science and psuedoscience

8/12/2019 Science and Psuedoscience

1/27

2SCIENCE

ANDPSEUDOSCIENCE

Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition.

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776

Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones,so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is nota house and a collection of facts is not necessarilyscience.

Henri Poincar

Some years ago, an astronomer was on a train inEurope. In the dining car, he was seated opposite anelderly gentleman with a long white beard, dressed ina long robe, who looked like one of the patriarchsstraight out of the Old Testament.

The elderly gentleman evidently wanted to talk,and so the astronomer just listened, not saying what

his profession was. It turned out that the patriarchwas the world leader of the Hollow Earth Society,whose adherents assert that Earth is a hollow ball andthat we are living on the inside of it ( Figure 2 1 ).The Hollow Earth movement has many adherents.Our astronomer had happened to meet up with thebiggest Hollow Earther of them all!


2/27

The patriarch explained to the astronomer why wemistakenly think we are on the outside of the Eartheven though we live on the inside; how the Sun,Moon, planets, and stars only look like they goaround the Earth; and how an optical illusion causessatellites to take pictures of the Earth that make itappear round. Finally, he explained the direct evidence that the Earth is hollow. There were onlytwo pieces of evidence of interest to him. The firstwas a survey made of the Great Lakes around theturn of the century that showed that the surface of the Earth was concave instead of convex. And thesecond? Figure 2 2 shows the side view of a shoe.Your own shoe is probably similar. Do you noticehow the sole of the shoe curves upward instead of

downward? Thats because you have been walkingaround on the inside surface of the hollow Earth allthese years!

This story may sound made up, but it reallyhappened. The elderly gentleman was a typicalexample of a pseudoscientist. Although his particularhokum may seem pretty hard to swallow, he hadquite a few convinced followers. As psychologistRobert Thouless has pointed out, there is no idea soabsurd that you cant find someone who believes it.

For this reason, educated people should know what isand what is not science.Astronomy is a science in every sense of the word.

In the first part of this chapter you will learn whatscience is, using astronomy as an example. In thesecond part, we further define science by showingwhat is not science. Finally, we examine variouscharacteristics of what often pretends to be sciencebut isnt.

Chapter opening photo: A scene from Mars Attacks .

2 . 1An Expedition to Earth


3/27

Modern observations of the cosmos started about 100 years ago,when the newly invented photographic emulsion became sensitiveenough to be used for celestial observations. Once a photograph hascaptured a permanent record of an observation, then systematic,repeated studies by more than one scientist can begin. Furthermore,the cameras ability to take a time exposuresomething the eyecannot accomplishenabled astronomers to view much more deeplyinto space. It can fairly be said, therefore, that we have been trulyobserving the universewhose age is nearly 14 billion yearsforonly 100 years, a tiny fraction of its total lifetime. A fairly typicalstar like the Sun has a life span of 12 billion years. Even fast-evolving stars have lifetimes that run to millions of years. We haverecently discovered the existence of explosive, cataclysmic events instellar evolution that can take place on shorter time scales, but suchevents are witnessed for only a tiny minority of celestial objects.

To give you a feeling for what science is, and for the difficultiesinvolved in studying objects with extremely long lifetimes, we willdiscuss an analogous situationthe problems that would confrontan alien astronaut who is visiting Earth for only a short period of time, and whose responsibility is to search for life on Earth and tryto understand how it has evolved. Suppose we give this visitor just15 seconds to take as many pictures as possible (being advanced,the aliens civilization has ultra-high-speed cameras). We choose 15seconds because it bears approximately the same proportion to thelifetime of a human being as the 100 years we have been observing

the universe photographically does to the age of the universe:

15 secondshuman lifetime

=

100 yearsuniverse's lifetime

When the astronaut returns home with the photographs, thescientists at home must try to understand Earth and all its life formsby studying the photos ( Figure 2 3 ). It is almost like studying a stillpicture, because 15 seconds is not long enough for any serious orimportant evolutionary changes to show up.

How might the alien scientists determine the dominant form of life

on Earth? If size is their main criterion, they might choose whales ortrees for study. If they count sheer numbers, insects might win out.A sophisticated criterion might be to determine the amount of landspace controlled by one species, in which case the automobile mightbe selected as the dominant species, at least in many urbanizedareas. Indeed, thinking of ways by which scientists might determinethat human beings are the dominant forms of life on our planet isitself a challenging exercise.


4/27

Inquiry 2-1 By what criteria might the extraterrestrials decidethat humans are living organisms and automobiles are not?

Suppose the alien scientists decide that human beings are worthyof further study. At this point the problem has just begun, becauseclose observation would reveal a considerable diversity of characteristics among humans ( Figure 2 4 ). The scientists wouldfirst have to set up a system for classifying humans on the basis of observable characteristics. (Later on we will see how astronomershave done the same kind of thing with stars and galaxies.) It wouldbe immediately obvious that humans come in a variety of sizes (asdo stars). Although the alien scientists would note a fairlycontinuous distribution of sizes, suppose they decide to classify all

humans into the categories small, medium, and large. Suppose theyalso establish the color categories black, brown, yellow, white, andred. By careful observation and much thought, they might alsodetect two sexes, call them male and female. But they might initiallyestablish other categories that could prove less fruitful in theiranalysis of human beings and cause them to waste a great deal of time; categories such as hair length, permanent versus removableteeth, color of clothes, and so on. Each irrelevant category wouldspawn unproductive hypotheses concerning the evolution of humans, and much thought would have to go into distinguishingimportant from unimportant characteristics.

Inquiry 2-2 By what criteria might the alien scientists be able to establish thathair length is not relevant, but that sex is, given the fact that in some societies thereis a degree of correlation between the two?

Table 2-1. Characteristics of People

S I Z E C O L O R S E X

Small Black MaleMedium Brown FemaleLarge Red

WhiteYellow

Let us consider just the characteristics of size, color, and sexmentioned in the preceding paragraph. The scientists can now begin


5/27

to construct hypotheses for the life cycle of humans, askingquestions such as: Do small, brown, female humans grow into large,red, male humans? Or, instead, do large, black, male humans evolveinto medium-sized, yellow, male humans? Or is there perhaps noevolution at allthe small stay small, and the large stay large? Evenin this extremely simple analogy with only three straightforwardcharacteristics to compare ( Table 2 1 ), there are 3 ! 5 ! 2 = 30different possible combinations, and 30 ! 30 = 900 possiblecombinations of starting and ending points for human evolution.Obviously, the universe will present us with many more possiblecombinations!

Inquiry 2-3 Because the alien astronaut cannot take photographs of every humanbeing, but of only a small number, what fundamental assumption must be made tointerpret the data meaningfully?

You can gain some direct personal experience of the dilemma of studying objects with long lifetimes by going outside at night andcontemplating the stars for a while. You will undoubtedly be struckby the fact that nothing happens, other than the daily rotation of thesky, which is, of course, just the Earth spinning. Bring back thebuilder of the pyramids and stargaze with him. He will assure youthat all the star patterns still look about the same as they did in histime! 1 The naked-eye sky appears eternal and unchanging. Forthousands of years, one of humanitys most enduring metaphysicalconcepts was the idea of the unchanging universe. Only in thetwentieth century have we broken through the time barrier andappreciated the evolution of astronomical objects.

To draw one final analogy, astronomers are in the position of being shown just three or four out-of-sequence frames of a moviethat runs for about a year and being asked to reproduce the wholeplot. Amazingly, to some extent we have been able to do just that.

2 . 2

Astronomy as an Observational ScienceIn this section we will begin to see the ways in which astronomy is ascience and how it begins to make advances in understanding theuniverse. We will also look at how the science of astronomy isfundamentally different from sciences such as physics, chemistry,biology, and geology, to name a few.


6/27

The Process of Doing AstronomyConfronted by an almost infinite array of possibilities, anastronomer seems, in many respects, to be the most helpless of scientists. Unlike a physicist or chemist, or even to some extent abiologist, an astronomer cannot perform controlled experiments inwhich only one variable at a time is allowed to change, and whereresults can be verified as often as necessary by repeating theexperiment or by doing the same experiment with more accurateequipment when it becomes available. Astronomers cannot evenexamine their subjects from various angles, as a field worker inarchaeology or paleontology can. What an astronomer can and doesdo is collect the light and other forms of radiation that come fromcelestial objects and then use all available information, as well asingenuity and creativity, to try to interpret these signals from afar(Figure 2 5 ). An astronomer must become an expert in studyingobjects from a distance. Indeed, some astronomers feel that once anobject has been visitedas the Moon hasit is no longer the subjectof astronomical study but should instead be turned over to thegeologists and chemists.

A scientist can make observations, which in turn suggestspeculations, hypotheses, and perhaps eventually theories. Ahypothesis is a conjecture that is used as a suggestion fordescribing the results of observations and experiments. A hypothesiscan be wildly speculative, but to be useful, a hypothesis must makepredictions about nature that can either be confirmed or refuted by

observation ( Figure 2 6 ). For example, I can hypothesize thatstudents completing an introductory astronomy course will knowmore about the phases of the Moon than students who have nottaken such a course. From this hypothesis, I can make predictionsthat can be confirmed or refuted by giving a test to both groups.

In astronomy, predictions coming from a hypothesis usually resultin the astronomer returning to the telescope to determine whetherthese predictions are supported by further observations. Reasoningfrom a hypothesis to a set of particular predictions is calleddeductive reasoning , or simply deduction . The new observations

may suggest refinements to the hypothesis, which then provides newpredictions, and so on.Another approach, pioneered by Francis Bacon and later by Isaac

Newton, begins with a series of observations. These observations arethen understood in terms of one or more possible explanations. Oneof the central problems of science is choosing which hypothesis isbest. As diagramed in Figure 2 6 , hypothesis 1 would be


7/27

considered the best, because it encompasses the most observations.The fact that observations 2 and 3 do not fit with hypothesis 3serves to argue against it. The reasoning involved in this process isinductive reasoning , or simply induction .

Often the evidence in support of a particular hypothesis isindirect, and often the evidence will support more than onehypothesis (Figure 2-6 b ). Sometimes scientists arrive at a conclusionby the process of induction, which was described above. Moreformally, induction is the process of determining which one of theavailable hypotheses is most likely to be correct, based on the factthat it does a more satisfactory job of accounting for the availableevidence than the competing hypotheses do. As an example, if yougo into the kitchen and see the cookie jar broken on the floor, andthe cat mewing piteously, you might conclude that the cat pushed itoff the shelf. If, on the other hand, there has just been an

earthquake, your conclusion might be quite different.

Inquiry 2-4 The following are examples of inductive or deductive reasoning, orsituations in which induction or deduction can be used. For each case, which type of reasoning is used? Explain your answer. ( a ) A detective who finds a blood-stainedweapon next to a victim, blood of the same type on the clothes of a suspect, scratcheson the suspects face, and skin under the fingernails of the victim would use whatprocess in concluding who committed the crime? ( b ) Economist A believes the healthof the U. S. economy is dependent only on the money supply allowed by the FederalReserve. What reasoning process is used in attempting to validate the idea? ( c ) Asocial scientist believes that women make better scientists than men. What reasoningprocess is used to try to validate the idea? ( d ) A person suggests that UFOs prove theexistence of extraterrestrial intelligence. What reasoning process might be used tostudy this question?

A hypothesis may reach the status of a theory once the evidencefor its validity becomes strong. Strong evidence is both repeatable and verifiable . A good theory comes from observations andexperiments that can be repeated by all scientists in a particulardiscipline, as well as tested for accuracy. It is probably not fixed forall time; new observations may require modification of the theory.Such modification may be made without throwing out the entiretheory. The interplay between theory and observation continuesindefinitely; in good science, neither can exist without the other.Figure 2 7 diagrams the process. From a hypothesis, one usesdeduction to make predictions. Predictions bring about experiments,which produce data. The data, along with inductive reasoning, eitherverify or falsify the hypothesis. Finally, using creativity, a revised


8/27

hypothesis is made from which the process continues in an endlessloop.

As an example, consider Einsteins theories of relativity. Thesetheories make a wide variety of testable predictions that scientistshave been checking continuously for nearly 100 years. Everyprediction that Einsteins theories have made have been observed.Therefore, we say that Einsteins theories are valid scientifictheories.

But not all theories that agree with the observational data are of equal scientific worth. Some hypotheses are so untestable that theywould be in accord with any observations that might conceivably bemade. An example is the typical newspaper horoscope that is sogeneral it can fit anyone.

Other conjectures that agree with observations may beunscientific because they are untestable. Consider, for example, aconjecture that claims that lightning is caused by the god Zeusthrowing bolts at the Earth, and that Zeus does this whenever he isangry. There is no evidence that could possibly disprove this idea,even in principle. Supernatural causes are not observable; thus theycannot be tested scientifically. A supernaturally based hypothesiscannot ever be proven wrong (or falsified), no matter what itclaims. Indeed, any hypothesis that appeals to supernatural causescannot be called scientific, because there is no test we can apply

that can rule out supernatural causes for observed facts. Sciencedeals with the natural, observed universe, not the supernatural one.Experience has shown that speculations on the supernatural do notlead to better scientific understanding of nature. This is not to saythat supernaturally based conjectures are wrong or not of value,only that they are not in the realm of science or scientifically useful.Such conjectures give us no help in how to proceed further andacquire more understanding.

The scientific use of the word theory is not the same as theeveryday, nonscientific use, which is more similar to the word

hypothesisa conjecture. For example, a detective may have a gutfeeling (a theory) about who perpetrated some crime withouthaving any hard supporting evidence in the case. A scientific theory,on the other hand, not only requires detailed supporting evidence,but demands that the theory be able to predict future events.

If two competing theories encompass all observations equally well,which is to be preferred? One answer takes a philosophical view.The philosophy of science tells us that the theory using the fewest


9/27

arbitrary assumptions is to be preferred. This idea is often called theLaw of Parsimony , or Occams razor , after the fourteenth-century English philosopher William of Occam. Such a theory seemsmore likely than one having numerous ad hoc assumptions.

A scientific theory can never be proven to be true. What sciencecan do is to show that observations and experiments are consistentor inconsistent with the theory. Consistency does not prove thetheory to be true, but to be reasonable. On the other hand, a lack of consistency can falsify a theory, thereby showing it to be invalid.

The Astronomers ChallengeAstronomers do have some advantages over other scientists; forexample, they have an absolutely incredible display of phenomenato study, many of which are incapable of being reproduced in anyway in Earthly laboratories. We have already pointed out that diffusegas clouds such as the Orion Nebula (Figure 1-11) consist of gases insuch a rarefied (low-density) state that they give off important typesof radiation not readily seen on Earth. On the other end of the scaleare black holes, objects of such high density that their enormousgravitational fields prevent light itself from leaving the object.

The range in properties of celestial objects furnishes an almostendless diversity of objects for study. We could not reproduce theenergy output of even the most feeble star in a lab on Earth, and themost powerful stars are beacons emitting more energy than amillion suns.

The scale of the cosmos is so vast that many things that areunlikely or impossible on Earth become possible. Indeed, in such avast volume, any behavior that is not specifically prohibited byphysical law may well be taking place somewhere, and consequentlyastronomers can find exotic phenomena simply by searching. Thedetection of black holes, antimatter, and neutrinos are threeexamples of this. These objects were predicted by theoreticalinquiries, which made people interested enough to go out and lookfor them.

The Astronomical Time MachineOne final advantage astronomers have comes, strangely enough,from the very large distance and time scales that cause them somuch difficulty. Because light travels at the finite speed of 300,000kilometers per second (186,000 miles per second), it takes time forthe radiation from celestial objects to reach us. Examination of objects that are a great distance away from us also gives us a certain


10/27

perspective in time, because the farther an object is from us, thelonger it has taken the light from that object to reach us ( Figure 28 ). Thus we see the Sun now as it was eight minutes ago, the nextnearest star as it was over four years ago, and relatively nearbygalaxies as they were about a million years ago. The most distantgalaxies are seen as they were perhaps 10 to 15 billion years ago, anepoch that is not far removed from the earliest moments of theuniverse itself. It is almost as if we have an astronomical timemachine that is capable of transporting our view backward in timeto extremely remote epochs and finding out what the universe waslike then. For this reason, the analogy with the alien astronaut is notquite perfect, because she has no opportunity to compare differentepochs in the situation we put her in.

Inquiry 2-5 Making conclusions based on the properties of objects at differentdistances requires making an important assumption. What might that be?

This ability to look back in time is vital in helping us study galaxieswhose time scales for significant change are much longer than thelifetime of an astronomer. To study the evolution of such long-livedobjects, astronomers try to use their perspective in time in thefollowing way. If similar galaxies can be observed at different epochs(by observing them at different distances) and still be recognized asbeing the same type of object, then with patience it may be possibleto construct a life history of that particular type of galaxy, becausewe may be seeing examples of it at different ages and evolutionarystages. Note that this view through time becomes most useful if wepush back to the most distant epochs. But it means looking at themost distant objects, which must of necessity also be extremely faintand difficult to observe. So our perspective in astronomical timemust be purchased with a great expenditure of human time andeffort.

Inquiry 2-6 What would you conclude about galaxies if you were told there wasevidence that the most distant galaxies show explosions taking placein their cores, whereas the nearby galaxies do not?

2 . 3Science as a Process


11/27

The most important aspect of what we call science is the processused to come to a set of conclusions. It is through that process thatall the facts and conclusions of science become known. Thissections purpose is the illumination of that process.

The Explosion of Knowledge in the Twentieth CenturyOver the centuries, ideas about the nature of the universe havechanged dramatically. The universe was once thought to be smalland relatively uncomplicated, extending over distances not muchlarger than a tribe could cover by foot. However, the rate at whichastronomical knowledge has been acquired in recent years hasincreased dramatically, and most of what we now know about theuniverse has been learned in the past half-century. Such an increasein knowledge is a characteristic of an active, vital science. Onepossible measure of the growth in astronomical knowledge is theamount of research results published in one year. Figure 2 9 showsone year of the Astrophysical Journal in 1900 and in 1991. Theactual growth is even more dramatic than shown because many newjournals have come into existence throughout the world in that timespan.

One way to illustrate this explosion of knowledge is to comparethe size of the universe as it was estimated in 1920 with todaysideas. In 1920 the universe was thought to be only about 10,000light-years across, with the Sun located roughly in the center. Inmany ways, this number is respectably largeit would take anastronaut traveling at 40,000 kilometers per hour (25,000 miles perhour), which is the speed required to escape from the Earth) morethan 25,000 years to cover a single light-year, and 200 million yearsto cross a distance of 10,000 light-years. Yet it turned out to be agross underestimate of the actual size of the universe. We nowaccept the universe to be not 10,000 ly across but over 10 billion ly(roughly 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 km) containing literallybillions of galaxies, each in turn composed of billions of stars.

Inquiry 2-7 Express the estimated size of the universe in kilometers in scientificnotation.

These large numbers are intended not to intimidate but merely toillustrate the rapid changes that have taken place in our awarenessof the scale of our cosmos. You can better understand these large


12/27

numbers if you keep track of relative sizes and distances using theidea of order of magnitude.

If astronomers were so wrong about the scale of the universe onlyone lifetime ago, what confidence can anyone have that thedescription of the structure and evolution of the universe as it isgiven in this book is any more correct? Ultimately, you will have toanswer this question for yourself. Our goal is to provide you withenough understanding of basic astronomical ideas and methods soyou will be able to appreciate not only the picture of the universedescribed here but also new discoveries that will be made in thefuture. In a field expanding as rapidly as astronomy, merememorization of facts and theories current at one moment is notsufficient, because some of these facts and many theories will soonbecome obsolete. Instead, it is more useful for you to understandthe methods by which astronomers obtain observational data and

the underlying physical principles we use to interpret theobservations.

It is also necessary to see how observations and theory arecombined into a model that attempts to describe accurately someaspect of reality. We like to think that the universe described bycurrent astronomical theory is essentially correct in its broadoutlinesfor example, that the size and age of the universe areapproximately known, and that most of the major types of objects inthe universe are at least roughly understood. At the same time,there are some notable exceptions that will be pointed out, and

there are doubtless many surprises in store that will significantlyalter our understanding of aspects of the universe previouslythought to be well understood. We must always keep in mind thatthe history of science shows that all scientific theories are ultimatelyrefined, and then often discarded in favor of better ones.

While alive, the astronomer Carl Sagan argued that we are living inthe most intellectually exciting era in the history of the Earth, eitherpast or future, because we are in the first stages of beginning toleave Earth and explore the stars. In a real sense, we are the firstpeople on Earth with the potential for developing a true cosmic

consciousness. If not abused, perhaps our heightened awareness willalso increase our likelihood of surviving the growing perils of thisexciting era in which we live.

From Idea to TextbookHow Science Proceeds


13/27

How does science advance from a rough idea to the point whereinformation appears in a textbook such as this? Figure 2 10 showsthe system of filters built into the scientific enterprise that, wehope, prevents the distribution of poor information. Filters arenever perfect, however, and some results pass further through thesystem than they should.

Because science is done by people, science contains all the foiblesheld by those doing the research. The top of Figure 2-10 containseverything that a person contributes to his or her research. Inaddition to education, we all have human traits that have a bearingon everything we do. Because much of modern science requires atleast a minimal amount of funds, ideas that are nonsensical might becaught in the process of writing proposals for funds. (A lack of funds, however, sometimes prevents even worthwhile researchprojects from being done.)

Astronomy, like every field of human endeavor, has its ownculture. The culture changes, so that in one decade astronomersmay dismiss a line of inquiry as uninteresting yet eventually itsimportance may be recognized. A recent example of this change thatthe search for extraterrestrial life, which is discussed in the finalchapter of this book, is now taken to be a subject of valid scientificinquiry.

Once the research is done the time to attempt publication arrives.The work is submitted to a scientific journal, which then sends thepaper out for review by peer scientists chosen by the editor of the

journal. The rate at which papers are rejected depends on theparticular scientific field, the prestige of the journal to which thepaper was submitted and sometimes the adherence to acceptedscientific ideas. Once published, the work becomes part of theprimary literature of the field.

Inquiry 2-8 Newton was reluctant to publish his Universal Law of Gravity (to bestudied in chapter 5) that contradicted the classical Greek ideas held for 2,000 years.Which part of the knowledge filter would have made publication difficult?

The work is now part of the public domain and may be tested by other

researchers. If the research can be neither replicated nor validated, or if previously uncaught errors are found, the work will be rejected by thescientific community through the publication of other papers by otherscientists. If the work is validated, other researchers may begin to use theresults. Furthermore, the results may begin to appear in articles reviewingthe status of the field in general. These articles form a fields secondaryliterature. After getting this far through the system of filters, some of the


14/27

research may then begin to appear in textbooks, either for the training of future scientists or for the liberal arts education of the majority of ourpopulation.

Two Examples of Science as a Process

THE FACE ON MARSOne of the images returned by the Viking spacecraft during its 1976 study of Mars included a northern hemisphere area called the Cydonia region. Theterrain is relatively flat with few craters. It contains a number of buttes andmesas protruding from the surface. One of these features, shown in Figure 211 (on the left) is about a mile across and has the appearance of a human face.For that reason, the popular press has published the suggestion that thefeature was the work of aliens, and it has received a lot of attention.

Scientists noted that only one image was taken, under only one set of lighting conditions. Illumination angles have been known for years to be anextremely important consideration in photo interpretation. Finally, they notedthat extraordinary claims, such as the one that the feature was produced by

intelligent beings, require extraordinary evidence. Such evidence was notprovided by the Viking spacecraft.The Mars Global Surveyor passed over the Cydonia region in the spring of

1998 and obtained new images under different lighting conditions and with aresolution ten times better (14.1 feet) than before. Figure 2-11 (right) showsthe results of the final processed images. The appearance is considerablychanged. Real science requires that data be repeatable and verifiable andadditional data over time will continue to be collected. We will let you be thejudge of the alien hypothesis. Again, remember that extraordinary claimsrequire extraordinary evidence.

THE MARTIAN METEORITE AND LIFEIn the summer of 1996, NASA scientists announced that analysis of a meteoritepreviously inferred to have come from Mars contained fossilized life forms.This claim, if true, would be one of the most important discoveries in humanhistory.

We will not go into the arguments on either side of the question here. Theyare extensive and detailed. The important point is the way in which themethods of science have been applied. The original announcement wasfollowed by publication of the results in a mainstream scientific journal. Thetechniques used were described in detail; alternate conclusions were examinedand discussed.

The act of publication provides the rest of the scientific community with theability to examine fully what was done. Experts in a wide range of scientificfields and having a wide range of techniques available to them were then able

to examine and critique the work in an open manner. It is this mode of operation that marks science and makes it different from pseudoscience. As of this writing (2004), the (cautious) consensus of the scientific community isthat the interpretation of ancient life is incorrect and that the data can beexplained as resulting from non-biological events. Of course, the consensuscan be wrong, and it can change as the weight of evidence changes.


15/27

2 . 4Is it Science or Pseudoscience?How is it possible to tell good science from pseudoscience? While the answer isnot always easy, there are a number of characteristics of pseudosciencewhich, if present in a piece of work, can help you decide.

The Game of ScienceScience may be thought of as an intellectual game, in the sense that it hascertain rules that need to be followed. There is nothing sacred about theserules, but they have evolved over time as scientists have learned by trial anderror how to develop a procedure that generates new and useful knowledge asefficiently as possible. Those who play by rules different from the rules of science may be engaged in worthwhile activities, perhaps even activities thatare more valuable than science, but they are not doing science. The term forthose who claim to be doing science when, in fact, they are not playing by therules of science is pseudoscientist , and what pseudoscientists produce is calledpseudoscience . The prefix pseudo literally means that which deceptivelyresembles or appears to be something else. The terms pseudoscience andpseudoscientist have something of a pejorative ring, but we know of noneutral term, so in the remainder of this chapter we shall speak of pseudoscience and pseudoscientists despite their negative connotations.

Like all scientists, astronomers are contacted frequently by pseudoscientistswho want to explain their latest ideas. Astronomy seems to be one of theirfavorite subjects. The list of pseudoscientific ideas relevant to astronomyincludes astrology, flat and hollow Earthism, geocentrism, theories aboutancient astronauts, belief in UFOs, and creation science. Although some of these ideas have small followings (such as flat Earthism), others (likeastrology) appear to influence large numbers of people. But the differences

between flat Earthism and astrology are differences of degree, not of kind. Theproblem for most people is in being able to see through all the fancy,incomprehensible jargon both use to tell whether someone claiming to be ascientist is talking sense or nonsense.

Despite the fact that most people are not trained as scientists, it is stillpossible to distinguish between genuine science and pseudoscience. Let usremind ourselves of some characteristics of good science. First, science is anever-ending quest for new knowledge. Second, the results of science must beboth repeatable and verifiable. Third, the rules of science dictate that a modelor hypothesis should make predictions, and that these predictions are thentested by new observations. The inability of astrology to provide meaningfulpredictions is illustrated in Figure 2 12 , which shows the lack of agreement

in the predictions made by four astrologers from the same information onhuman characteristics.

A classic stumbling block for astrology and its practitioners has been theirinability to predict or explain why the personalities and lives of twins(especially identical twins) can be so different. A related approach is toexamine the variation in personality and lifestyle shown by people who wereborn on the same day of the same year. To give just a couple of examples,Olympic athlete Bill Gates and Julia Roberts have the same horoscope, as doPresident Clinton and Orville Wright.


16/27

When people begin to find evidence that contradicts established ideas, theymay be skeptical at first, particularly if the new evidence conflicts with well-entrenched ideas. Eventually, however, if the evidence is strong enough, andif enough of it is found, the old ideas inevitably give way to the new. It is thistentative but evolving nature that characterizes sciencethe certainty that atany given moment in history we do not know everything, and the belief that

even well-established ideas may be wrong and therefore should be subjected toconstant and rigorous verification by experiment and observation. You willsee numerous instances of this throughout the book. In contrast,pseudoscientists typically do not use the deductive approach and make specificpredictions that could endanger their ideas. The predictions they make tend tobe ex post facto; that is, made after something is known. Only then can apseudoscientist explain it.

Science is always an unfinished business. There always remain new andundreamed-of discoveries, and there are always opportunities to overturn oldand widely believed dogmas. At any moment a certain number of things areunexplained. This does not necessarily mean that current theories are wrong,because there can be many reasons why something is not known (for example,the difficulty of making detailed calculations, or a lack of sufficient data). And,of course, there is always the possibility of inadequate theories. Therefore,although scientists do work within a framework, or paradigm , of establishedtheory, they generally strive to maintain a healthily skeptical attitude towardaccepted ideas.

A common view among nonscientists (shared by some scientists as well) isthat science is engaged in finding the Truth. Modern science has abandonedthis as arrogant and unrealistic. Historically, this resulted in labeling acceptedtheories as laws, as in Newtons Universal Law of Gravity. The goals of science are really much more limited. To give a simple example, physicistsfrequently talk about electrons as if they were real physical objects, but infact no one has ever seen an electron, and our best current theories suggestthat we never will. If they exist, electrons are so small that any attempt wemake to observe them directly (like trying to see them by bouncing light off them) literally knocks them away from wherever they were. The wordelectron is really just shorthand to describe a set of observations that arerelated to each other in more or less well-defined ways. These relationshipsare generally described mathematically, using formulas to predict the outcomeof experiments that involve the electron. To the extent that the results of theexperiments are predicted accurately, the physical theory of the electron is asuccess. We can then say that the atom behaves as if there were things likeelectrons, but we still do not directly see them. In other words, we create adescriptive model (usually mathematical) and say that something behaves as if such-and-such were the case. Science cannot prove absolutely that electronsexist. An electron is a concepta way to model complex observationalphenomena.

Many things loosely described as scientific facts are not really facts at all.For example, you might have the impression that this book stated the factthat the universe is nearly 14 billion years old. But such usage of the word fact is a habit of speech that is seen on close examination to be imprecise. Inreality, the age astronomers assign to the universe is an inference madefrom the large amount of observational data that we have, as interpreted withour best understanding of physics and in accordance with those theories thathave best stood the test of time and evidence. At present, all the credibleevidence now points to an age of 10 to 15 billion years. The creationists claim


17/27

that the universe is only 10,000 years old is at present not scientific, regardless of whether it is true or false .

What, then, do we mean by a fact ? A fact can be thought of as somethingthat is presented as objectively real or true; in most cases, the fact might resultfrom the process of inference as discussed above. Sometimes facts result from

definition: the Earth is 1 AU from the Sun is an undisputed fact. But so, too, isthat the Earth is 93 million miles from Sun, which is a fact that results from aseries of logical steps and inferences. We often think of facts as somethingthat comes from direct experience: it is a fact that water is wet. In most cases,though, facts actually result from the process of inference. Thus, when peoplesay that only facts should be taught in science classes, they are showing theirlack of understanding of what goes into making what we call a fact.

Is the Hypothesis at Risk?The first test that can help us tell whether we are dealing with pseudoscienceor genuine science is to ask: Is the hypothesis at risk? By this we mean, arethere practical experiments or observations that might, at least in principle,show that the hypothesis is wrong? If the hypothesis is not at risk of beingdisproved, then it is not scientific. But by the same token, every time ahypothesis that is at risk is found to be in agreement with new evidence, wegain new confidence in it.

Consider the earlier example of Zeus and the lightning bolts: if there islightning, Zeus is angry; if not, he is not angry. The theory that lightningbolts are due to an angry Zeus is never at risk, regardless of the circumstances.On the other hand, the early-twentieth-century theory of the observableuniverse that put the Sun at the center, and which seemed to be so wellconfirmed by the evidence, fell to pieces when the distribution of globularclusters was studied in 1917. Even the present-day picture of the galaxy we will

give you in this book is at risk; our current theories may fall victim at anytime to new evidence or better ideas. Pseudosciences, however, do not changewith time. They have a body of ideas that rarely changes significantly.

To give an example from an existing pseudoscience, consider the claim of some creationists that the universe is only 10,000 or so years old. Whenastronomers point out that we appear to be receiving light from objects thatare millions or billions of light-years away (hence the light has been intransit that long), some creationists reply that all those photons from all thedifferent galaxies were created supernaturally, in motion and at the properplace in space, to arrive at Earth in such a way as to give us that impression.The evidence of Earths longevity (and of biological evolution) contained inthe fossil record is dismissed by some creationists as having been put thereby the devil to mislead us. Such responses can never be at risk and areunscientific and unhelpful in acquiring a greater understanding of the worldin which we live.

Dont Confuse Me with the FactsTo pseudoscientists, evidence is interesting only if it tends to support theirideas; indeed, they tend to ignore or even deny the validity of any evidencethat does not support their ideas. Consider the Hollow Earther, for example. Youcould have easily given a dozen or more persuasive pieces of evidence against


18/27

the Hollow Earth theory, yet the only evidence the patriarch was interested inwere an obsolete survey and the shape of your shoes. You can proveanything if you ignore all the evidence that disagrees with it.

Inquiry 2-9 What are three arguments that would persuade others that the Hollow

Earth theory is wrong?Inquiry 2-10 What arguments might a Hollow Earther use to explain away each of the arguments you thought of in Inquiry 2-9?

Simple Answers to Complex ProblemsScientists have great faith that nature is fundamentally simple. Yet thephenomena that nature presents us with can at first appear to be frustratinglycomplex. Although everything in the physical world may ultimately beexplained by the interactions of a few elementary particles, experienceteaches us that the path to knowledge is often a difficult one, and that long,arduous training is needed just to learn to use the basic tools of a scientificfield. The growth of the body of scientific knowledge has become so large thatscientists are forced to become experts in narrow disciplines within theirfields. For example, among astronomers there are specialists in double stars,stellar atmospheres, celestial mechanics, planetary science, interstellarmatter, galaxies, and so on. Within each of these specialties there are evensmaller specializations. Specialties even exist in the techniques used toobserve. No one can become an expert on more than a small part of science,and even then constant study is required just to stay current with the newdiscoveries made in that little corner of knowledge.

In contrast, pseudoscientific theories tend to be easily understood.Pseudoscientists are usually untrained in the fields in which they claimexpertise, and their theories are unconventional in terms of the accepted

scientific ideas of the day. In fact, the more they conflict with conventionalscience, the more the pseudoscientist is convinced of their truth. Not only that,but pseudoscientists usually claim wide applicability for their one, simple idea,which scientists have been too narrow-minded or too stupid to understand.Furthermore, their one idea is supposed to explain a wide diversity of phenomena in a way that anyone can appreciate, once it has been pointed outto them. And, of course, there is no possibility of error. In contrast, althoughscientists are occasionally arrogant, if they are honest they must admit thateven their most important contributions could be overthrown at any time.

Pseudoscientists frequently try to exploit the fact that science has not yetexplained everything satisfactorily. Scientists accept that there will always bemany things that an evolving understanding will not have explained yet. Theproblem is that pseudoscientists uncritically give all discordant facts equalweight. They will argue that any discrepancy unexplained by present scienceis evidence that the whole of modern science is wrong (and that theirparticular brand of pseudoscience is therefore right). It is illogical to arguethat any evidence against some standard scientific view is evidence in favor of a pseudoscientific view; this ignores the fact that there may be many othermuch more satisfactory explanations that have not yet emerged through theprocess of science.


19/27

Playing the UnderdogIt serves a psychological purpose for pseudoscientists to portray themselvespublicly as heroic Davids fighting the Goliath of the scientific establishment.They often claim that scientists are prejudiced against their ideas and wontgive them a fair hearing. They frequently accuse scientists of being closed-minded because scientists dont unquestioningly accept their claims. Thereason scientists often reject pseudoscience is that they understand the issuesvery well and are in the habit of thinking critically about evidence. Scientistsare conservative and accept correct new ideas slowly and only when looked atcarefully.

Conspiracy TheoriesA favorite myth among pseudoscientists is that there is a conspiracy of scientists cooperating to lock out new ideas. Perhaps the best example of this isthe oft-repeated claim that we have been visited by Little Green Men in FlyingSaucers, but that the federal government is keeping them all locked up on amilitary base so we wont find out! Typically, no rationale is given as to whythe government might do such a thing, not to mention how we might be ableto lock up someone so technologically superior that they are capable of interstellar travel while we are not. What reward could possibly inducescientists to hide knowledge like this? Any scientist who was the first personto prove that he or she had talked to an extraterrestrial would, for a while atleast, become the most famous person in the world. The idea of a conspiracy tohide knowledge neglects the fundamental competitiveness of scientists; theyare paid to try and shoot down each others ideas. If you are a scientist thequickest road to fame and fortune is to rock the established boat, but you haveto have the necessary evidence to convince a large body of aggressive andskeptical competitors.

Playing on Fear and EmotionIt is unfortunately true that many people fear and distrust science andscientists, and pseudoscientists typically try to exploit these fears by playingon peoples emotions and inducing them to agree with their ideas. Emotionalappeals that obscure areas of rational debate provide the reason why scientistsusually try to avoid pseudoscientists as much as possible. Yet scientists ought tospeak out against pseudoscience. Probably the best way to do this is indirectly,by devoting more time to helping the public understand the power,fascination, and beauty of science. While most people are uncomfortable withuncertainty and yearn to understand themselves and the world around them,science and scientists frequently seem to be incomprehensible, forbidding,and unapproachable. Yet peoples desire to understand is so strong that theymay turn to the simplistic ideas put forth by various pseudoscientistsappearing to have all the answers. People will even ignore the fact that thepseudoscientist profits mightily from their faith in him or her.

Do They Do Research?Pseudoscientists rarely perform experiments or make observations, as truescientists do. At the 1982 trial of the Arkansas legislation that mandated the


20/27


21/27

out truth from fiction. Bear in mind that authors of pseudoscience publicationsprofit enormously from public belief. A skeptical and critical attitude,combined with reading both sides of an issue, is the best way to separatescience from pseudoscience.

2 . 5Do New Ideas Displace the Old Ones?Scientists have good reason to be extremely wary of theories that claim to solveall the problems of science, because truly revolutionary ideas in science arefew and far between, and even they build on what was known before. Suchideas are revolutionary in enabling us to understand new and unsuspectedphenomena, or to understand familiar ones better, but not in contradictingwhat is already well established.

Newtons theories, for example, completely changed the way people lookedat nature, yet Newton himself acknowledged the debt he owed to those whowent before him. If I have seen farther, he wrote, it is by standing on theshoulders of giants. Newtons theories did not contradict those of Copernicus,Galileo, and Kepler, but perfected them, albeit in a way that they could nothave anticipated. After Newton, the planets still moved around the Sun, inorbits that were nearly circles, just as Copernicus and Kepler had said. Butobservations of bodies such as the satellites of Jupiter, discovered by Galileo,could now be better understood.

In our own century the two great revolutionary ideas in physics have beenEinsteins theory of relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics. Yet eventhough they fundamentally changed the way we look at nature, neitheraltered by much our understanding of the many areas of knowledge where theearlier concepts of Newton were applicable. To this day astronomers useNewtons equations, with slight modifications at most, to calculate where theplanets are. To give another example, although the sun-centered model of theuniverse was ultimately overturned, the actual data were still valid and couldbe understood in the light of previously known physics once the presence of large amounts of obscuring dust in the galaxy was recognized. In the sameway, it is probable that our present-day ideas about the galaxy need revision,but any such revisions are almost certain to fit in with most of our facts andmuch of our theory.

Concluding ThoughtsWe readily admit that science is sometimes wrong, and that some scientists canbe both pig-headed and arrogant. This book gives a number of examples fromthe history of astronomy; many others could be cited. Frequently a mistake byscience results when an important part of the scientific process is omitted. For

example, it is critically important in science for investigators to publish theirstudies for all the world to see. This exposes any piece of research to the largestpossible critical audience. Secret or classified research done by a small groupis much more liable to wander into error, partly because it lacks thatexhaustive scrutiny.

An example of the problems that can result from secrecy in research is the1989 controversy over cold fusion, which could replace oil and other sourcesof energy. As you will learn in later chapters when we study the evolution of stars, there are reasons why scientists conclude that fusion can occur only at


22/27

extraordinarily high temperatures. Were it possible to produce controlledfusion at room temperatures, our energy problems would vanish. The idea of cold fusion is therefore an idea of practical importance, even if fanciful. InMarch 1989, the chemists B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann reported ina news conference that they had successfully produced fusion at roomtemperature. Skeptical scientists the world over attempted to duplicate their

work based on the sketchy reports provided. Unfortunately, Pons andFleischmann did not publish the details of their techniques and their workcould not be verified. Researchers were not allowed into their laboratorybecause they had placed a cloak of secrecy over their work. Pons andFleischmann had been well-known and respected chemists. However, theyfailed to play the game of science according to its rules; they tried to go aroundthe knowledge filter shown in Figure 2-10. While the controversy died down, itis not over. From this example we see that even the best of minds will makemistakes, and the best protection against mistakes is to have as many minds aspossible thinking about something.

At the end of this chapter we suggest a number of books and articles on bothsides of several pseudoscientific issues related to astronomy. We hope that youwill read some of them.

CHAPTER SUMMARY

1. A hypothesis is a reasonable supposition made in describing theresults of experiments and observations. It attempts to make predictionsof future behavior. Once the evidence for its validity is strong, itbecomes a theory ; such validity means that many scientists haverepeated and verified (confirmed) the experiments/observations. Notheory can be proven to be true. However, data can prove a theory to befalse.

2. A fact is something that is objectively true, or comes from definition, orresults from a valid process of inference.

3. Science progresses through the interaction of observation andexperiment with theory. While theory makes predictions, observationand experiment place constraints of reality on theory and thus providea means of determining the best description of nature.

4. In deductive reasoning scientists start with a hypothesis fromwhich specific predictions are made.

5. Inductive reasoning selects as the most likely hypothesis the onethat is in best agreement with all of the available data.

6. An inference is a conclusion reached by incorporating many lines of reasoning, including observation, experiment, and theory.

7. A model is a description of a phenomenon, based on observation,experiment, and theory. It is not necessarily the truth or reality, but adescription that allows prediction of future behavior.

8. The characteristics of good science include the continuous search fornew knowledge, repeatability and verifiability, and the ability to makepredictions and test them against observations.

9. Pseudoscience can generally be distinguished from true science bydetermining whether the ideas espoused can ever be at risk, whetherthey are open to modification and evolution into new ideas, whetherthey claim to supply simple answers to complex questions, whether


23/27

practitioners play the role of an underdog, and whether they doresearch and publish it where trained scientists can examine thepurported results.

SUMMARY QUESTIONS1. Distinguish between a scientific theory and a scientific hypothesis.2. Distinguish between a fact and an inference.3. Describe what scientists mean by a model and its relationship to truth.4. Explain the difference between an observational and an experimental science. List and

explain the particular difficulties that face astronomy and describe several advantagesthat astronomy has over earthbound sciences.

5. Describe why the great distances in astronomy are both a disadvantage and an advantageto the study of astronomy.

6. For the hypothetical expedition to Earth of this chapter, formulate and evaluatehypotheses that might be made by the alien scientists about life on Earth. Specify the

kinds of observations that might be made when attempting to validate the hypotheses.7. Explain how the position of the alien scientists is similar to that of present-dayastronomers (and also how it is different).

8. Compare and contrast the characteristics of pseudoscience presented in the chapterwith those of science.

9. Explain how theory and observation interact in the development of scientific ideas.10. Describe and explain the knowledge filter.

APPLYING YOUR KNOWLEDGE

1. State and analyze some of the conclusions an alien scientist might make about people onEarth through an analysis of their eating habits.

2. About which of the following sources of information might you tend to be moreskeptical on questions of science? ( a ) Time or Newsweek magazine; ( b ) The National Inquire r ; (c ) Scientific American ; (d ) The New York Times .

3. Which of the following publishing houses might you expect to be the least reliable onquestions of science? ( a ) Random House Inc. ( b ) Bantam Press ( c ) Creation-LifePublishers ( d ) Oxford University Press.

4. Which of the following true statements are facts, and which are inferred results? ( a )The average density of material in the Earths core is 11 times that of water. ( b )Jupiters average diameter is 11 times that of Earth. ( c ) All stars like the Sun get theirenergy from conversion of hydrogen to helium.

5. Critically analyze the following statement: The first generation of human beings everto have grown up educated about the true nature of the universe is still alive.

6. Discuss why science is not degraded when talking about it in terms of the game of science, as done in the chapter.

ANSWERS TO INQUIRIES


24/27

2-1. One could note that humans are self-propelled, while cars need a human before theycan move; or that human characteristics show a smooth continuum of properties such assize (suggesting growth), while cars are restricted to a small and fixed range of properties. One would have to use such observations to infer that human characteristicscould be explained by an evolutionary, biological-type development of growth.2-2. They would have to examine carefully examples of extreme cases such as women

without hair and men with long hair to see that it was a superficial property. If one of thephotographs showed the inside of a barber shop, it would probably supply sufficientinformation.2-3. It must be assumed that the data gathered fairly represent the entire group and arenot biased.2-4. (a ) induction (begin with data and then develop a hypothesis) ( b ) deduction ( c )deduction ( d ) deduction (Inquiries b, c, and d all start with a hypothesis and only laterwill predictions be made)2-5. We assume that intrinsic properties do not depend on distance.2-6. The more distant galaxies are seen as they were a long time ago (when they and theuniverse were younger). One conclusion might be that when galaxies are younger, theircores are more likely to explode than when they are older.

2-7. 10 23

2-8. Newtons new ideas certainly were against conventional wisdom. Jealousy by othescientists might have hindered publication.2-9. Some arguments might be: ( a ) if stars are on the inside of a sphere, they cannot bevery far away; ( b ) if you look up, you should see the other side of Earth; ( c ) we see the Sunrise and set every 24 hours; ( d ) we can travel all the way around the Earth and measure itssize.2-10. Responses might include: ( a ) you cannot prove that stars are far away; ( b ) the greatthickness of the atmosphere scatters light and makes it impossible to see the other land onthe other side; ( c ) the rising and setting is caused by a body that revolves about the Sunevery 24 hours, thus producing night.2-11. One example might be Earth is a hollow ball and we are living on the inside of it.The complete statement is in the second paragraph of the chapter opening vignette.2-12. Go to the original source and see the context in which it was made.

FURTHER READINGS

A good listing of sources relevant to various pseudoscience topics that involve astronomy,titled Astronomical Pseudo-Science: A Skeptic's Resource List, is available on the web atwww.astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib.html . In the listing below specific pseudoscience topics, writings by both proponents (Pro) and contradictorywriters (Con) are included.

GeneralThe Fringes of Reason, Ted Schultz (Ed.). Harmony Books (1989). Short descriptions of

many unusual beliefs, and resources to find out more about them.The Art of Deception, by Nicholas Capaldi. Prometheus Books, 1971. Pseudoscientists

frequently make use of dishonest rhetorical tricks to convince their audience. This is anexcellent book to alert you to these tactics.

Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science, by William Broad andNicholas Wade. Simon and Schuster, 1982. Scientists are humans just like everyone else,


25/27

and sometimes they are led to do things that are dishonest and contrary to the spirit of science. This book recounts a number of examples and helps to put the scientificenterprise in a more realistic perspective.

ScienceGood, Bad and Bogus, by Martin Gardner. Prometheus Books, 1981. The one to readif you can only read one.

Myths of the Space Age, by Daniel Cohen. Dodd Mead, 1965. Another excellent summary of the arguments against many astronomically related pseudosciences.

Flim-Flam, by James Randi. Lippincott and Crowell, 1980. Has sections on UFOs andancient astronauts.

Paranormal Borderlands of Science, Kendrick Frazier (Ed.). Prometheus Books, 1981.Science and the Paranormal, by G. Abell and B. Singer (Eds.). Scribners, 1981.Science and Unreason, by D. and M. Radner. Wadsworth, 1982.

Ancient AstronautsPro: Chariots of the Gods? by Erich von Daniken. Bantam, 1970. This is the book that

started it all.Con: The Space Gods Revealed , by Ronald Story. Harper and Row, 1976. Answers the claims

made by von Daniken.Con: Ancient Astronauts, Cosmic Collisions, and Other Popular Theories about Mans Past ,

by William Stiebing. Prometheus Books, 1984.

VelikovskyismPro: Worlds in Collision , by Immanuel Velikovsky. Doubleday, 1950. The classic example

of pseudoscience.Con: Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy , by Henry H. Bauer.

University of Illinois Press, 1984. The definitive work on Velikovsky. Contains severalexcellent chapters on pseudoscience in general.

Con: Scientists Confront Velikovsky , by Donald Goldsmith (Ed.). Cornell University Press,1977. A collection of articles, mostly presented at a debate held before the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science in 1976, between Velikovsky and his critics.The article by Asimov is especially recommended.

AstrologyPro: Virtually any bookstore has dozens to hundreds of books on astrology, often in the

occult section, so specific recommendations seem unnecessary.Con: The Gemini Syndrome: Star Wars of the Oldest Kind , by R. B. Culver and P. A. Ianna.

Pachart, 1979. An exellent introduction to why astronomers discount astrology.Con: Arachne Rising , by James Vogt. Granada, London, 1977. An apparent piece of

pseudoscience arguing for a 13th constellation of the zodiac that turns out to be adevastating parody of pseudoscience.

Con: The Scientific Case against Astrology, by Ivan Kelly. Mercury , January/February1981, p. 13, and November/December 1980, p. 135.

Creat ionismHistory: The Creationists by Ronald L. Humbers. Alfred A. Knopf, 1992. History of the

modern Creationist movement by a distinguished historian.Pro: Scientific Creationism , by Henry Morris. Creation-Life Publishers, 1974. The

definitive statement of what young-Earth Creationists believe.Pro: What Is Creation Science? by Henry Morris and Gary Parker. Creation-Life

Publishers, 1982. A more popularized account of Creationism.


26/27

Con: Astronomy and Creationism, by David Morrison. The claims of Creationists aretotally at variance with what modern astronomy has discovered. Mercury ,September/October 1982, p. 144.

Con: The Science-Textbook Controversies, by Dorothy Nelkin. The equal time demandsby Creationists are investigated. Scientific American , April 1976, p. 33.

Con: Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution , by Douglas J. Futuyma. Pantheon Books,1983. Exposes the fallacies in Creationist arguments. Has an exellent discussion of evolution.

Con: Scientists Confront Creationism , by Laurie R. Godfrey (Ed.). Norton, 1983. Acollection of articles by scientists in different disciplines that demonstrate the flaws ina number of Creationist arguments. Extensive bibliographies.

Con: The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science , by Conrad Hyers. John KnoxPress, 1984. Written from the perspective of a theologian, this discusses the thesis thatCreationism is not only bad science but also flawed theologically.

Con: Christianity and the Age of the Earth , by Davis A. Young. Zondervan, 1982. Writtenby an Evangelical Christian who is also a geologist, this exposes the flaws in Creationistestimates of the age of the Earth.

Con: Science and Creationism , by Ashley Montague (Ed.). Oxford University Press, 1984. Avaluable collection of essays on the evolution/creation controversy.

Con: Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy , by Arthur N.Strahler. Promethean Press, 1987. A thorough and authoritative discussion of allcreationist arguments.

No discussion of the evolution/creation controversy would be complete without mentioningDarwins The Origin of Species . There is a continuing series of books by Stephen JayGould. Particularly good ones include The Pandas Thumb and The Mismeasure of Man .Like Darwin, Gould is often quoted out of context by Creationists.

UFOsAgain countless books exist at most bookstores to represent the pro. The most cogent

would probably be anything by J. Allen Hynek.

Con: The Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects , by Daniel Gillmore (Ed.). Bantam,1969. The classic Condon Report issued at the termination of the militarys extensivereview of UFO evidence.

Con: UFOs Explained (Random House, 1974) and UFOs: The Public Deceived (PrometheusBooks, 1983), both by Philip J. Klass. Klass has for years been the most informed andmost aggressive debunker of flying saucer theories.

Con: The World of Flying Saucers , by Donald Menzel and Lyle Boyd. Doubleday, 1963. Aperspective from the point of view of a professional astronomer.

Con: The UFO Verdict: Examining the Evidence , by Robert Sheaffer. Prometheus Books,1981.

Figure 2-1. The Hollow Earth hypothesis. According to this notion, we are living on the inside of ahollow ball.


27/27

Figure 2-2. The sole of your shoe curves upward. According to its proponents, this is evidencefor the Hollow Earth theory.

Figure 2-3. An interstellar visitor examines data about Earth.

Figure 2-4. A visiting alien would observe that the inhabitants of Earth show a large variety of characteristics.

Figure 2-5. The 2.1-meter telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory is checked out byastronomers Drs. Catherine Pilachowski and Carol A. Christian in preparation for another nightsobserving.

Figure 2-6. (a ) The method of deduction begins with a hypothesis and deduces a variety of predictions and observations. ( b ) The method of induction begins with a number of observations,from which hypotheses are produced that allow explanation of past behavior and the predictionof future results.

Figure 2-7. Aspects of science fit together in a never-ending cycle of hypothesis, prediction, datagathering, and verification.

Figure 2-8.

The length of time that has passed since the light we observe today left the objectsshown.

Figure 2-9. A complete year of the Astrophysical Journal in 1900 and in 1991.

Figure 2-10. The knowledge filter, in which deficiencies in science are (ideally) removed as anidea proceeds from formation through publication in textbooks. (Adapted from Henry H. Bauer,Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method .)

Figure 2-11. The face on Mars as observed at low resolution by ( a ) the Viking spacecraft and by(b ) the Mars Global Surveyor

Figure 2-12. Sun-sign incompatibilities in marriage as published by four astrologers. If astrologywere a scientific model with verifiable and repeatable results, the results of the four astrologersshould show a high degree of correlation. However, the total lack of agreement shows astrologysinability to make verifiable predictions. (From Culver and Ianna, The Gemini Syndrome , p. 132.)

science and psuedoscience

Documents