The
History of Skepticism
The
Philosophy of Skepticism
Pseudoscience
and the Paranormal
Definitions
of Categories
· Anomaly - deviating
from the common or expected; inconsistent with what would be expected; unexpected
· Paranormal - beyond
the normal; beyond science; not scientifically explainable (Greek para =
beyond)
· Preternatural - beyond
nature; exceeding what is natural or regular; inexplicable by ordinary means
(Latin praeter = beyond)
· Supernormal -
above the normal (Latin super = over, above).
· Supernatural -
above the natural; existing outside the universe or nature; transcending the
laws of nature (Latin super = over, above).
We often use the word paranormal
to refer to all of these phenomena, but there are important specific
differences:
Anomalous phenomena are uncommon and weird, but certainly natural and
presumably ultimately explainable by science. Anomalies are natural but
exist due to the current limits of scientific knowledge. Skeptics readily
accept the existence of anomalies and investigate and attempt to explain them
using scientific methods.
Paranormal, preternatural, and supernormal are synonyms; these terms refer to
phenomena that are beyond or above the normal or beyond or
apart from nature and natural law as now understood. Paranormal
is the preferred term. These phenomena are currently unexplained by science,
but are potentially part of nature and thus potentially explainable by modern
science. Paranormal, preternatural, and supernormal phenomena either
exist due to our incomplete or incorrect understanding of nature by science, or
do not exist because of a false understanding of nature, incorrect application
of science and critical thinking, or self-deception. Skeptics maintain that
such phenomena more likely do not exist for the reasons stated, but
nevertheless investigate and attempt to understand them.
Preternatural is somewhat confusing since it implies the existence of a
realm or world beyond the natural that cannot be studied by
science (since science studies only the natural using only naturalistic
methods--this is termed methodological naturalism). This realm, however, is
best described by the word supernatural (described below). It is best to
understand the word preternatural as meaning aside or apart from
the natural, not beyond it as the word literally means. I state this
because preternatural has always been used in a sense synonymous to paranormal,
not in the sense synonymous to supernatural. I will use the term paranormal
in preference to preternatural throughout this site, despite
paranormalist possession of mixed Greek and Latin roots (preternatural is
derived solely from Latin roots), because it is used far more frequently in
both the popular and skeptical literature.
Supernormal, despite using the modifying root super, is a
synonym of paranormal and preternatural rather than supernatural. The reason is
because the word normal is a highly general term referring to common
human experience, while natural has specific epistemological meaning in
its reference to the totality of nature and natural law. So despite being above
the normal rather than beyond the normal, supernormal phenomena
and explanations are not supernatural phenomena and explanations. I will
not use this term further, and I recommend that it not be used by the skeptical
community because of its confusing etymology and definition.
Because English is a language with
words composed of roots from three separate language families--Germanic
(Anglo-Saxon), Latin, and Greek--it frequently has more than one word for the
same or similar thing, action, or idea. This sometimes makes English confusing
and difficult to learn or understand, since it has so many words with the same,
similar, or subtly different shades of meaning. This is the case with the three
terms described above.
Supernatural phenomena are above nature, not part of nature, are
never explainable by science (as science is understood and practiced), and are part
of a realm that includes miracles, deities, and other nonscientific and
mystical processes and entities. Supernatural phenomena either exist but
we can't know or understand them by science (as now practiced, since science
studies only nature, i.e., the natural part of reality), but only by philosophy
or religion, or do not exist due to a false philosophical understanding of
reality due to ignorance or self-deception. Skeptics maintain that supernatural
phenomena almost certainly do not exist for the reasons stated, but
nevertheless investigate and attempt to understand why people believe in them.
In my continuum of scientific
demarcation (normal science <--> frontier science <--> fringe
science <--> pseudoscience), anomalous phenomena are found in both normal
and frontier science, alleged paranormal phenomena are found in both fringe
science and pseudoscience, and alleged supernatural phenomena are found only in
pseudoscience.
Continuum
of Scientific Demarcation
The Continuum of Scientific
Demarcation is one of the most important concepts of modern skepticism, but
also one of the most poorly understood. Even supposed experts who have written
books about pseudoscience do not fully understand it. Here is why: Most
philosophers of science have concluded that it is very difficult to identify,
draw a line between, or demarcate science from pseudoscience. Philosophers of
science--such as Karl Popper, Larry Laudan, and Michael Ruse--have examined the
demarcation problem. While there are sincere and compelling claims to the
contrary, it is fair to say that the current philosophical understanding is
that it is difficult or impossible to demarcate science from pseudoscience.
The problem with this conclusion is
that most philosophers of science and scientists have a poor understanding of
pseudoscience because they have never seriously studied it. In addition, most
skeptics and scientists have a poor understanding of the philosophy of science.
Only someone who has studied all three--science, pseudoscience, and the philosophy
of science--will begin to appreciate the complexities of the problem and be
able to reach a more cogent conclusion.
My solution to this problem--and I
claim this as an original insight and contribution to skepticism and
philosophy--is that there exists a continuum of normal science to frontier
science to fringe science to pseudoscience, and that while it is indeed
impossible to demarcate any specific topic or study between any two adjoining
categories--i.e., between normal science and frontier science, between frontier
science and fringe science, or between fringe science and pseudoscience--it is
possible to demarcate between non-adjoining categories, such as between either
normal or frontier science and pseudoscience. The criteria to do this involve
primarily the oft-cited and rigorously-analyzed possession of empirical
evidence, presence of critical and logical reasons, possibility of testing and
falsification of claims and phenomena, and the actual practice and history of
such testing that results in either falsification or corroboration of
hypotheses. In addition, I will include the contributions of the scientific
community, publication of results in peer-reviewed literature, motivations and
intentions of proponents of claims, and other topics in my analysis.
I do not intend to develop my thesis
in detail here (this would take a long paper or short book, which I eventually
intend to write). I only want to point out three things (from the point of view
of my analysis of the demarcation problem): First, many weird or unusual
phenomena and claims involving science are properly classified as fringe
science, not pseudoscience. I frequently see ESP, UFOs, intelligent design, and
other topics referred to as "pseudoscience" in the skeptical literature,
when they are not--they are definitely fringe science. Second, and perhaps more
controversially, some topics many would call frontier science are really fringe
science: these include proponents of enormous subsurface deposits of
pre-biogenic petroleum resources, global energy shortage alarmists, ESP, and
the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life.
Finally, and most controversially, I
believe it is possible to demarcate science from pseudoscience using
universally-acceptable necessary and sufficient criteria. Of course, this is
possible only because I first define pseudoscience is a particular way that
some philosophers might consider restrictive or too narrow. However, I argue
that they have ignored or are ignorant of the category of fringe science, which
I explicitly demarcate from pseudoscience with more than adequate
justification. In brief, essentially no one in the philosophical literature of
scientific demarcation correctly separates fringe science from pseudoscience,
which I regard as an essential step. In fact, many do not even separate normal
from frontier science. Every philosopher or scientist who has investigated the
nature of pseudoscience or classified it has proposed usually two or very
rarely three distinct categories. But there are four.
Let's briefly examine these criteria
of demarcation and see how they help to recognize the four categories along the
science-pseudoscience continuum.
To be continued . . .
The Bad Geology Site was created by
Steven Schafersman for the skeptical investigation of three different areas of
the science of geology that are often innocently misinterpreted or deliberately
misrepresented:
1.
Incompetent or misleading
interpretations of real geological processes, events, deposits, and structures,
usually characterized as fringe science.
2.
Incompetent, misleading, or mystical
interpretations of real or alleged geological anomalies, often resulting in
fringe science or pseudoscience.
3.
Deliberately deceptive claims about
alleged paranormal and supernatural geological phenomena, always resulting in
pseudoscience.
For Bad Geology, the term
"Bad" covers quite a range, and means invoking
scientifically-incompetent, misleading, paranormal, or supernatural
explanations for both real geological phenomena and alleged geological
anomalies. Such interpretations are not necessarily "bad" in a moral
sense, since many--perhaps most--proponents of bad geology are sincere in their
wrong-headed beliefs, in spite of the fact that they should know better. Some
nonsense purveyors, however, know that what they advocate is preposterous,
unscientific, and violates natural law, but they nevertheless attempt to
convince other individuals to accept such nonsense as good science; this
pseudoscientific activity is unethical. In short, most fringe science is not
unethical but simply ignorant, while all pseudoscience is unethical.
Another reason for the name
"Bad Geology" is that other skeptical and anti-pseudoscience sites
have previously chosen this name: Bad Astronomy,
Bad Meteorology,
Bad Chemistry,
and Bad Physics. I am
following their lead for a descriptive title. My site, and theirs, could have
been called "Anomalistic, Misleading, Ignorant, Paranormal, Mendacious,
Fringe, and False Science," but that awkward title would be silly
compared to the succinct "Bad Science."
There are three categories of Bad
Geology:
1. The incompetent or misleading
interpretation of real geological or scientific data by legitimate scientists
for often irrational or non-scientific reasons. The geologists or scientists
who make such claims think their research is frontier science, but it is fringe
science. Geological examples examined here: Alarmist or doomsday predictions of
imminent global energy shortage, cosmic clouds or comets of viruses and
bacteria travelling within interstellar space (panspermia); immense
non-biogenic deep-subterranean petroleum deposits. Non-geological examples:
cold fusion, SETI, global warming not anthropogenic, tobacco company health
science, etc.
2. The misinterpretation of
geological or scientific anomalies, events, and processes by non-scientists for
the purpose of questioning the efficacy of science, promoting mysticism,
celebrating the mysterious and unknown, and ignoring the use of critical
inquiry and serious scientific investigation when making claims. Individuals
who characterize this category are usually non-scientists, and their efforts
constitute fringe science but can be pseudoscience, depending on the nature of
the claims. Geological examples examined here: submerged, jointed beachrock
interpreted as structures built by ancient astronauts; deposits of metallic
spheres attributed to ancient alien manufacture rather than a natural process;
geological structures and earth history formed by ancient catastrophic
planetary interactions and impacts. Non-geological examples: ESP, UFOs,
cryptozoology, crop circles, intelligent design by superhuman aliens,
astrology, ancient alien astronauts, etc.
3. The misinterpretation of
geological or scientific phenomena by using paranormal, preternatural, and
supernatural explanations. This is pseudoscience and is the work of
pseudoscientists, some of whom have advanced training and degrees in science,
but who subordinate their knowledge to their religious, spiritualist, or
Biblical literalist beliefs. Geological examples examined here: polystrate
fossils and mass accumulations of fossils deliberately attributed to a global
flood; thousands of feet of sedimentary strata attributed to a global flood;
cutting of the Grand Canyon in only a few rather than millions of years.
Non-geological examples: Biblical (young-earth) creationism, scientific
creationism, intelligent design by a deity, free energy and perpetual motion
machines, etc.
All three categories of bad geology
will be investigated on the Bad Geology Site. There is a continuum (described below)
of normal science, frontier science, fringe science, and pseudoscience; only
the last two classes will be investigated by Bad Geology.
(to be continued)
The pages of the Bad Geology Site
contain links to websites that skeptically examine specific pseudoscientific,
paranormal, and supernatural topics and expose them as false beliefs. The Bad
Geology Site also contains links to sites that support the truth or
authenticity of such topics. The reason for this is quite simple: as advocates
of free inquiry and critical thinking, we want readers to examine the evidence
and arguments on both sides of publicly-controversial topics and, using their
skills of critical inquiry and analytical reasoning, reach their own reliable
conclusions regarding the veracity or duplicity of the subjects. This cannot be
done if one examines only one side of an issue, and since the best advocates
for the veracity of unreliable and implausible ideas like theism, creationism,
UFOs, paranormal phenomena, etc., are the individuals and organizations who
believe in them, it is appropriate to let them present their own arguments. The
pursuit of truth cannot begin in earnest unless an author makes readers aware
of viewpoints and arguments that oppose one's own. The only way to make
informed decisions using critical inquiry is to investigate all the evidence
and intellectually analyze opposing sides of controversies. We encourage
authors of theist, creationist, paranormalist, and other pseudoscientific websites
to provide links to our skeptical webpages if they agree with this principle.
Skeptics maintain that proponents of
unreliable and implausible claims often misinterpret the evidence, misrepresent
their lack of evidence, ignore the counter-evidence, use isolated quotes out of
context to make unwarranted points, and use arguments that are specious,
sophistic, misleading, invalid, or illogical. We believe that curious and
intelligent individuals who practice critical thinking will see through the
tissue of tendentious falsehoods that support theism, creationism, and other
unreliable supernatural and paranormal beliefs. We therefore encourage
interested readers to investigate both sides of these topics and investigate
opposing websites as well as this skeptical one. The artful advocacy tactics
used by supporters of strange and unreliable paranormal and pseudoscientific
beliefs may work in a Sunday school class, a courtroom, a debate, in popular
books, and on television or radio, but science and critical inquiry are not
practiced by trying to fool the person you want to convince. Remember, we are
supposed to be after the truth here, not an attempt to win a successful
propaganda campaign.
(Help stop spam: substitute @ for AT
before mailing.)
"Sapere Aude •
Dare to Know!"
Last updated: 2004/07/28
0 comments:
Post a Comment