To keep your mind open and to learn how to check the evidence are two critical tasks for developing your skills as scientific critics (or tuning up your BS-meter, as a friend would have said), which is the main goal of our exploration of the science behind the comic heroes’ superpowers.
Wheel of the zodiac:- 6th century mosaic
I believe it’s important to start mentioning that pseudoscience isn’t diabolic stuff, nor a set of evil dogmas designed to mislead the public opinion. Moreover, it is not to be eradicated from modern civilization.
It turns out that real science likes pseudoscience and has received its help many times in the past (being alchemy and astrology the traditional examples of this type of collaboration).
Newton spent as much time (or maybe more time) in testing alchemy as he did experimenting with physics, and Carl Gustav Jung was openly attracted to esoteric ideas (to name two ground-breaking scientists).
Why is science better than pseudoscience? Because it is universal; anyone can replicate it anywhere. Sure some kind of expertise is required to perform an experiment but, what this statement means is that anyone with the same level of expertise can obtain similar results following the same science.
Pseudoscience, on the other hand, often requires special abilities which are unique to the practitioner (and mostly mysterious). In this context, you could say that science is more “democratic”, as it always allows a second opinion.
For instances, if someone tells you that she can read your mind but you must trust her in order to validate her powers, she could be saying the truth (or not), but it’s just not scientific. Science does not require faith of any kind.
This is a very important conditioning and it works likewise (fierce atheists or agnostics that insist in using science to demonstrate that God doesn’t exist are dismissing the basic principle of science).
Pietro Longhi – the alchemist
The other important factor to help differentiate one from another is that real science requires organized skepticism, meaning that science works upon the opinion of a community. Pseudoscience, on the other hand often works secretly.
For the scientific method, the intervention of a community is a requisite that cannot be bypassed; this is very important because is the best proved way that modern science has found to avoid bias.
The last element to differentiate real science from pseudoscience is that the former requires to be quantified; if it cannot be expressed in terms of numbers we are probably not talking about science,
Summarizing, if you want to know if you are dealing with real science or pseudoscience, you have to ask yourself these four questions:
1. – Can it be replicated?
2. – Does it require faith?
3. – Has it been tested by a community?
4. – Can it be quantified?
The scientific method is very strict and requires that all four conditions have to be present in order to accept an idea as scientific.
Likewise, science should be used to prove false only those ideas subjected to those four conditions. For instances: science can prove HOW the universe was made, but science can’t answer WHY it was made.
The Alchemy of Happiness – (1058–1111).
To end this post, I would like to list a number of science-like disciplines for you to use the four questions to determine whether they are real science or pseudoscience:
1. Telepathy
2. Numerology
3. Democracy
4. Medicine
5. Sociology
Put your opinions about them in the comments box, please.
Hi there! I’m Gustavo and Frugal Science is about helping you rediscover your exploring nature and enjoying the benefits of looking life in a different way. Anybody can become a true explorer –it’s our nature-, all you need is a mindful attention and some frugal science.
I think “pseudoscience” is only valid in books (they are called fiction) or movies (same logic). I also disagree with some who try to elevate all sociology to true scientific levels. It is NOT pseudoscience, but much of what comes under its veneer lacks the true scientific discipline.
Democracy is a way of governing- and not a science at all. Given the fact that America is an example of Democracy, it is clear that science is not among its underpinnings; it requires faith that the 535 folks elected will actually do something of benefit to the country- and not themselves.
Medicine is, indeed, a science, but many a charlatan tries to envelop their quackpot ideas in the discipline. So, not all that purports to be medicine is valid science.
The rest of your list- pseudoscience at best. (Or, is that worst…)
Einstein once pointed out that we use a very small percentage of our the ability of our mind. This really underscores how important it is to keep an open mind. With the wide gap from our full potential, it would be naive to think we currently have it (fill in with life, science, God, truth, relationship…) mostly figured out. Tremendous advances obviously have been made because of scientific approaches taken to achieve them.
Some areas like relationship and the existence of God may be less about replication and quantification and more about an intangible not in the scientific equation. Perhaps even these challenging topics are well served by some of the aspects of scientific method??? Great post!
I’d guess only 4 and 5 although now I am very curious. Great post, very interesting as easily understood. Thanks for sharing!
Language barriers can sometimes confuse the differences between legitimate sciences and pseudo-sciences. I work at a chiropractic college, and I often see our grads called “quacks” and worse because the philosophy of chiropractic uses language that is metaphorical. There is hard evidence research of the benefits of chiropractic, but the term “vertebral subluxation” seems to block some folks from considering how it works.
I have read that anatomical research shows that cells communicate through the use of photons — highly oversimplified light — so that the rather flowery description of a sub-lux-ation, not enough light getting through, is accurate and does not require belief to measure.
1. Telepathy Not
2. Numerology Not
3. Democracy Not science
4. Medicine Not always, new info always makes old stuff wrong
5. Sociology Not considered a hard science
Any scientific concept can be overthrown by new advances in technology. Learned scientists once thought the world was flat and they all agreed with each other (even though other scientists in Eqypt much before knew that was B5).
Great post, Gustavo.
1. Telepathy–naw
2. Numerology–nope
3. Democracy–?
4. Medicine–elements could be, I guess, but I agree with Ann, new findings and the body’s actual changing in response to medicine nullifies it?
5. Sociology-naw
Very thought-provoking post! I really enjoy your blog.
Amy recently posted..“Big Hair Rehearsal” begs to ask: WHY??!
Some scientist said that for science to go forward the previous generation of scientists have to die first! The field is THAT conservative. Sooner or later they will be “proved” wrong. LOL
I like science, enjoy when there is some kind of “evidence” behind stuff. But I also take it for what it is many times. A time sensitive theory.
Great responses, everybody! You al got the idea correctly. Medicine is the only one that seem to made you struggle, maybe because it was the only one that did not ended in “y” (I put it that way in purpose). Medicine is a global name for many sciences so it should be considered as science in its general form; this doesn’t mean that science can’t be wrong sometimes. Medicine is a good example of science in continuous development.
Gustavo recently posted..Why Do We Dream?
I had to think hard about medicine… all the others I wouldn’t consider a science based on your criteria. Medicine is always evolving and much of it seems like guess work, trial and error, etc. So I think there is science behind medicine, but it cannot always be replicated in each individual case. I’m not sure if I’m making sense. A very interesting post!
Suerae Stein recently posted..Fab Foto Friday – Textures in Glass
Hmm, to me, definitions are human inventions. As humans, we created a pretty tight definition of “science.” To me, it’s much more fluid. Back in the day, there were disciplines that were considered to be foolish and then, they were scientifically validated. I don’t feel like waiting for science to validate that yes, there’s a real thing such as intuition or mysticism. Even medicine is an evolving thing. At times, I think we are so rigid about this stuff as humans. Geesh! I mean, this blog post is really an invitation to think, but it seemed more playful to me. It didn’t ask, “What’s your rigid definitions of science?”
Lisa recently posted..How I Became Enlightened Listening to the Rolling Stones
Sorry, Lisa…
That is not acceptable. That is EXACTLY why the know nothings are unwilling to do something about climate change (or the less politically acceptable global warming) trend.
It’s why the know nothings declaim that dinosaurs were the companions of Adam and Eve.
It’ why the know nothings declare that the earth is only 6000 years old.
No. Science is clearly defined. There may be things that push the limits of that definition, but mysticism and gut feel just don’t get the chance to creep until the rubric of science.
RAAckerman@Cerebrations.biz recently posted..Fish Tales
Roy, where does the placebo effect fit into all of this?
Roy….Declaim?
And Roy no, science is NOT clearly defined. But ignorance is. No offense intended.