|
Freethought Association Minutes, October 13, 2004, #172
Science, Pseudoscience and Just Plain Nonsense;
A Consumer's Guide to Scientific Claims
Dr. Gregory Forbes speaks to the Freethought Association
Announcements
We had our Book Sale fundraiser before and after this meeting and there was a large assortment of literature to peruse.
As the third and final debate between Senator John Kerry and President George W. Bush was occurring this evening, a vote was taken as to preference for viewing the debate at the Wealthy St. Theater, or taking our traditional route of going to Vitale's Restaurant after the meeting. The debate won by a show of hands. FA Chairman Seaver mentioned that our group was a non-partisan one.
October 15th, Jeremy Crow will host the next Book Discussion Group at his house at 7:30PM. The featured book is The President of Good & Evil by Peter Singer. For location and details: (616) 706- 2033 or jaycosmos@yahoo.com. The following discussion group meetings for this month will be on October 21 and 28.
This Saturday, the 16th, the Van Oosterhouts are hosting a Bonfire Party at their house, weather permitting, at 7:30PM. Bring your own drinks and chairs or blanket. 3834 Hayes, Marne, MI. Call or e-mail for directions: (616)- 677-5536, Jabivo@aol.com.
October 20, at 7PM, Jason Pittman will host the next Freethought Movie Night at his house. For location and details, call (616)-634-2471 or e-mail to jpittman@backpacker.com.
The next regular meeting will be on October 27, on the topic of “The Separation on State Street; Michigan's Own Witch Hunt.” This will be presented by Rob St Mary, documentary film maker.
On October 28 (Thursday), FA Secretary Charles LaRue, will have his art reception at the Pepper Moon Gallery, from 6PM-9PM. The gallery location is 1502 Wealthy St., SE, GRMI-06 (across from Yesterdog). Tel. # (616) 458-6925; e-mail: peppermoon@comcast.net. The show title for this exhibition of paintings is “Facets & Phases” and will be on until November 24.
Rounding out this busy month, on October 30, 6PM, the Seavers will again host the Freethought Halloween Party at their home. Bring food and a dish to pass. Costumes optional. Bon fire, hayride and fun! 10721 52nd Ave. Allendale, MI. Call (616) 892- 9300 or e-mail to info@freethoughtassociation.org for directions.
Also on October 30, Jennifer Beahan will host the 2nd Freethought Womens' Group, 9AM at her house; 734 Lockwood. For more information and details: (616) 706- 2029 or musiqueforlife@yahoo.com.
We were reminded of the Spring '05 Garage Sale the Freethought Association is having. Please save your items for donation to this fundraiser.
Our Third Quarter Financial Statement was made available at this meeting.
The industrious Jennifer Beahan will be representing the Freethought Association at this year's Community Interfaith Thanksgiving Service at St. James Church on November 22, at 7PM.
Science, Pseudoscience and Just Plain Nonsense; A Consumer's Guide to Scientific Claims
Our topic for this meeting was “Science, Pseudoscience and Just Plain Nonsense; A Consumer's Guide to Scientific Claims.” It was presented by FA Board member, Gregory Forbes, PhD; Director of the Michigan Science Evolution Education Initiative; Director of the GVSU Science Center, and Professor of Biology at Grand Valley State University.
As a Board member of the Skeptics Society, which produces the Skeptic magazine under Michael Shermer's headship (author of Why People Believe Weird Things, Denying History and other rationalist books), Dr. Forbes is keenly interested in how people perceive the bogus claims made by the purveyors of pseudoscience and other distortions. As a professor (and recent Teacher of the Year award recipient), he is dismayed by encounters with students possessing bachelor's degrees who are clueless as to how to discern what is valid in scientific claims. Not all who disseminate faulty information, or spread reports of phenomena that are not well researched and scientifically vetted, are hucksters and charlatans, though those who are not well versed in critical investigating skills and do not understand what constitutes good science reporting are easier prey to both the intentional and unintentional fonts of false claims. Dr. Forbes talked about the science news stories or what passes for investigative reporting on scientific methodology, such as Unsolved Mysteries, where the public gets a great deal of misleading information that is more geared toward entertainment than factual representations.
Today, Dr Forbes said, we are constantly barraged by information that is of a scientific nature, noting that we live in a time where 95% of all the scientists who have ever lived throughout human civilized history are alive right now! With so many living and working scientists (relative to the history of human civilization) and so much of the fruit of scientific research touching our lives deeply in modern society, the flow of false or error ridden claims is more copious than ever. We need to be armed as consumers with what has been called our own personal “Baloney Detection Kits,” especially if we are to be informed consumers, making good choices as to public policies and other matters. This involves knowing what to look for, what to avoid, why it is important to be highly skeptical, what science is, and how it is done. This is what Dr. Forbes addressed in his presentation to us this evening. We also looked at how to determine if the experimental design is appropriate for the question being studied, how to make observations that lead to the creation of fruitful data, how to make deductions and inference based upon those observations, and interpreting the data that is generated from the scientific research that is conducted.
In looking for relationships, one must be able to understand the difference between correlation and causation. We must know to ask whether the research generated by the claimant has been peer reviewed or not and how to develop and use a sort of scientific spam detector. The skeptical approach allows for provisional approval for claims that fit in with other established understandings of the natural world and its workings. It is a method where the application of reason to any and all ideas is valid, rather than a position. Or, as Dr. Forbes stressed, it is a process; not some curmudgeonly stubborn characteristic.
Science always makes reference to natural phenomena and explains what is observed in the natural world, abiding by natural laws. Biology, astronomy, physics, geology, etc. can be studied in this framework, whereas supernatural claims, existing outside of the observable natural realm, cannot. Things under the purview of scientific study must be testable and falsifiable. As Dr. Forbes and others have noted, if one finds hominid fossilized bones in the same geological strata as one finds dinosaur bones, a la the Flintstones (and some Creationist- perpetrated hoaxes), then evolutionary biology is suddenly falsified. Also, conclusions that are drawn from scientific research are always tentative, pending additional information.
While mathematicians find beauty in an elegant formula and scientific theories are also considered beautiful when they explain a great deal and are fruitful, it has been noted by others that even the most beautiful theory can be utterly destroyed by one nasty little fact. Creationists are fond of trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory but they generate no additional, undermining data, conduct no scientific research and provide no alternative theory using scientific methodology. Genuine science is self- correcting. There are no ancient authority tomes that dictate a rigid belief for all time in science. When new information no longer supports a scientific construct, then the construction will require modification. Sometimes the whole construct must be tossed out—such as spontaneous generation-- when Cell Theory replaced it. Other times, the theory stands secure for a certain level within a given field of study, while needing to be enhanced for other levels. One example of this is Newtonian physics, which is fully operational and in accordance with known scientific laws in the study of classical physics. Einstein built upon this solid structure, to account for new understandings. The latter does not usurp or replace the former, but adds to the field, allowing research into areas not addressed by classical physics alone. Quantum mechanics is a further addition to the overall framework. Scientific research builds on what has been shown to work , which yields predictability. The late Carl Sagan talked of how the precision of predictability that science provides is the envy of any soothsayer or clairvoyant. It is also cumulative and progressive; scientists see further by standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before them; building upon their work.
Those who strive to belittle naturalistic science, often point to the hoaxes that gained initial acceptance in the scientific community at the time. But, as Professor Forbes said, we must consider who exactly it is who discredits the hoax. It is invariably scientists themselves who uncover flaws in the research design, or data that do not fit, etc. Psychics, shamans and Creationists never play the role of debunking false claims, for if they did, they would have to employ the very same scientific and naturalistic approach they decry to do it. The ideal scientific method works by doing thorough observation, which guides a line of questions. In trying to posit potential explanations, one develops hypotheses, which are then tested. Experiments are done using proper controls (to seek to eliminate bias). The generated data from these controlled experiments are then rigorously analyzed and critically evaluated. Tentative, provisional conclusions are created. This research is then subjected to the peer review process. This process is not made up of amiable, uncritically accepting, nodding heads of the kind seen when those of the pseudoscience community gather to hear each other's claims. Once research passes this difficult peer review hurtle, it can be disseminated.
One additional requirement for the result to be considered scientifically valid is repeatability. If experiments cannot be replicated by independent scientists, then the results are suspect. A famous contemporary case of this, that Dr. Forbes commented on, was when the announcement was made that “Cold Fusion” had been produced by two scientists (Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann). No other scientists, however, were able to replicate their experiments. Scientists cannot rely upon saying something happened at one time by divine fiat, using methods that are unobservable and untestable now. Science is a universal language. No matter the culture, religion, belief systems, political landscape, geographical location of those conducting experiments, the results of science will be universal. The aforementioned considerations can impede the progress of science for a time, but eventually sound science will prevail via its inherent self corrective process.
We next turned to issues relating to the experimental design, such as if it is appropriate for the question being investigated. We looked at how the sample size influences the results and how to achieve a good representative population even with fewer numbers studied. As a real- world example, Dr. Forbes discussed his own research into Green Sea Turtles and how only very small populations have been well studied to generate our worldwide understanding of this species. In addition to sample size and considerations as to how representative the sample is of the larger population, one must also regard other aspects of the experimental design such as if double blind studies were employed, to what extent the researcher's presence influences the results, consideration of the placebo effect and how the experiment is set up and conducted. He gave an amusing example to illustrate the importance of the correct set up and proper tools used in generating data, where a researcher uses a mesh net with four inch separations to sieve the waters in her study area. Even though she sieves a very large section of a body of water, thus getting a huge sample size, she would conclude that nothing smaller than four inches inhabits the waters, resulting in a false observation.
In making observations, the researcher has to acknowledge his potential to change what is observed by his very presence in the environmental milieu. Did Jane Goodall's actual insertion of herself into the primate populations she studied, for example, make an impact in the behavior of the subjects she studied? Another factor regarding observation is that we all perceptually interpret our environments in slightly different ways, subjectively. We all carry with us biases that color our perceptions. It is these factors that make eyewitness accounts of events notoriously unreliable, even though many people believe they are the most accurate way to arrive at their convictions (“I saw it with my own eyes!” and “Seeing is believing”). Some things seem self evident and therefore beyond critical review. The sun rises...well no.. the Earth moves around the Sun. We have blue blood inside us until it is exposed to oxygen from, say, a cut. Again, this is not the case. If it were, then hermetically sealed blood extraction devices should display bluish blood entering the cylinder and differently complected people should not see a greener or other hue to their subdermal blood.
This secretary is always amazed by the large number of educated people who correlate the full Moon with aberrant human behavior. When asked how this can be; what the mechanism is, they invariably declare that the Moon influences the tides on Earth so it must affect us too. This totally disregards how large masses affect each other gravitationally, and fails to generate a testable (or even sensible) model of causation, or to account for how the Moon, when reflecting toward us a larger area of sunlight, makes any more difference regarding our mental state than when it reflects, say, a crescent shape. If it is more sunlight that increases insanity (or lunacy, as the derived term for this erroneous belief), then should it not be the “full Sun” that drives humankind bonkers with the most potency? Why would its reflected light go what its direct source cannot? We are influenced more from the gravitational attraction of an apple hanging over our heads in an apple tree than from the Moon. Should not water in a bird bath fly Moon- ward, by their reasoning (reasoning that disregards the effect of large masses on each other), since the Moon can move the ocean tides?
Dr. Forbes presented us with a goodly number of images where multiple interpretations can be derived. Classic ones, such as the faces/vase duality, and others, including a saxophone player/ woman's face; a book turned away or toward the viewer (a la' the Nekker Cube); Easter Island head or the full body of an Eskimo; size distortion illusions; “trueness” of linear layouts illusions; a design that frustrates easy determination of whether it represents a spiral or concentric circle; the crone or young woman image; a picture from the Vanity series (usually depicting a woman before her vanity table that can also be seen as a large luminous skull), and several other examples of different ways that we view the same image. And that is the key point: we are all looking at the same images, yet drawing different observational conclusions from them.
The next step is to form inferences and deduction based on those observations. These observations, if done using correct scientific protocol and procedures, should now be free of the concerns sighted above. Dr. Forbes illustrated this part of his presentation by showing a depiction of two sets of fossilized footprints in a dig site. To do further digs and hopefully gather more data, the hypothetical research team will require more grant money. Their proposal will be given more consideration if it looks like what they have uncovered thus far will lead to more fruitful data. We were asked to presuppose what behavior was being exhibited by the two individuals who left those prints many millions of years ago. Then Professor Forbes revealed the results of the next adjacent dig. This new information caused many of us to suddenly go off in new directions in our deductive reasoning. As with all good scientific research, more fascinating questions arise from the work along with the provisional answers. More grant money is awarded to the industrious team and they uncover yet a third and final set of prints, which again took us off into novel ways of interpreting the data. We also viewed a series of photos of almost postcard- like, scenic views. We automatically assumed one correct designation of what the scene depicted. But in all the cases, it was something different and counter intuitive. We have to think beyond the obvious, face value, inference to explore other possibilities when interpreting presented data.
Next, we looked together at various press reports on science-related stories. The inferences that were intended for the readers to arrive at were bolstered by statistics, impressive credentials and a goodly amount of data marshaled together. One dealt with breeds of dogs involved in attacks on humans. If one followed the logic of the story, it would result in German Shepherds being more feral than Rottweilers or Pit Bulls. But this result neglects to take in the popularity differences for these canine breeds. In growing up, I often heard the old saw about how most auto accidents happen close to home, with the inference usually being that people are more careless and unfocused in familiar areas, so they let their guard down and are more likely to have a collision. It was never factored in that most people do the bulk of their daily driving close to home, while going on vacations or longer trips less frequently.
Another story showed how being married increased longevity in a man's life, with the inference being that the loving relationship lifts men's spirits, thereby increasing their general life expectancy. The story did not take into account spousal encouragement to get men to make regular doctor visits, have physicals or seek medical attention for problems that arise. A personal friend of mine was made aware of a small spot on his back by his wife. This turned out to be melanoma, which if she hadn't detected it when she had and had not urged him to have it checked out (and it was in an area he could not readily see, himself), he might not be alive today. Indirectly, it was her love for him that assisted in this positive outcome, but the same results could have been had with a personal physician or trainer working as an emotionally detached professional. In other words, one must look for other explanations besides the first-blush ones we so easily perceive, if we wish to arrive at a complete answer. Another story failed to account for the mental health and well being levels of individuals in the study group before the studies were conducted, thereby rendering the results (which were aimed at correlating their happiness index with a certain behavior) inconclusive and the overall story, misleading.
Sometimes these stories are homely little Parade magazine style ditties that cause no direct harm. However, even these foster unthinking acceptance, a damping down of critical thinking and scientific illiteracy. But in some cases they can result in very real public harm. One story Dr. Forbes showed us made it clear that its intended inference was that taking antibiotics increased the risk of breast cancer. Women seeing this may have been persuaded to stop taking antibiotics, with grave results. Nowhere in the report was there any thought to looking at the ages of the women, how other factors may have suppressed their immune systems, the environment, and a whole host of other possibilities, but instead confused correlation with causation.
One story's thrust was how much more violence exists in State prisons than in Federal ones. This was strengthened by an array of statistics. However, when one adjusts to factor in how many more State prisons there are than Federal ones, we end up with the opposite result. Looking beyond the take home lesson of another story which claimed that senior motorists have far fewer accidents than younger drivers, we see that when adjusted for the number of miles driven by these two groups, it is actually seniors who have the worse statistics. We are pattern seeing/seeking apes; we did not evolve to ponder all the various and sundry possibilities and angles of every issue. Those early ancestors who made snap decisions about aspects of their environment often avoided death in the dangerous environment our ancestors evolved in. Science, and scientific, naturalistic thinking is an extremely recent development in humankind's timespan and does not come to us automatically, whereas seeing supernatural explanations for phenomena does. If a rustling in the bushes generates wild imaginings in the hearer, the flight response is more powerfully triggered. Those who fled in terror from these fantastic mental images, tended to survive the slings and arrows from more prosaic, natural causes. Before there was a critical mass of humanity using the tools and techniques of science, it was harder to evaluate rainbows and Earthquakes; epidemic disease and other disasters from a naturalistic, materialistic perspective, so the default belief was that powerful supernatural beings authored these events for their own capricious reasons.
An amusing example that Dr. Forbes gave for faulty correlation of unrelated items was in stating that some 90% of convicted felons are bread eaters! What is it about bread consumption that causes criminal activity? one could ask facetiously. Further, prisoners have often shown their depraved dependence upon this drug by begging for it along with water. Bread can also be seen as a “gateway” food to such other, fatty, substances as jelly, butter, and peanut butter. He gave other droll connections between bread and negative behavior.
Another false relationship he presented was a story on how violent crime went down when there was an increase in people having concealed weapons, while not taking into account how violent crime went down in all states at that time, regardless of the number of people carrying concealed weapons. Events that simultaneously coincide do not a causation model make. At this time, Dr. Forbes spoke of Occam's Razor, which essentially says that when there are two equal explanations for data, the simpler one should be opted for. Naturalistic explanations do not tend to bring along with them a whole body of other extraneous untestable items to muddy the waters, in contrast with supernatural or pseudoscience claims. Therapeutic Touch (which does not involve actually touching the subject and was debunked by a clever but simple experiment done by a young girl a few years back) for example, has no scientific validity but is explained by the manipulation of meridians; a concept which also has no scientific validity, involving energy fields, which again, does not lend itself to scientific testing-- on and on it goes—a concatenation of nonsense that adds no clarity or insight and bogs down scrutiny with its litany of unscientific terminology and concepts.
A common fallacy that Dr. Forbes mentioned was the Fallacy of False Alternatives. One routinely sees this in Creationist arguments where a number of alleged problems for evolution are trotted out (without supporting evidence, scientifically gathered data or professional publication) and then a declaration that since the theory of evolution is “wanting”, therefore the remaining “alternative theory” of Creationism must be correct. Among other problems, this creates a false dichotomy of two “competing” scientific theories, where such a competition does not exist anymore than there are competing Cell Theories, Heliocentric Theories, etc. If one starts off with three explanations for something (A, B, and C), without countenancing any other possibilities, then one is falsely led to believe that the correct explanation exists only in this limited set. The true answer, however, may be “none of the above”, where the correct explanation will require further investigation. It is a false assumption to conclude that if the answer does not lie in one specific thing, then it must be one other specified thing. Often, Dr. Forbes said, people will bring up things that “science cannot explain” and then assume that this proves that their pet belief is justified. Of course many of the things they bring up actually can be, and long have been, successfully addressed by science and since science is progressive, it will continue to make sense of more and more of the world. But indeed, matters of the supernatural realm, for instance, are not under the purview of science. However, it does not logically follow that since science cannot explain some supernatural entities or events that some people believe in, that therefore they exist or that it is the only remaining alternative to choose from. “Unexplained does not mean inexplicable,” as Dr. Forbes said.
The burden of proof rests upon those who make extraordinary claims; those who posit guardian angels, gods or other supernatural beings and phenomena. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Dr. Forbes discussed with us some claims that have become iconic and gained credibility due to simply being perpetuated for a long time. Some textbook errors have long been presented as established fact, being re-copied over and over. When traced back to their genesis it is sometimes found that the science had never even been done to begin with. We also talked about the placebo effect, where people who believe strongly enough that a substance or treatment is efficacious—even when it has no medicinal value- can create beneficial results for the subject.
Informed consumers must remember to consider the source of the information they are being given. What is the potential agenda that a group or information source may have? Is it hype for the purpose of selling a product? If one sees a report dressed up in scientific language claiming that the Grand Canyon was wrought from a single catastrophic event, such as a worldwide Deluge, occurring a few thousand years ago, and then notices that the source for this claim is the some creation science research group, one can reasonably assume that there was no research conducted and no scientific evidence produced to bolster this extraordinary claim. In this vein, Dr. Forbes mentioned James Randi, a professional magician and well known debunker of paranormal claims. His James Randi Foundation has had a million dollar reward for anyone anywhere who can show the veracity of his or her paranormal claims under controlled scientific conditions. While he has had this standing offer for a couple decades, no one has ever claimed this award. It must be those negative “skeptical vibes” that short circuit the paranormalist's abilities.
Sometimes, Dr. Forbes commented, those in the pseudoscience community claim that scientists are reticent to publish material that will “rock the boat.” In their minds there is this nod and wink conspiracy among scientists to not let the public in on the existence of perpetual motion machines or evidence for divine fiat creation of all Earth's biota in the same form as it now exists, a few millennia ago. This is such an absurd claim that it almost needs no refutation, if one merely thinks a moment. The great names in science never emerged from the status quo. One does not get funding or recognition by promoting a tacitly agreed upon conclusion. Careers are not built upon parroting the same thoughts endlessly. In the publish or perish arena of scientific research, failing to add to the body of knowledge is anathema. Scientists engage in extremely robust battles over various components of research findings. Can one truly imagine a scientist sitting on information that falsifies Darwinian evolution, knowing that once she published the results of her Earth-shaking research, she would automatically become known as the greatest scientist of all time and be a heroine to all those who are uncomfortable with our place in life's pageant as one peculiar evolved ape? No matter their interest level in science, nearly all people would be bowled over by her achievement. It would be tantamount to an artist creating a new primary color but never showing this to anyone else, so as not to break with convention. Yes, a scientist who developed a working, Natural Law- defying perpetual motion machine would mothball the apparatus while slipping into abject obscurity. Sure.
We were also warned to beware of Diploma Blindness. This is where a highly credentialed individual is simply assumed to be a source for unassailable factuality. Even the most educated and accomplished individuals make errors and some of them, bolstered by their blizzard of scholastic degrees, venture into authoritative declarations in areas and fields that they are not fully competent in to make such assertions.
Circular reasoning also frustrates empirical investigation into the root causes for natural phenomena. As an example: gravity makes large objects move toward each other. How does this phenomena occur? It occurs due to gravitational forces.
Dr. Forbes mentioned ad hominem attacks where the individual making an argument is attacked, usually in an emotional manner, rather than a rational counter argument being launched against the presented idea itself.
Proof comes from positive evidence in support of a claim and is not derived from a lack of evidence for or against a competing claim. An example Professor Forbes gave was life after death. There is no positive evidence to support this belief, but simply by not being able to provide evidence that it is not real, does not therefore lend credence to the claim. If one cannot prove absolutely that unicorns do not exist, it does not follow that there is any reason to suppose that they do.
As a professor of biology, Dr. Forbes has run into situations where people believed that human male skeletons lack a rib (possessing 11 rather than 12), basing this conviction on one of the two contradictory Bible myths in Genesis. Besides being based on one of thousands of creation myths, rather than in biology, this conviction is a flawed premise even from a biological standpoint as it takes in Lamarckian, long discredited, concepts of acquired characteristics. If a man labors strenuously for years and produces a son, the resulting offspring is no more likely to be mesomorphic by the dint of his father's muscular activity than one produced by a sedentary dad. Similarly, if a sex was created out of one man's rib, it does not follow that his offspring—and only one gender of his issue at that!- will be bereft a rib as well for all time to come.
Bold statements do not make claims more valid. Using the example of the science fiction author, L. Ron Hubbard, who concocted Dianetics on a bet that he could make up something that masses of people would credulously accept and follow, Dr. Forbes excerpted a passage from his book where Hubbard equated Dianetics with the discovery of fire! Diction does not replace data, is another maxim Dr. Forbes gave us. No matter how scientific sounding and jargon- jammed a piece of writing is, this does not automatically confer scientific validity upon the writing. A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf.
In the Q&A portion at the end of Dr. Forbes' presentation, we discussed how statistics can be manipulated, which recalls Mark Twain's famous categorizing of untruths as: “Lies, damned lies, and statistics.” We also talked about the increased likelihood of undesirable genetic traits occurring in the offspring of animals too closely related to one another; the unreliability of photographic evidence, especially in these days of digitized graphics manipulation and PhotoShop computer software and the hazard of being so convinced of a certain outcome that one falls prey to unconsciously manufacturing the desired result.
Stephen Jay Gould, in his book The Mismeasure of Man, writes of how researchers who believed that men of European descent had greater cranial capacities (and therefore, in their reasoning, more intelligence) than those of non-European descent, packed skulls with grains and measured the content. They generated data that supported their bias, but did not realize that they had unconsciously packed the skulls of dead white males as tightly as they could manage while loosely and softly filling the skulls of other racial groups.
Dr. Forbes mentioned some excellent books on the general subject matter he presented this night, including Faith Healers and Flim Flam by James (“the Amazing”) Randi; Why People Believe Weird Things and The Borderlands of Science by Michael Shermer; and Carl Sagan's The Demon- Haunted World. I would add to this list anything by Joe Nickell and Martin Gardener among others.
Secretary: Charles LaRue. |
