Science and pseudoscience

In 1959, C.P.Snow, an academician in Cambridge, England, delivered a speech that shocked the academic circle: "Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution". Snowe wants to bridge the "two cultures" gap by clarifying the differences between the humanities and the sciences. Humanities intellectuals like to ask science intellectuals, "Have you read Shakespeare?" Scientific intellectuals who can't answer often feel embarrassed. Conversely, when scientific intellectuals ask human intellectuals, "Do you know the second law of thermodynamics?" Humanistic intellectuals, on the other hand, pride themselves on their ignorance. Most of the decision makers, Snowe argues, are humanities intellectuals who are "almost scientifically illiterate".

We live in an age of rapid change in science, but many people are confused between science and pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience refers to claims that appear to be scientific but lack sufficient evidence and credibility. Some call it "junk science" or "Voodoo science." In essence, pseudoscience tries to pretend to be a science, but it lacks scientific rigor. Pseudoscientific conclusions are usually drawn from low-quality sources such as anecdotal evidence and personal testimony, while true scientific conclusions are derived from carefully controlled studies.

Most scientific fields have their own version of pseudoscience. For example, some might view the research of ancient astronauts as archaeology and the Perpetual Motion machine as physics; In addition, some people believe that since both astronomy and astrology are concerned with the study of stars and stars, they must be related. Of course, there is a science of psychology, and naturally there is a pseudoscience of parapsychology.

Pseudoscientific claims have several common characteristics:

First, such claims are controversial because while some supporting evidence can be produced, it is usually of dubious quality.

Second, such claims often violate currently accepted scientific principles. Take the case of human suspension. Some people claim to be able to levitate without force, and some photos show them seemingly floating in mid-air. Proponents argue that this is the proof, but the quality of the evidence is pretty thin, especially given how improbable the claim is. Personal testimony can be wrong, and photographs can be tampered with. In fact, assuming that levitating does work, we would have to completely change our understanding of how gravity works.

Common thinking characteristics of pseudoscience:

(1) Preconceived notions of what to believe.

(2) Look for evidence to support a preconceived belief.

(3) Ignoring evidence that can prove that an assertion or opinion is groundless.

(4) Disregard other explanations for a phenomenon.

(5) Have strange beliefs.

(6) to accept inconclusive evidence and to support a ludicrous claim.

(7) Rely heavily on hearsay evidence.

(8) lack of carefully controlled experiments to verify a claim.

(9) There are few skeptics.

What is science anyway?

Science relies heavily on controlled experiments, because experiments are the best way to determine whether A causes B. Of course, not all sciences can use controlled experiments. For example, many geological and astronomical hypotheses cannot be easily tested in the laboratory. But they can be tested in the "field," where we can look for data that confirms or refutes a given hypothesis.

So what is science? The mark of science is the rigorous testing of hypotheses. As the science writer Kendrick Frazier observes, "Science presents explanations of the natural world and then tests those hypotheses using experiments, observation and other creative and diverse methods and strategies."

In recent years a broader view of science is defined by Michael Shermer (Michael Shermer) is put forward which was a different popper view: "science is not confirmed that a set of ideas, but a process of exploring, aims to build a verification of knowledge ontology, to abandon or corroborate always keep an open attitude." It underlines an extremely important point - that science never tries to prove any particular idea.

Science does not begin with preconceived notions of what we should believe. The way some human institutions work. Science, on the contrary, is nothing more than a process by which we improve our understanding of the world in which we live. In fact, real scientists will never claim that something is absolutely true. In contrast, scientists believe that all knowledge must be tested over and over again so that we can constantly revise and expand our understanding of the world. This search for knowledge will never yield absolute truths, but it remains the best means by which we can unravel the mysteries of the unknown.

Science often begins with a simple question about our world. For example, does smoking cause health problems? Second, we form assumptions about how to deal specifically with the problem. A hypothesis is a verifiable statement that states the relationship between two or more variables. A testable hypothesis might be that smoking causes lung cancer. This statement states that smoke and lung cancer are specific variables that can be measured, predicts a causal relationship between the two variables, and can be disproved.

The scientist then performs an experiment or some other rigorous test to confirm or refute the hypothesis. When completed, the study will be submitted for publication. But the study will be peer-reviewed by scientists before it can be published to ensure it is of high quality. Once printed, the study is open to review by the entire scientific community.

This peer review process is the most important step in the scientific method, because it provides the error-correcting mechanisms that keep science on track. In fact, this self-correcting mechanism has been the main reason for the success of science over the years. In science, every idea is open to public review. When a scientist publishes a study, he must fully disclose the details of the study so that others can try to replicate the results. The results of this study are of little value if they cannot be replicated.

So why is peer review so important in research?

Because scientists are human and can make the same mistakes as the rest of us. For example, some scientists may be very fond of a theory and want to support it, so they look for supporting evidence and underestimate the contradictory and inconsistent evidence.

The great advantage of the scientific method is that any scientist's potential biases are scrutinized and criticized by his peers. By its very nature, science provides a process of checks and balances, where the errors of one scientist are thoroughly eradicated and corrected by fellow scientists. A single study can't tell us everything. Even in orthodox science, the quality of different studies varies, which is one reason we sometimes get conflicting results.

Confounding variables can affect the results, generate statistical errors, and even falsify data. That's why others should be able to replicate and replicate the findings of any study before we put our faith in it. When evidence from different studies comes together to form a numerical advantage, we can be confident about a finding. To understand the importance of peer review, publishing and replication in scientific inquiry, one has only to look at one of the most famous mysteries in the history of science: the cold fusion event.

In the 1980s Stanley Pons and Martin Flexman, two professors at the University of Utah, came up with some preliminary results that seemed to suggest they had developed a way to generate unlimited amounts of energy through this process, called cold fusion. Instead of submitting to a peer-reviewed journal, they held a press conference to announce their discovery.

In general, in scientific research, information is not given to the media unless a study has been peer-reviewed; In fact, if a study doesn't pass peer review, it's more likely to be "bad science," or shoddy science. Pons and Flexman held a press conference, embraced and became famous, but then paid the price. After their earth-shattering announcement, other researchers tried to replicate their results, but all failed. Cold fusion has since been relegated to the dustbin of pseudoscience.

The conclusion tells us that the greatest power of science is its ability to correct itself. Bad science can be produced at any time, but in time the process of scientific inquiry must be able to separate the chills from the chills. We should choose popular science books in a similar way, depending on the author's education and background, whether the person recommending the book is an expert in the field, and whether the book is recommended or quoted by the author or favorite book. In general, it is a classic book that meets these criteria. Not always, of course.

If want to think like scientist in that way, should have what thinking characteristic?

(1) Keep an open mind, but be suspicious of any unsubstantiated claims.

(2) Ensure that a claim or idea is verifiable.

(3) Assess the quality of evidence to support an idea (e.g., how rigorous the assessment controls are, not relying on hearsay evidence).

(4) Try to disprove a claim or idea (e.g., find unsupported evidence).

(5) Consider alternative explanations.

(6) Select, other things being equal, the proposition or idea (i.e., the one with the fewest assumptions) that offers the simplest explanation of the phenomenon.

(7) Selecting, other things being equal, propositions or ideas that do not contradict established knowledge.

(8) Put aside your preferences and prejudices and try to adjust your beliefs according to the amount of evidence that supports or refutes that belief.