judicial astrology“ which we are positioning below in Level -2. This kind of astrology claims to be tied into the causal network of the world, even overruling chance or God’s will.

We partition another Pseudo-idea in a similar way into two levels: life after death. Level -1 is a belief of some kingdom with decedents in some ethereal form. There is no interaction with the living. The ghosts from level -2 intervene in the real world violating the laws of physics.

Level -2: Counter scientific
Ideas and doctrines at this level are more disturbing than level -1, both the scientist as probably the citizen. Judicial astrology pretends to predict events like „the king will die in a month“ or similar. This implies physically impossible predictions (in this case, only poisoning could guarantee a spot landing). The religious equivalent from the church’s point of view, was the crime to try to fix the will of God through a prediction.

Any continuation of the life of a human after death with retroaction into the real world has today become totally incredible. Spirit and mind are not entities separate from the body, and are lost after death.

A particular appropriate level -2 — example is the doctrine of homeopathical medicine, invented in 1796 by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann. In general it is difficult to falsify a doctrine, and in particular those related to health and soft diseases. Neither the health

state is clearly defined, nor have „soft“ sicknesses sharp boundaries like many kinds of pains and psychic problems. There will always be someone claiming „it works, it has healed me“. The falsification has to be indirect and by reflection. This is sometimes just by “common sense” but, hélas, it is often unbeloved intellectual work.

Fig. 8 Tower of Some Counterfacts Required for Homeopathy.
From: Walter Hehl, 2018. Gott konvers, vdf Zurich.

Fig. 8 is a tower of collected pre-requisites for the functioning of homeopathy. Any scientific proof of one of these assumptions would be worth a Nobel Prize in physics or medicine and would turn the sciences upside down, incl. Level +3 fundaments. But Hahnemann did not know the atomic limitations. For him presumably, the atomic theory was a philosophical concept. Most of his drugs do not contain a single atom or molecule of the declared drug, be it arsenic trioxide, dog excrement, Echinacea or breast milk. If one would make a series of experiments with a drug in smaller and smaller concentrations, these homeopathic drugs called „highly potent medicine“ would be the perfect placebo limit. From an epistemological point of view, it is just a European kind of voodoo.

Doctrines around pure physics are easier to define, to analyze and, if appropriate, to be rejected. An example is telekinesis, the alleged ability to move a physical body only by one’s spiritual „force“, in German Geisteskraft. Fig. 9 shows the trick of a historic magician who spent a year in prison for claiming „reality“ for this hoax „levitating a chair“.

There is no proof for any naive interference of the spirit with physics, neither causing a motion without physical cause as pretended in telekinesis, nor for any vicarious communication from mind to mind without physical channel as claimed in telepathy. But even in recent times there have been successful magicians as the Israel-British Uri Geller managing to get some acceptance of parapsychology in the public up to Level 0, i.e. into doubt „maybe it works?“. These parapsychological doctrines are level -2 but could likewise be rated as level -3, i.e. obsolete.

Fig. 9 Faked telekinesis in a Paris cabinet 1875.
The hoaxer Edouard Buguet claimed real levitation of a chair.
Bild: Wikimedia Commons, metmuseum.org.

Level -3: Discarded
It is well known that failing scientific ideas have a long life; this is sometimes called Planck’s principle after the German physicist Max Planck (1949):

„A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.“

The reversal of this principle gives a good statement for the disappearance of pseudosciences:

„An old pseudoscientific doctrine does not vanish by convincing its supporters and making them see the error, but rather because supporters eventually die and a new generation grows up that does not know that pseudoscience idea.“

Therefore, the best approach for the promotion of „good“ science would be not to mention pseudosciences at all. But the supporters are neighbors, co-citizens and co-voters in the democracies. Following this maxim, it is even hazardous to mention old pseudosciences. A good, respectively bad, example are Bach flowers. Invented and named by the British homeopath Edward Bach (1886–1936), it is a second-order homeopathical doctrine extending the idea of Hahnemann. But I assume Hahnemann would not appreciate the Bach version of homeopathy because he tried to follow rational processes. Bach developed his medicines by collecting dew from various flowers, pouring the dew liquid into brandy and diluting it with water. The claimed curative effect of the specific flower was given by Bach in free intuition and according to mood. Bach flowers had already been forgotten and considered too esoteric, but the doctrine was revived in 1970 through an article of a journalist. Bach flowers had been level -3 for forty years, now they are back to level -2.

Fig. 10 An incontestable level -3 doctrine: „We live in the hollow earth“.
The physician Cyrus Teed is the inventor of this extreme world view.
Bild: Wikimedia Commons, MATTYMOO101

A very special example of pseudodoctrine is the ideology of a flat earth. Since 2 500 years educated people believed the shape of the earth to be spherical, for empirical and for philosophical reasons. The revival of the flat earth idea occurred 1828 with a bestseller by the American author Washington Irving, who wrote very successfully about Christopher Columbus‘ alleged fight against that belief. Today the flat earth is the symbol for naivety. It is level -3.

An example of a level -3 doctrine, stronger „pseudo“ than the flat earth, and presumably unchallenged at -3, is illustrated in Fig. 10 from around 1870: The hollow earth with the inhabited surface at the inner side of a sphere. The brain-damaged US-American physician Cyrus Teed is the inventor of this extreme world view, which he called Koshanity. This theory seems to be too fantastically wrong even for extremely unsuspicious truth searchers.

As a side remark, in 1692 the English astronomer Edmund Halley proposed that the earth is hollow (but we live on the surface). His argument was based on a wrong calculation by Isaac Newton for the density of the moon. In the year 1692, „a hollow earth“ was a level +1 thesis, today it is level -3. The earth has, on the contrary, an iron-nickel core.

3 Conclusions

„There are plenty of compelling, interesting, and viable ideas that are out there, and there will always be plenty of room for speculation about the unknown. But whenever we consider a novel alternative idea, we have to do it through the lens of scientific rigor.“
Ethan Siegel, American astrophysicist, 2020.

This guideline to use the „lens of scientific rigor” is difficult for the respective scientist, and even more difficult for the layperson. For the scientist, it is difficult for functional reasons and by the subject of the idea, but also through personal biases (the hardest is to argue against one’s own favorites). For non-professionals, it is even harder. It would mean education and objectivity. What often happens, is the opposite. We call this the „Willy-Nilly-Effect“. A person learns a statement, is happy to have learned something new, in particular also to show to other people, and neglects any critical questions (and forwards the „new“!). Often the whole acceptance is just hanging on one single feeling.

Fig. 11 The issues of willy-nilly acceptance of pseudosciences.
The illustration of the willy-nilly acceptance of new „truths“ by ignoring questionable consequences which are associated. The supporter is deceived by concentrating on a single feature and neglects side effects and hidden pre-requirements.

A new „truth“ must not destroy established knowledge, and one should at least later be able to explain the consequential prereqs. Unfortunately, a scientifically thinking person will probably hesitate to accept some new information instead of accepting willy-nilly, will see the consequences, and as a result appear to non-scientists as an „arrogant intellectual.” Fake security gives an often cited quote of Shakespeare
„There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt in your [our] philosophy“.
Hamlet to Horatio in „Hamlet“, 1.5.167–168.

Horatio had just seen a ghost. This is often misinterpreted as a kind of instruction or encouragement „believe what’s right in front of your eyes, even if scientists disagree“. But the „philosophy“ which Shakespeare refers to is the state of “our” science at some point of time. Without education, the levels of scientific hardness blur in the heads of people. This blog entry from an anonymous supporter of parapsychology (2009) confounds the extremes level +3 „fundamental scientific“ with level -2 or -3 „counter scientific“:
„I ask myself if Einstein’s theory of relativity is not a parascience, too.“

The only remedies to prematurely jumping on a doctrine, are knowledge and education, both on the subject area and on the mechanism of how new reliable knowledge comes into the world. A basic understanding and correct classification of the scientific hardness of the knowledge objects we encounter in life (news, facts, doctrines) brings dignity into one’s life, including one’s religion. Some widespread use of the Scientific Hardness Scale (SHS) could help to give to everybody an advice or a warning about new (or old) information without suppressing the personal freedom of judgement.

4 Literature

Bordes, Philippe 2017. Connaissez-vous les échelles de mesure scientifique?

caminteresse.fr/culture .

Clarke, Arthur C. 1973. Report on planet three. Signet Press, Calcuta.

Hehl, Walter 2012. Die unheimliche Beschleunigung des Wissens (the uncanny acceleration of knowledge). In German. VdF an der ETHZ, Zurich.

Hehl, Walter 2018. Gott kontrovers (God contradictory). In German. VdF an der ETHZ, Zurich.

Planck, Max 1948. Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie. Barth, Leipzig.

Popper, Karl 1943. Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge, New York.

Sagan, Carl 1996. The Demon-haunted World. Headline, London.

Wigner, Eugene 1960 . The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in Natural Sciences.
Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 1960, Vol. 13, pp. 1–14.

Wikipedia. Bach flower remedies, drawn October 2020.

Wikipedia. Dunning-Kruger effect, drawn October 2020.

Wikipedia. Mohs scale of mineral hardness, drawn October 2020.

Wikipedia. Koreshanity (The main beliefs of Cyrus Teed), drawn October 2020.