Fine, We'll Just Have Our Own Science Over Here, Then

Comments

1. I think that one reason there’s all this pseudo-science out there is a misunderstanding of how science works.

   I don’t think that most people understand the difference between a theory and hypothesis - I had trouble keeping the two separate until at least halfway through my undergraduate education, and, most importantly, I think I would have trouble distinguishing the two in any field other than mine.

   A related issue is that having experiments come out unexpectedly and having disagreement about what experiments mean is part of a healthy, growing science. Until you have spent time learning about how science is done (which is different from learning science) all you know is that scientists keep contradicting each other, which leads people to think that a lot of scientists don’t know what they’re talking about or that science is more subjective than it is.

   Both of which can lead to bad pseudo-science.

   Posted by Rachel on May. 06, 2004 at 8:36 AM [#]

2. Hi, Rachel. Those are all trenchant points. There’s no doubt that the Creationists in particular have done a great job exploiting the natural give-and-take between professional biologists. I think these points of confusion that you mention will always be exploitable.

   But my main concern is that in some fields, the pseudo-scientists are so highly organized and well-financed. This is less of a problem for subjects such as Free Energy, where most educated laypersons can tell the difference. But in other areas, such as biology, nanotechnology, and of course your own field, the problem is more serious.

   I dunno, maybe I don’t have enough historical perspective. Maybe the 19th-century crackpots were just as organized and tenacious and influential as the 21st century crackpots. I like taking the long view of history — it often makes Today look a lot better by comparison.

   Posted by Evan on May. 06, 2004 at 9:16 PM [#]