Science, Pseudoscience, Non-science Flashcards
(28 cards)
Science
The real deal.
One kind of fact-finding practices.
Systematic and critical investigations aiming to develop the best possible understanding of how the nature, people and society work.
Pseudoscience
Knowledge that claims to be scientific but isn’t
Nonscience
Knowledge that make no claim to be scientific
Why does demarcation matter?
Help us determine how to distinguish between scientific and pseudoscientific claims.
We then avoid believing “what we wish were true” and instead accept what there is substantial evidence for.
Demarcation matters because of:
- Theoretical reasons: It help us better understand what science is (or what it should be) and in what way it is different from other similar practices
- Practical reasons: It help us make better decisions (e.g. climate policy, healthcare, journalism etc.)
Descriptive vs normative science?
Descriptive: describing what scientists actually do
Normative: prescribing what scientists should do
Logical positivism (1930s)
Believe that a statement is meaningful if it is either a definition (thus necessarily true) or verifiable.
Follow the pattern of affirming the consequent
What is Precognition?
Foreknowledge of an event, especially as a form of extrasensory perception
(can be either scientific or pseudoscientific)
If scientific and we ignore it: then we slow scientific adcancement
If pseudoscientific and w conduct it, then we waste ressources and weaken scientific credibility
Criterias to identify pseudoscience (Hansson)
In addition to falsifiability:
1) Belief in authority
2) Unrepeatable experiments
3) Hand-picked examples
4) Unwillingness to test
5) Disregard of refuting information
6) Descriptive features
7) Explanations are abandoned without replacement
8) it is within a broad scientific domain
9) Lack of reliability
10) Science denialism
What is the deviant doctrine and Unorthodox doctrine?
Deviant: A belief or theory that significantly deviates from accepted norms or standards
Unorthodox: A belief or theory that challenges traditional or widely accepted views
3 reasons why demarcation is sometimes difficult (Hansson)
- Science changes over time
- Science is heterogenous (science is not one single, uniform thing)
- Established science itself is not free of the defects characteristic of pseudoscience
What is Falsificationism (Karl Popper)?
The aim that every statement should try to be falsified.
Particular observations cannot verify general theories. Particular observations can falsify general theories
Believe that a statement is scientific rather than non-scientific if it can be falsified, at least in principle.
Follow the pattern of modus tollens/denying the consequent
What are observations?
Something one sees (in the real world)
What are theories?
Something we believe in but cannot exactly observe (it’s not an observation)
What are auxiliary assumptions?
Assumptions that back up the theory or lays the ground for it
What is deductively validity?
If the premises are true the conclusion would absolutely guaranteed be true
What does affirming the consequent mean?
(Logical positivism)
(1) If the hypothesis were true, then we should observe the predicted effect
(2) We observe the predicted effect
(3) Therefore, the hypothesis is true
What does modus tollens/denying the consequent mean?
(Falisificationism)
(1) If the hypothesis were true, then we should observe the predicted effect
(2) We do not observe the predicted effect
(3) therefore, the hypothesis is false
What is homeopathy? (can be either scientific or pseudoscientific)
An alternative medicine that uses tiny amounts of natural substances, believing they can heal by triggering the body’s self-healing.
If scientific and we ignore it, then patients miss out on effective treatment
If pseudoscientific and we conduct it, then we waste ressources and weaken scientific credibility
Science vs pseudoscience:
- Pseudo: belief in authority
- Science: accepting a theory should not be based on authority but on evidence
- Pseudo: Unrepeatable experiments
- Science: Experiments should be replicable
- Pseudo: Hand-picked examples
- Science: All relevant evidence should be seriously considered
- Pseudo: Unwillingness to test
- Science: Theories should be thoroughly testes
- Pseudo: Disregard and refuting information
- Science: Refuting information should be seriously considered
- Pseudo: Explanations are abandoned without replacement
- Science: New explanations should only be accepted if they explain more than or at least as much as before
What was the study reported by Bem (2011)?
Research on precognition “Feeling the future”. The paper reported that participants were better at remembering words that they would practive later.
Is this evidence for retroactive influence or pseudoscience?
Many supspicions were raised by others:
- Uneven sample sized –> suggest data lumping
- all p-values are close to .05 –> suggest selection bias
- some features of the design –> suggest post-hoc hypothesizing
- Testing multiple comparisons without correction –> suggests p-hacking
- Bem mentions not reporting “pilot” experiments –> suggests the file drawer effect
What is the file-drawer effect?
The tendency for studies with non-significant results to go unpublished
What is post hoc hypothesizing?
Forming hypotheses after analyzing the data rather than before
What are Type I errors and Type II errors?
Type I errors (false-positive): rejecting H0 when it is in fact true
Type II errors (false-negative): not rejectiong H0 when it is in fact false
What is the replication crisis?
The problem in science where many studies cannot be reliably repeated with the same results
