Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Underground eXperts United File 372
### ###
### ###
### #### ### ### ### ####
### ### ##### ### ###
### ### ### ### ###
### ### ##### ### ###
########## ### ### ##########
### ###
### ###
Underground eXperts United
Presents...
####### ## ## ####### # # ####### ####### #######
## ## ## ## ##### # ## ## ##
#### ## ## #### # # #### ## #######
## ## ## ## ##### # ## ## ##
## ## ####### ####### # # ####### ## #######
[ The Anatomy of Pseudo-Science ] [ By The GNN ]
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
THE ANATOMY OF PSEUDO-SCIENCE
by THE GNN/DualCrew-Shining/uXu
The concept 'science' bears a special quality: it is often connected with
test tubes, chemicals, microscopes, white coats, etc. When one talks about
'science' the first thing that pops into mind is physics, chemistry,
astronomy and perhaps psychology.
In this file, however, I will not refer to any of these particular
disciplines. What I will discuss is the general and uncontroversial
_scientific method_ that all these disciplines use. It is uncontroversial,
because it has no inherent value; either it can be _done_ good, or it can be
done bad. I believe this method is a reliable and true method, on the matters
it operates with. We cannot prove the existence of God with the scientific
method, but we surely can find answers to many more worldly questions.
Unfortunately, there are many dubious disciplines that claim that the use
the scientific method to prove their claims. Astrologists, ufologists, and
especially supporters of 'alternative medicine' such as zone therapists,
healers and various other wonder workers, to mention a few, all claim to be
based upon the method in question. When one examines how the scientific
method is structured and how it works, one quickly realizes that such
disciplines deserve to be called a pseudo-science.
Science is based upon certain reliable methods to extract laws, theories and
principles from hypotheses. The logical method is inductive, and in the
center of this, we will find the _experimental method_. If I believe that
occurrence X is due to the phenomenon Y, I can try to verify (prove) this by
an experiment. (Please remember that this is a general method, and it is not
concentrated to chemistry, physics etc., even though the concept 'experiment'
is often connected with those disciplines.)
The results from experiments are correct and always the same. There is no
possibility that an experiment could go 'wrong', if it is done right. If
Q turns into W when I pour some B into the mixture, I have proven that
(Q /\ B) --> W ; ('If (Q and B) then W') If it turns into A, I have proven
that the case is (Q /\ B --> A). If I had expected that Q would turn into H,
this does not mean that the answer I get is not correct. It only shows that
my _hypothesis_ was wrong, and that is another question.
If I, however, perform the same experiment twice and get different
answers, it shows that I have done something wrong. In an experiment, you
_idealize_ situations and therefore the answer must always be one and the
same, unless the situation is altered. If Q+B turns out to become E one day,
and the other day it turns out to be P, I must have done something wrong. I
could, for example, have forgotten to clean the instruments, or forgotten
some parameter that is crucial (but yet undiscovered).
Hypotheses in pseudo-science, on the other hand, cannot be proven by the
experimental method. Even in idealized situations, they get different answers
all the time. Say that someone claims that it is scientifically proved that a
particular Chinese super-mega-tea cures cancer. To convince the sceptic, they
show that a number of people actually have had cancer, consumed the tea, and
been cured. This would have counted as a proven fact, _if and only if_ all
(or a large percent) of those who had cancer and consumed the tea had
actually been cured.
But that is never the case. Often, only a minor number gets cured. Out of
a thousand people (even though those who perform pseudo-scientific
'experiments' seldom include so many people in their 'tests') perhaps two are
relived of their cancer. But as we all know, cancer may disappear out of no
apparent reason. To claim that it was the tea that was responsible for that
is to make a mistake.
In the same manner, it is possible to claim that if you every morning
flush down a glass of water in your toilet, your aching back will be cured. A
thousand people with bad backs perform this action. After two weeks, three of
them are relieved of their pain. The first conclusion we certainly would not
jump to was that it was due to the flushing. But in pseudo-science, such
conclusions are the only ones.
Pseudo-scientists could claim that the reason why the tea did not work for
all people, were because these people contained some parameter that failed to
make the tea work. But, since they are pseudo-scientists, they are not
interested in finding this parameter. This is not because they are simply
lazy, it is because finding such a parameter would probably show that it was
not the tea that 'cured' the illness, but something else. And then the tea
would not sell any more.
If you want to verify the result of an experiment in true science, it is
no problem. But the results from pseudo-scientific experiments are very
secret. Few people have access to the methods, and those who have are often
the same as those who invented them. This is not strange, because if the
'tests' of pseudo-science were open to the public, everyone would notice that
they were false. Therefore, they are never openly performed.
As an example, there are some followers of transcendental-yoga that claim
that they are able to levitate. But they have no proofs, and they refuse to
perform their flying in public. Still, many people believe them, and spend
thousands of dollars and years in their institutions because they believe
they will to learn how to fly. But no one have seen them succeed.
Pseudo-science is dangerous. Since it dresses itself in the costume of being
real science, people believe them. Pseudo-science is controversial. It is
based upon earning money and fooling people. It is not cheap to buy
alternative medicine nor participate in zone therapy. Even worse, it kills
people. Some, who would have been cured by an ordinary cure of penicillin,
could reject that treatment in favor for some more dubious cure. People with
incurable diseases spend their last money and hope on magicians who promise
to help them, but seldom can. Pseudo-science is an industry for making money.
It is not constructed for the public good.
I know that some people still refuse to accept my arguments. "Some people
are actually helped by those disciplines you refer to as pseudo-science! What
do you say to them? That they are wrong? That they are not cured at all? That
they just believe that they are cured?"
I do not believe they are not cured. But I am very certain that it was not
the particular pseudo-scientific discipline that helped them. It was
something else. Recall, if you had an aching back and flushed down a glass of
water into the toilet every day and were suddenly relieved of your pain, I
would not believe it was the flushing that did it. The reason why you believe
pseudo-science can help, is because it has dressed itself in the prestigious
costume of 'science'.
"But!" the hard-core sceptic may continue, "Even though it may have not
been the Chinese tea that helped my sick mother, but something else, the tea
might have helped her psychologically. As we all know, those who live in hope
to be cured are more easily cured. And the tea gave her such hope!"
Pseudo-science does not claim to give people hope. They claim that they
will actually _cure_ people. If, however, the tea gave hope to the mother,
fine with me. But the discipline is still pseudo-science. All sick mothers
that drink tea are not cured, and to claim that pseudo-science is 'helpful'
is to jump to too many conclusions too fast.
Disciplines that are based upon pseudo-science are not helpful. They steal
money from naive people, with the help of promises and false prophets. That
is the truth, and it can be proven with the help of the real scientific
method, if necessary.
---
I wish to thank Mr. Sven-Ove Hansson and the Uppsala Society Against
Pseudo-Science for making this file possible.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The view from nowhere? Where? Here? There? Nowhere?
Yo, com to da uXu IRC channal man: #uxu (sometimes, we're there)
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
No battle is worth fighting except the last one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
uXu #372 Underground eXperts United 1997 uXu #372
Call RIPCO ][ -> +1-312-528-5020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
