Pseudo-Sciences

Many fields use scientific jargon because it gives them the illusion of having rigour and intellectual depth. Like certain (post-modern) philosophies. In his book, Intellectual Impostures, Alan Sokal had this to say about one such philosopher, Jean Baudrillard:

“One finds in Baudrillard’s work a profusion of scientific terms used with total disregard for their meaning, and above all in a context where they are manifestly irrelevant. Whether or not one interprets them as metaphors, it is hard to see what role they could play, except to give an appearance of profundity.”

But let’s forget the charlatans for now.

Instead, let’s focus on the cases where the reason for aping science and its methods isn’t malicious. Stephen Law points out that people genuinely believing that they are scientific even while believing in pseudo-science:

“Our cultural landscape contains many belief systems which are intellectual black holes: as you approach them you find yourself getting drawn in. Eventually you pass the event horizon, and there is no escape, or at least it can be extremely difficult to think your way out again. The people that are trapped inside these belief systems are often intelligent, well-educated people. They really believe that what they believe is rational and reasonable and perhaps even scientifically credible.”

That reminded me of what Richard Feynman once warned against:

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool.”

So what are the common mistakes made in these cases? Feynman again:

“The idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.”

Of course, as Feynman pointed out, science and the scientific method aren’t synonymous! He cites the (in)famous instance when scientists kept confirming the incorrect finding of an earlier experiment simply because that finding was famous:

“When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard.”

Some protest that the scientific approach is arrogant in claiming to be the only way to get the answer. Not true, says Law:

“I want to acknowledge that there remain many mysteries, and that many may be, in principle, beyond our ability to solve. That’s all fine. What I object to is the way in which some appeal to mystery in order to try and get themselves out of trouble, in order to deflect attention away from the fact that there’s no real evidence to suggest that what they’re saying is true (and perhaps even evidence contradicts what they claim).”

Feynman, ever so aware of the practical difficulties of real life, wished his students the following to increase the odds of maintaining their integrity:

“I have just one wish for you--the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom.”