2. Science & Pseudoscience Flashcards
Q: What is the demarcation problem in the context of science?
A: The demarcation problem involves setting a dividing line between science and pseudoscience. This is crucial for identifying reliable knowledge and distinguishing it from claims that only superficially resemble scientific methods but lack rigorous validation.
Q: Why is it important to distinguish scientific knowledge from pseudoscientific knowledge?
A: It is essential to differentiate scientific knowledge from pseudoscientific knowledge because scientific research provides reliable information that guides critical decisions in areas like climate policy, healthcare, journalism, and education. Mistaking pseudoscience for science can lead to harmful consequences, such as environmental degradation, ineffective treatments, misinformation, and flawed educational curricula.
Q: What is the difference between non-science and pseudoscience?
A: Non-science encompasses fields such as metaphysics and religion, which do not claim to follow scientific methods. Pseudoscience, on the other hand, imitates scientific structures and claims legitimacy without adhering to the rigorous standards and methodologies that characterize true science, thus misleading people about its validity.
Q: How should we differentiate between unscientific behavior and unscientific propositions?
A: Differentiating between unscientific behavior and unscientific propositions involves recognizing that an individual’s conduct might be unscientific without necessarily implying that the theory they support is inherently unscientific. Evaluating the scientific merit of propositions should be based on evidence and methodology rather than the behavior of their proponents.
Q: Define pseudoscience.
A: Pseudoscience refers to non-scientific fields or theories that pose as science. These often mimic the appearance of scientific research, including the use of technical jargon, publishing in journals, and organizing conferences, but they fail to meet the criteria of scientific rigor and quality.
Q: List three characteristics of pseudoscience according to Hansson.
A: According to Hansson, three characteristics of pseudoscience include:
Belief in authority: Relying on the opinion of perceived authorities rather than empirical evidence.
Unrepeatable experiments: Conducting experiments that cannot be replicated independently.
Hand-picked examples: Selecting specific cases that support the pseudoscientific claim while ignoring contradictory evidence.
Q: Why must we avoid reading our present understanding back into the past?
A: We must avoid reading our present understanding back into the past because it is anachronistic and overlooks the historical context. People in the past did not have access to our current knowledge and understanding, and expecting them to know what we know now misrepresents the development of scientific ideas over time.
Q: What does Sober suggest about demarcating people versus propositions?
A: Sober suggests that we should separate the evaluation of scientific propositions from the behavior of individuals. A theory’s scientific validity should be assessed based on its adherence to scientific principles and evidence, not on the conduct of those who support it.
Q: Give an example of a field that was once considered scientific but is now pseudoscientific.
A: An example of a field that transitioned from being considered scientific to pseudoscientific is phrenology. Once regarded as a legitimate science that studied the shape of the skull to determine character and mental abilities, it was later discredited and recognized as pseudoscience.
Q: What is the impact of pseudoscience on public understanding and education?
A: Pseudoscience negatively impacts public understanding and education by spreading misinformation and undermining trust in legitimate scientific research. It can lead to poor decision-making, such as rejecting vaccinations or climate science, and can corrupt educational curricula by promoting unscientific ideas, thus misinforming students.
Q: What is the primary claim of creationism?
A: The primary claim of creationism is that living things are the result of intelligent design by God, which directly contradicts the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection. Creationists argue that the complexity and adaptation observed in living organisms are evidence of a divine creator rather than natural processes.
Q: What is Paley’s watchmaker argument?
A: Paley’s watchmaker argument posits that the intricate design and functionality of a watch imply the existence of a watchmaker. By analogy, the complexity and adaptation of living organisms suggest the presence of an intelligent designer. Paley argues that just as a watch’s design indicates a creator, the natural world’s complexity points to divine creation.
Q: How does the likelihood principle apply to Paley’s argument?
A: The likelihood principle in Paley’s argument suggests that observations of complex and well-adapted organisms strongly favor the hypothesis of intelligent design over the hypothesis of random physical processes. It asserts that the probability of observing such complexity is much higher under the assumption of a designer than under random chance.
Q: Why is natural selection not a random process?
A: Natural selection is not a random process because, while genetic variations occur randomly, the retention and propagation of these variations are determined by their impact on an organism’s survival and reproduction. Beneficial traits are “selected” because they enhance fitness, making the process of evolution guided by non-random factors.
Q: Explain the difference between likelihood and probability using Sober’s example.
A: In Sober’s example, likelihood refers to the probability of an observation given a hypothesis (P(O|H)). For instance, if the hypothesis is that gremlins are bowling in the attic, the likelihood of hearing rumbling is high. However, this does not mean the hypothesis itself is probable. The difference lies in understanding that high likelihood (P(O|H)) does not equate to high probability of the hypothesis being true (P(H|O)).
Q: How does Dawkins’ “Blind Watchmaker” analogy explain evolution?
A: Dawkins’ “Blind Watchmaker” analogy explains evolution by comparing it to a combination lock where correct sequences are retained while incorrect ones are altered. This process, akin to natural selection, significantly accelerates the development of complex adaptations compared to pure randomness, as advantageous traits are preserved and accumulated over generations.
Q: What is the “Trickster-argument” in creationism?
A: The “Trickster-argument” in creationism claims that God intentionally designed flaws and deceptive features in nature to test or trick humans. This argument is untestable and unfalsifiable because it can be used to explain any observation, thus lacking scientific rigor and not providing a basis for empirical investigation.
Q: Why is the design hypothesis considered unscientific or pseudoscientific by biologists?
A: The design hypothesis is considered unscientific or pseudoscientific by biologists due to its lack of empirical support, inability to make testable predictions, and reliance on unfalsifiable assumptions. Its proponents often use flawed methodologies and fail to provide evidence that meets scientific standards, leading to its rejection by the scientific community.
Q: What role does political agenda play in the creationist movement?
A: The political agenda in the creationist movement involves efforts to reduce or eliminate the teaching of evolution in public schools and to promote the biblical creation story as an alternative. This agenda aims to influence educational policy and public perception by presenting creationism as a scientifically valid perspective despite its lack of scientific credibility.
Q: How does the demarcation of creationism relate to education?
A: Demarcating creationism as pseudoscience is crucial for education because teaching pseudoscientific ideas as if they were scientific undermines the quality of science education. Students need accurate, evidence-based information to understand the natural world, and promoting creationism in science curricula misinforms them and hinders their scientific literacy.
Q: What is Karl Popper’s criterion for a scientific hypothesis?
A: Karl Popper’s criterion for a scientific hypothesis is falsifiability, meaning that the hypothesis must make predictions that can be tested and potentially disproven through observation and experimentation. A hypothesis that cannot be tested in this way does not qualify as scientific.
Q: Why is the falsifiability criterion criticized?
A: The falsifiability criterion is criticized for several reasons, including the tacking problem, where untestable components can be added to a falsifiable theory without affecting its falsifiability. Additionally, observations are theory-laden, meaning they depend on pre-existing theories, and negations of generalizations may not be falsifiable, highlighting the limitations of relying solely on falsifiability to demarcate science.
Q: What is Duhem’s thesis regarding theories and auxiliary assumptions?
A: Duhem’s thesis asserts that scientific theories make testable predictions only when combined with auxiliary assumptions. This means that a theory alone does not imply specific observations; instead, it is the conjunction of the theory and additional assumptions that lead to testable predictions, highlighting the complexity of scientific testing.
Q: How can creationist theories be made testable according to Sober?
A: According to Sober, creationist theories can be made testable by incorporating specific auxiliary assumptions that generate testable predictions. For example, if the theory posits that God created organisms perfectly adapted to their environments, we can test this by examining whether all organisms exhibit perfect adaptation, looking for evidence such as the panda’s thumb or human tailbone.
