The Great Tragedy of Science.
Throughout the course of this blog, we have talked a lot about things that are either considered Science or Pseudoscience. But what do those words really mean? And why should we trust what Science has to tell us?
Science, in very simple terms, is the systematic study of the universe. The goal of science is to organize knowledge into testable and replicable explanations of the things we see in the world around us. As a perequisite to engaging in scientific experimentation, scientists must be simultaneously open to any and every new idea as well as cautious and skeptical about these new ideas.
It is not enough for one scientist to conduct one experiment and then claim the result of that experiment is representative of reality. Mistakes can be made. Observers and participants alike can unwittingly influence the outcome of any given experiment. Scientists are obligated to be critical and to carefully evaluate their experiments before deeming them to be points of scientific data. In order for any idea to be universally accepted within the scientific community, it must first run the gauntlet of the peer-review process, during which myriads of scientists are scrutinizing, criticizing, attempting to replicate the experiments done, and otherwise attempting to disprove the new idea. As a result, scientific hypotheses are always tentative in nature. Ideas that survive this peer-review process are not necessarily “final truth,” but they have been confirmed to have a higher probability of truth. In order for new scientific ideas to survive, they must — in the words of the late Carl Sagan — “survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny.”
It is because of this peer-review process that we can claim to understand anything. Just as all life was once subject to the survival of the fittest paradigm, all scientific ideas are subject to a constant process of self-purification. Ideas that don’t hold up under scrutiny, or are unable to be replicated—like the Cold Fusion of Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons—go the way of the large flightless bird that was once native to east Madagascar.
Scientific discovery and prevailing belief frequently butt heads. As new experiments are done and new information becomes available, older ideas and ways of thinking are often challenged (flat, hollow, young Earth, geocentrism, etc.). In these cases, the burden of proof (the obligation placed on one party to furnish evidence in support of their claim) lies not with the party being challenged, but with the challenger. The reason for this is that it remains impossible to prove a negative (you can’t prove something doesn’t exist). It can only be proven that something has a higher likelihood of being true, or that more evidence exists in favor of one idea over another.
All of this is to say that, through the study of the physical world using the scientific method, we can get closer and closer to a model of the universe that exactly represents reality.
Unfortunately, like an asymptote, our scientific understanding may only bring us closer to understanding reality, rather than actually reaching the point at which scientific understanding and reality are one and the same.
Even with its shortcomings, science has served humanity exceptionally well, and most people recognize that. As a result, those who wish to garner support for a fringe idea frequently hijack scientific jargon to make their ideas sound more credible or evidential. This is pseudoscience. Pseudoscientific claims not only contradict actual existing scientific data, but they frequently defy common sense, as well. Scientific language is used to attempt to provide evidence for anything from the healing powers of magnetic fields, alternative medicine, crystals and pyramid power, to extra-sensory perception, numerology, and “Creation Science.”
Consider the following claims regarding magnet therapy. Magnets have been claimed to help with:
- The restoration of cellular magnetic balance
- The migration of calcium ions to help heal bones and nerve tissues
- Enhancing circulation, since biomagnets are attracted to the iron in blood and help increase its flow to aid in healing
- Restoring the pH balance of cells
- Hormone production
It sounds pretty good, right? Here’s the problem: it’s complete nonsense. Real scientific evidence does not support any of the claims listed above. It is possible that, in the cases of personal anecdotes regarding the efficacy of magnets, there is a placebo effect at work—but other than that, there is no scientific reason to believe magnets can help with any of the claims above.
Magnet Therapy falls under the category of “alternative medicine.” Medicine is only medicine because it works. Yes, many medicines do not come without their side effects, but medicine works. If “alternative medicine” worked, it would just be called medicine, and it would be widely used and accepted.
Consider also the following claims made by Pyramidiology. Pyramids have been said to:
- Preserve food
- Improve health
- Sharpen razor blades
- Function as an “incubator of thoughts”
- Generate power or energy
Unfortunately, while these claims don’t even sound scientific, many people still believe in the “power of the pyramid.” Again, there is no scientific evidence to support these claims. The studies and experiments have been done. Pyramidiology is pseudoscience.
Creation Science is possibly one of the most misleading of all of the topics listed above. The phrase conjures images of Christians in lab coats and laboratories running experiments and testing hypotheses and Biblical claims. That would be great, if that’s what was actually going on. However, the very nature of the Bible and its alleged divine origins forbids questioning and testing. Originally, as it turns out, “Christian Science” was intended to be an entirely faith-based endeavor and is therefore unfalsifiable and inadmissable.
The term “Christian Science” arose out of a need to rebrand what used to be called “Biblical Creationism.” When federal courts ruled that teaching Biblical Creationism in schools was a violation of the First Amendment principle of the separation of church and state, Biblical Creationism was renamed “Creation Science” and, eventually, “Intelligent Design” in order to circumvent the ruling of the Supreme Court. By removing overt references to God, Intelligent Design eventually slithered back into textbooks and grade school curriculum all around the country. Claims made by Creation Science are totally untestable and unfalsifiable pseudoscience. Moreover, if there was something actually behind Creation Science, it would just be called Science. There isn’t. It’s not.
Scientists don’t have a hard-on for destroying the magical, wondrous and fantastic ideas that abound. They are simply studying the world in an honest, methodical, and logical fashion. It is unfortunate that new revelations in science often cause the death of some of the world’s most treasured ideas. Basing our ideas on the evidence of reality is the only way to have an accurate vision of reality at all, and the only way to acquire that evidence is through scientific experimentation. The constant formulation, testing, observation, and revising of hypotheses is the only reason we can claim to know anything at all.
If Science were simply a faith-based endeavor, it wouldn’t be at all crazy or illogical to say that when the sun sets, dolphins jump out of the ocean and fly into space, where they rejoin their species amongst the stars. Evidence shows us that, unfortunately, this just isn’t the case.
But evidence doesn’t matter to faith. If you have faith that dolphins are an intergalactic super-species, no one can convince you that they aren’t — no matter what the evidence or the science says. This is why we must base our view of reality on Science and evidence—not faith or pseudoscience — and why we must leave unfalsifiable claims like this one in the realm of irrational discourse and novelty posters.
And this is also what the Victorian biologist Thomas Henry Huxley described as the great tragedy of science:
“The great tragedy of science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” — Thomas Henry Huxley, 1870
