8 Logical Fallacies That Fuel Anti-Science Sentiments

[albeto.]

I came across this article and thought of the science / pseudoscience confusion around here, and its contribution to anti-science and anti-intellectual beliefs, behaviors, and agendas. 

 

Thought I'd share with those interested.

 

8 Logical Fallacies That Fuel Anti-Science Sentiments

 

1. False Equivalence

2. The Appeal to Nature & The Naturalistic Fallacy

3. Observation Selection

4. Appeal to Faith

5. God of the Gaps

6. Appeal to Consequences

7. Withholding of Consent

8. Playing God

[Lady Florida.]

Thanks. I have a folder in my bookmarks I call Woo Fighting. I put this site in that folder. :)

[albeto.]

I see what you did there.

[HRAAB]

Just what I've been wanting. Thanks.

[Slartibartfast]

I have to go out the door but I wanted to be sure to get my participation badge when this goes down in flames.

 

:)

[creekland]

I have to go out the door but I wanted to be sure to get my participation badge when this goes down in flames.

 

:)

 

Are we taking bets as to how many pages it will get to first?  THAT could get me interested... pending what the prize was.  ;)

 

Otherwise, same old, same old.

[sunflowerlady]

Thanks..

 

I will check this out later this evening when I have more time.

[MSNative]

Can I add two? Sensationalism and science getting involved in politics. Just in my lifetime there has been the scare of a second ice age and global warming disasters. Every time we get hit by a storm, someone screams climate change. That makes it easy to throw stones at science and disregard any evidence. The fact that many scientists are funded by green money or oil money makes it even harder to believe that science is really just the facts.

How bout nutrition? Again just in my lifetime I've been told that eggs are awful for you and now that eggs are a great source of protein. Cholesterol is bad, cholesterol isn't so bad. Fat is bad, fat isn't so bad.

 

Grant money and sensationalistic journalism certainly make science look bad.

[albeto.]

Can I add two? Sensationalism and science getting involved in politics. Just in my lifetime there has been the scare of a second ice age and global warming disasters. Every time we get hit by a storm, someone screams climate change. That makes it easy to throw stones at science and disregard any evidence. The fact that many scientists are funded by green money or oil money makes it even harder to believe that science is really just the facts.

How bout nutrition? Again just in my lifetime I've been told that eggs are awful for you and now that eggs are a great source of protein. Cholesterol is bad, cholesterol isn't so bad. Fat is bad, fat isn't so bad.

 

Grant money and sensationalistic journalism certainly make science look bad.

 

I think unchecked free market capitalism also plays in here by utilizing these logical fallacies to serve specific agendas. It's only natural for a for-profit media corporation to exploit emotions like fear to inspire consumers to be repeat customers and loyal followers. It's only natural for a for-profit cigarette company to hire lobbyists and spokespeople to delay the public exposure of the data, and offer doubts into the court of public opinion in hopes of protecting their market. These are just convenient examples. The successful ones understand and these logical fallacies as tools to secure profit in the same way the Pied Piper used music to control children. 

 

Funding is a difficult component too, I agree. Research requires monetary funding. There's no getting around that. But the claims of science stand or fall based on the existing evidence (or lack thereof). Logical fallacies like these can make it difficult to separate scientific from pseudoscientific arguments. People are harder to exploit when they understand the difference, and the only way to understand the difference is to understand what science is and how it works. But exploiting people is highly motivating to enough people. Manipulation is surprisingly easy when you know how. 

[MSNative]

I think unchecked free market capitalism also plays in here by utilizing these logical fallacies to serve specific agendas. It's only natural for a for-profit media corporation to exploit emotions like fear to inspire consumers to be repeat customers and loyal followers. It's only natural for a for-profit cigarette company to hire lobbyists and spokespeople to delay the public exposure of the data, and offer doubts into the court of public opinion in hopes of protecting their market. These are just convenient examples. The successful ones understand and these logical fallacies as tools to secure profit in the same way the Pied Piper used music to control children.

 

Funding is a difficult component too, I agree. Research requires monetary funding. There's no getting around that. But the claims of science stand or fall based on the existing evidence (or lack thereof). Logical fallacies like these can make it difficult to separate scientific from pseudoscientific arguments. People are harder to exploit when they understand the difference, and the only way to understand the difference is to understand what science is and how it works. But exploiting people is highly motivating to enough people. Manipulation is surprisingly easy when you know how.

Even more to blame is crony capitalism. Manipulating narratives so that the government makes rules in favor of one business over another is even more lucrative than simply manipulating the public. Plus it then allows politicians to get on the corporate dole and become a vote and a spokesperson for the preferred narrative.

[albeto.]

Even more to blame is crony capitalism. Manipulating narratives so that the government makes rules in favor of one business over another is even more lucrative than simply manipulating the public. Plus it then allows politicians to get on the corporate dole and become a vote and a spokesperson for the preferred narrative.

 

Manipulation is possible in part because anti-science sentiment is popular in our culture. People who do not understand the difference between science and pseudoscience are more vulnerable to manipulation than people who do. This should be a topic of interest for educators. 

[G5052]

Manipulation is possible in part because anti-science sentiment is popular in our culture. People who do not understand the difference between science and pseudoscience are more vulnerable to manipulation than people who do. This should be a topic of interest for educators. 

 

I had this very conversation a week ago with a friend who has 45 years in the medical field. She's very concerned about the anti-science view in the homeschooling community while of course respecting us (she wouldn't be my friend otherwise!).

 

She was a nursing professor and most recently an executive at a major medical center.  Recently she stepped down to a part-time staff job with the plan that she will retire at 70 in two years.  Her approach as always been science-based, with a balance of both allopathic and alternative medicine.  She does her research, and has always been very careful with her patients.  

 

However, she's very wary of the essential oils movement, particularly because she works in labor and delivery. She knows that the toxicity of essential oils to infants is very real.  And several times a week she has a patient using essentials oils in a way that sets off all the alarms for her.  She noted that they are nearly always homeschool moms who are convinced that they know what they are doing.  So she asked me for help in trying to figure out how to explain the science shows that some of the approaches are toxic to the baby they just had.

 

Oh boy, that is a tough one!  Because I use essential oils in a limited way (far less than most), I pointed her to a few sites that are more careful that way.  But she has a tough job, indeed. She has to convince them that the science here outweighs the marketing materials and blogs.

[albeto.]

 both allopathic and alternative medicine.  She does her research, and has always been very careful with her patients.  

 

This is interesting to me because "allopathic and alternative medicine" is an example of conflating pseudoscience with science. Or, as Tim Minchin says in his spoken routine,

, "'Alternative Medicine'... has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call 'alternative medicine' that's been proved to work? 'Medicine.'"

 

So here's a professional in the medical field who thinks her approach is science based, yet promotes pseudoscience in some way to her patients. 

 

 

 But she has a tough job, indeed. She has to convince them that the science here outweighs the marketing materials and blogs. 

 

I find this ironic because ultimately she's trying to convince people her pseudoscience is more reliable than their pseudoscience. Interestingly, she doesn't realizes she's using the same method they are to reach her conclusions - marketing materials, blogs, and personal testimony, organized through one or more logically fallacious arguments. 

[G5052]

I find this ironic because ultimately she's trying to convince people her pseudoscience is more reliable than their pseudoscience. Interestingly, she doesn't realizes she's using the same method they are to reach her conclusions - marketing materials, blogs, and personal testimony, organized through one or more logically fallacious arguments. 

 

It depends on your definition of alternative medicine.  In our area, that would be anything outside of the standard drugstore medications and treatments taught in most standard medical programs.

 

Some alternative medicine is not science-based, but some is.  Acupuncture is still considered alternative in my area, but in some applications, the science behind it has been proven to the point that insurance pays for it.  My friend noted that there is very limited research on essential oils, and we do know that some are very toxic to infants and children.  From that basis, she's not comfortable recommending them at all in her area.

[albeto.]

It depends on your definition of alternative medicine.  In our area, that would be anything outside of the standard drugstore medications and treatments taught in most standard medical programs.

 

Some alternative medicine is not science-based, but some is.  Acupuncture is still considered alternative in my area, but in some applications, the science behind it has been proven to the point that insurance pays for it.  My friend noted that there is very limited research on essential oils, and we do know that some are very toxic to infants and children.  From that basis, she's not comfortable recommending them at all in her area.

 

It doesn't depend on my definition of alternative medicine, but the standard definition of medicine, and insurance is hardly the standard by which science and pseudoscience can be separated. One logical fallacy through which pseudoscience is accepted as science is the idea that definitions can reflect one's own desired meaning. This relativist fallacy is corrected for when using the scientific method. By eliminating as many superfluous variables as possible, one detail can be explored without as much interference of bias. The peer review is also an integral part of the method for this very reason. One reason peer review is so important is because we don't always know what biases we have! We're naturally blind to some of the biases and logical fallacies we take for granted as being accurate representations of reality.

 

One way to find out if a claim has been supported with the scientific method, as opposed to a pseudoscientific belief, is to ask what the claim is, specifically, ask about objectively obtained data. Acupuncture claims to effect the physiology of the body by channeling the Qi. Straight up we have a problem because there is no evidence to support this Qi theory of health. If we assume it works anyway, and these ancient claims were simply the best guess explanations surrounding details they didn't understand, then we should see consistent results in clinical research.

[Dicentra]

I came across this article and thought of the science / pseudoscience confusion around here, and its contribution to anti-science and anti-intellectual beliefs, behaviors, and agendas. 

 

Thought I'd share with those interested.

 

8 Logical Fallacies That Fuel Anti-Science Sentiments

 

1. False Equivalence

2. The Appeal to Nature & The Naturalistic Fallacy

3. Observation Selection

4. Appeal to Faith

5. God of the Gaps

6. Appeal to Consequences

7. Withholding of Consent

8. Playing God

 

Thanks for the link, albeto. :)

 

Maybe it's just the time of year (it's still winter here) or maybe I'm just getting tired.  Does anyone else feel like just throwing up your hands in despair?  Sometimes I feel as though logic and reason will never prevail.  Are we making any headway?  I try to promote logical, scientific thinking whenever I can but sometimes I feel like the tide of pseudoscience is gaining in momentum and we haven't got a fighting chance.  It makes me frustrated.  And sad. :(  I tutored a group of registered nursing students last semester - they needed help with organic chemistry.  The amount of pseudoscience I would hear them discussing was astounding.  They weren't learning it in their course work (at least I hope they weren't!) but I guess I thought that if they were studying in a field like nursing, they would understand the scientific process and be able to differentiate between science and pseudoscience and wouldn't be sucked in by stuff they read on the 'Net.  I have a high school acquaintance who is a registered nurse and who also peddles YL essential oils.  I think because she's also a nurse, people feel that the oils must work - a nurse believes they do! :(

 

I don't know.  I don't want to stop fighting the good fight but it just feel so hopeless.  Anyone else feel this way?

[Reflections]

It doesn't depend on my definition of alternative medicine, but the standard definition of medicine, and insurance is hardly the standard by which science and pseudoscience can be separated. One logical fallacy through which pseudoscience is accepted as science is the idea that definitions can reflect one's own desired meaning. This relativist fallacy is corrected for when using the scientific method. By eliminating as many superfluous variables as possible, one detail can be explored without as much interference of bias. The peer review is also an integral part of the method for this very reason. One reason peer review is so important is because we don't always know what biases we have! We're naturally blind to some of the biases and logical fallacies we take for granted as being accurate representations of reality.

 

One way to find out if a claim has been supported with the scientific method, as opposed to a pseudoscientific belief, is to ask what the claim is, specifically, ask about objectively obtained data. Acupuncture claims to effect the physiology of the body by channeling the Qi. Straight up we have a problem because there is no evidence to support this Qi theory of health. If we assume it works anyway, and these ancient claims were simply the best guess explanations surrounding details they didn't understand, then we should see consistent results in clinical research.

 

Peer review is not without problems.  IMO, it's a broken system that, ah-hem, needs peer review.

 

https://www.genomeweb.com/peer-review-broken

 

http://time.com/81388/is-the-peer-review-process-for-scientific-papers-broken/

 

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/23672/title/Is-Peer-Review-Broken-/

[Reflections]

Are we taking bets as to how many pages it will get to first?  THAT could get me interested... pending what the prize was.   ;)

 

Otherwise, same old, same old.

 

Soooo, what kind of prize might you be interested in???  I'd like a an all expense trip to the Bahamas... 

[creekland]

 

I don't know.  I don't want to stop fighting the good fight but it just feel so hopeless.  Anyone else feel this way?

 

No.  I want science to continue and therefore I want exploration and pseudoscience to continue.  Many, many, many breakthroughs in science (medical and otherwise) got their start from the curiosity and thoughts of one person, then went on to become alternative/pseudo ("dissed" by the powers that be), then got the interest of "real" science, then became standard protocol.  Quite honestly, it only takes a little bit of study of the history of science to see this.  If we stop the alternative/pseudo stage we will miss out on way too much for my interest.

 

There are definitely many dead ends (both figuratively and literally) along the way, but without those who pioneer washing hands, vaccs, differing theories, differing treatments, MRIs, etc, (while being dissed by those knowledgeable about the standards of their day) we'd be back in the stone ages.

 

No thank you.

 

Using reason to look at ALL options proposed, pros and cons of each, and knowing where the research currently is with any of them is a good idea.  Looking at any one sales pitch and making a decision off that isn't.

 

Soooo, what kind of prize might you be interested in???  I'd like a an all expense trip to the Bahamas... 

 

That was an awesome trip.  Grand Bahama was incredibly relaxing and refreshing.  It'd be a terrific prize, though next time we're hoping to try Eleuthera to compare beaches and get further away from civilization.

 

All expenses paid?  I'd guess on numbers of pages - and even post my thoughts to incite more pages!

[Lady Florida.]

Thanks for the link, albeto. :)

 

Maybe it's just the time of year (it's still winter here) or maybe I'm just getting tired.  Does anyone else feel like just throwing up your hands in despair?  Sometimes I feel as though logic and reason will never prevail.  Are we making any headway?  I try to promote logical, scientific thinking whenever I can but sometimes I feel like the tide of pseudoscience is gaining in momentum and we haven't got a fighting chance.  It makes me frustrated.  And sad. :(  I tutored a group of registered nursing students last semester - they needed help with organic chemistry.  The amount of pseudoscience I would hear them discussing was astounding.  They weren't learning it in their course work (at least I hope they weren't!) but I guess I thought that if they were studying in a field like nursing, they would understand the scientific process and be able to differentiate between science and pseudoscience and wouldn't be sucked in by stuff they read on the 'Net.  I have a high school acquaintance who is a registered nurse and who also peddles YL essential oils.  I think because she's also a nurse, people feel that the oils must work - a nurse believes they do! :(

 

I don't know.  I don't want to stop fighting the good fight but it just feel so hopeless.  Anyone else feel this way?

 

I often do, but I haven't dealt with it from medical professionals. I think that would make me even more frustrated. 

 

I've see this pseudoscientific thinking in both religious and non-religious friends, and in friends of all political stripes.  I see it most often in my homeschool community regardless of their other beliefs, and that makes me really sad. :(

[Reflections]

No.  I want science to continue and therefore I want exploration and pseudoscience to continue.  Many, many, many breakthroughs in science (medical and otherwise) got their start from the curiosity and thoughts of one person, then went on to become alternative/pseudo ("dissed" by the powers that be), then got the interest of "real" science, then became standard protocol.  Quite honestly, it only takes a little bit of study of the history of science to see this.  If we stop the alternative/pseudo stage we will miss out on way too much for my interest.

 

There are definitely many dead ends (both figuratively and literally) along the way, but without those who pioneer washing hands, vaccs, differing theories, differing treatments, MRIs, etc, (while being dissed by those knowledgeable about the standards of their day) we'd be back in the stone ages.

 

No thank you.

 

Using reason to look at ALL options proposed, pros and cons of each, and knowing where the research currently is with any of them is a good idea.  Looking at any one sales pitch and making a decision off that isn't.

 

 

That was an awesome trip.  Grand Bahama was incredibly relaxing and refreshing.  It'd be a terrific prize, though next time we're hoping to try Eleuthera to compare beaches and get further away from civilization.

 

All expenses paid?  I'd guess on numbers of pages - and even post my thoughts to incite more pages!

 

This. The bolded.  

 

If I were betting (or maybe baiting) and I wanted to see this thread really explode, I might call Homeschooling a pseudoscience.  

[creekland]

If I were betting (or maybe baiting) and I wanted to see this thread really explode, I might call Homeschooling a pseudoscience.  

 

I can't count the number of folks I know who consider it a pseudoeducation.  ;)

 

But it worked well for my guys.

[Dicentra]

 

Using reason to look at ALL options proposed, pros and cons of each, and knowing where the research currently is with any of them is a good idea.  Looking at any one sales pitch and making a decision off that isn't.

 

 

 

Agreed. :)  But I don't call that pseudoscience.  Science absolutely needs those who think outside the box but they still need to agree to have their hypotheses tested through the scientific method.  Pseudoscience, to me, begins to happen when the person proposing the hypothesis refuses to allow it to be tested and retested and instead touts its truthfulness based on anecdote, hearsay, and by using logical fallacies.

[creekland]

Agreed. :)  But I don't call that pseudoscience.  Science absolutely needs those who think outside the box but they still need to agree to have their hypotheses tested through the scientific method.  Pseudoscience, to me, begins to happen when the person proposing the hypothesis refuses to allow it to be tested and retested and instead touts its truthfulness based on anecdote, hearsay, and by using logical fallacies.

 

But in reality, many start with just an idea and no one cares to fund an idea - esp if it's not mainstream.  They test that idea any way they can (meeting alternative/pseudoscience criteria to others at that point).  When they're successful on their own, they end up trying to sell their idea and results and still usually find resistance - esp if their idea is out of the box.  They need to find more subjects who are willing to try this pseudoscience/alternative.  IF they are able to finally convince the big guys that there's something useful, THEN it gets studied for real and later becomes "science."

 

Few breakthroughs in science - real breakthroughs, not just modifications or similar options - have happened otherwise.  Some take longer than others to get noticed, but pretty much all are in that alternative/pseudo stage for a bit.

 

If oodles of tests have been done and someone is still selling snake oil, that's different.

 

If few tests have been done, then that info needs to be known and people will have to take their chances knowing it may or may not work.  Some things simply are at that stage of development.  Are they worth the risk?  No one can say.

[Guest]

It depends on your definition of alternative medicine. In our area, that would be anything outside of the standard drugstore medications and treatments taught in most standard medical programs.

 

Some alternative medicine is not science-based, but some is. Acupuncture is still considered alternative in my area, but in some applications, the science behind it has been proven to the point that insurance pays for it. My friend noted that there is very limited research on essential oils, and we do know that some are very toxic to infants and children. From that basis, she's not comfortable recommending them at all in her area.

Yes - the biggest cheerleaders of naturopathic medicine in my life are two highly trained allopathic practitioners! There is a time and place for the use of naturopathic treatments, but they are not all equally useful, proven, effective, or safe.

[albeto.]

But in reality, many start with just an idea and no one cares to fund an idea - esp if it's not mainstream.  They test that idea any way they can (meeting alternative/pseudoscience criteria to others at that point).  When they're successful on their own, they end up trying to sell their idea and results and still usually find resistance - esp if their idea is out of the box.  They need to find more subjects who are willing to try this pseudoscience/alternative.  IF they are able to finally convince the big guys that there's something useful, THEN it gets studied for real and later becomes "science."

 

Few breakthroughs in science - real breakthroughs, not just modifications or similar options - have happened otherwise.  Some take longer than others to get noticed, but pretty much all are in that alternative/pseudo stage for a bit.

 

If oodles of tests have been done and someone is still selling snake oil, that's different.

 

If few tests have been done, then that info needs to be known and people will have to take their chances knowing it may or may not work.  Some things simply are at that stage of development.  Are they worth the risk?  No one can say.

 

I think you're referring to the process of research (not accurately, from what I understand). Information doesn't become scientific after spending time in a pseudoscience stage. Science is a process, a methodology by which the natural world is explored and understood. As a process, there are certain procedures to be followed. Some of these procedures are respected more than others by people, corporations, or organizations, but that's a refection of the people using the method, not the method itself. To use rationalwiki's definition, pseudoscience describes any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that are the marks of true science. As a process itself, science doesn't undergo a period of pseudoscience. It doesn't evolve or undergo metamorphosis. In any case, this doesn't refer to the logical fallacies themselves, the ones linked in the OP, although the logical fallacies do explain the belief and use of pseudoscience in culture. 

[creekland]

I think you're referring to the process of research (not accurately, from what I understand). Information doesn't become scientific after spending time in a pseudoscience stage. Science is a process, a methodology by which the natural world is explored and understood. As a process, there are certain procedures to be followed. Some of these procedures are respected more than others by people, corporations, or organizations, but that's a refection of the people using the method, not the method itself. To use rationalwiki's definition, pseudoscience describes any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that are the marks of true science. As a process itself, science doesn't undergo a period of pseudoscience. It doesn't evolve or undergo metamorphosis. In any case, this doesn't refer to the logical fallacies themselves, the ones linked in the OP, although the logical fallacies do explain the belief and use of pseudoscience in culture. 

 

You are trying to say what happens in theory, and in theory you'd be correct.  There is a scientific method that we teach about and in some great ideal world out there every idea would get its chance via that method to be tested.

 

I'm describing reality.  In reality many potential ideas get nipped in the bud by financing and the lack of being able to sell that idea to someone with the money to have it tested officially.  Those with the money want to see results of some sort first.

 

Reality and theory often differ.

[albeto.]

I don't know.  I don't want to stop fighting the good fight but it just feel so hopeless.  Anyone else feel this way?

 

Sometimes. I find it discouraging to hear pseudoscience supported and advocated as a reliable explanation of reality. I find it discouraging to see it in educational arenas (I'm not speaking of this forum or any thread or poster, btw, but I'm speaking generally). I find it discouraging to see it in medical arenas. I'm glad I'm not a scientist and working with people who are trained in the scientific method only to not understand it after all. My husband and a buddy did some field work overseas and was asked by a biology grad student where mermaids fit in taxonomic classification in the animal kingdom. He hadn't personally seen a mermaid, but "everyone" knew they existed. There used to be one on display in some museum until it was stolen. There are all kinds of prayer services and exorcisms to protect against mermaid spirits offered. And here he was a grad student in his nation's capital city university! 

 

But... 

 

At the same time, I see so much gained by those who really do know. I look at infographics like this and I think, dang, what a fascinating time to be alive! So many things that are problematic and heart-wrenching today will be addressed in some way in the lifetime of my children. I grew up one of the last to have a small pox vaccine, and I had a neighbor who spent her adult life in a wheelchair because of Polio, and I never had to worry about these things for my own children. What will my children forget when they raise families of their own? Of course whatever problems they will have to face are probably boiling just under the surface today. We won't really know what things will create what messes until the mess is too big to avoid, but that happens in every generation. I am especially gratified to see Europe embrace rational thinking and increasing access to education and rejecting traditional superstitions.

 

But I think ultimately, the world will go on as it always has - good for some, bad for some, and most of us have to decide how much time we can allocate to trying to save the world, and how much time we should set aside to enjoy it. I find if I allow more good news to come in than bad, it helps me from getting too depressed. Also, I try and help my kids from being gullible, and that makes me feel like at the very least, they'll be harder to be taken advantage of. It's the least I can do for them, kwim?

[Χά�ων]

I just wish the alt medicine was not so strongly shoved down my throat with the implication that since I opt to listen to my sons medical instead of random homeschools people I am harming my child.

 

It gets old. Very old.

[creekland]

 I'm glad I'm not a scientist and working with people who are trained in the scientific method only to not understand it after all.  

 

 

I do work in the science field.  I've even been privileged enough to get to talk with current researchers in science fields - in places like NIH and colleges.  We never once discussed mermaids.  There was plenty of discussion about reality.  ;)

 

I love science and always have - mainly because it's an ongoing field where more is being learned daily.  It will never be "complete."

 

 

[Dicentra]

Sometimes. I find it discouraging to hear pseudoscience supported and advocated as a reliable explanation of reality. I find it discouraging to see it in educational arenas (I'm not speaking of this forum or any thread or poster, btw, but I'm speaking generally). I find it discouraging to see it in medical arenas. I'm glad I'm not a scientist and working with people who are trained in the scientific method only to not understand it after all. My husband and a buddy did some field work overseas and was asked by a biology grad student where mermaids fit in taxonomic classification in the animal kingdom. He hadn't personally seen a mermaid, but "everyone" knew they existed. There used to be one on display in some museum until it was stolen. There are all kinds of prayer services and exorcisms to protect against mermaid spirits offered. And here he was a grad student in his nation's capital city university! 

 

But... 

 

At the same time, I see so much gained by those who really do know. I look at infographics like this and I think, dang, what a fascinating time to be alive! So many things that are problematic and heart-wrenching today will be addressed in some way in the lifetime of my children. I grew up one of the last to have a small pox vaccine, and I had a neighbor who spent her adult life in a wheelchair because of Polio, and I never had to worry about these things for my own children. What will my children forget when they raise families of their own? Of course whatever problems they will have to face are probably boiling just under the surface today. We won't really know what things will create what messes until the mess is too big to avoid, but that happens in every generation. I am especially gratified to see Europe embrace rational thinking and increasing access to education and rejecting traditional superstitions.

 

But I think ultimately, the world will go on as it always has - good for some, bad for some, and most of us have to decide how much time we can allocate to trying to save the world, and how much time we should set aside to enjoy it. I find if I allow more good news to come in than bad, it helps me from getting too depressed. Also, I try and help my kids from being gullible, and that makes me feel like at the very least, they'll be harder to be taken advantage of. It's the least I can do for them, kwim?

 

I love "IFLScience". :D  You're right - progress is being made in some spheres.  I think today I was especially frustrated.  A friend of mine who is normally quite good at seeking out solid, scientific information when she reads things on the 'Net decided that microwaves are evil and was sharing this article with anyone and everyone who would listen.  She will quite often ask me about things pertaining to science (not that I have knowledge of all-things-scientific but I do know a little :) ) and so when she shared the above-linked article I suggested to her that the science contained in the article was just... well... bad science.  Normally, we'd have a good discussion about this kind of thing.  Today, her response was, "Well, I have my experiences and I'm standing by them."  She spent some time in Russia in the 1980s as a missionary and, apparently, her experiences are coming from that time in her life - I'm not even sure what experiences she could possibly be referring to.  I didn't ask - it didn't seem like the conversation was going to go much of anywhere positive. :(

[creekland]

I just wish the alt medicine was not so strongly shoved down my throat with the implication that since I opt to listen to my sons medical instead of random homeschools people I am harming my child.

 

It gets old. Very old.

 

I skip a bunch of those threads, so I haven't seen what you've described.  Regardless, I'm sending  :grouphug:  to counter those who are judgmental.  

 

If it's a vacc deal, I'm pro vacc and am glad so many have been developed.  If it's something else, the  :grouphug: still apply.

[albeto.]

I'm describing reality.  In reality many potential ideas get nipped in the bud by financing and the lack of being able to sell that idea to someone with the money to have it tested officially.  Those with the money want to see results of some sort first.

 

You're ignoring all the ideas, many so minute and distant to your own fields of interest that you are naturally ignorant of them (as are most of us who are not professional specialists in these specialized fields), that you're discounting that which does not fit with your expectation. The things you're discounting are the specifics, the tiny building blocks that build upon our database of knowledge, and they include such discoveries that apply to particle physics, microbiology, astronomy, and everything in between. You're illustrating some of these logical fallacies in your argument, and it sounds as if you're trying to argue against the scientific method. I can't imagine what method you think would work better for the purpose of understanding the natural world. If your argument is that the scientific method isn't followed consistently however, I will offer no argument there. ;)

[albeto.]

.... it didn't seem like the conversation was going to go much of anywhere positive. :(

 

I recently had a conversation with my mom like that. I'm worried she's becoming the sweet old lady who is getting easier to take advantage of.  

 

:(

[creekland]

You're ignoring all the ideas, many so minute and distant to your own fields of interest that you are naturally ignorant of them (as are most of us who are not professional specialists in these specialized fields), that you're discounting that which does not fit with your expectation. The things you're discounting are the specifics, the tiny building blocks that build upon our database of knowledge, and they include such discoveries that apply to particle physics, microbiology, astronomy, and everything in between. You're illustrating some of these logical fallacies in your argument, and it sounds as if you're trying to argue against the scientific method. I can't imagine what method you think would work better for the purpose of understanding the natural world. If your argument is that the scientific method isn't followed consistently however, I will offer no argument there. ;)

 

Ok, it's late and my brain turns off in the later hours, so you've definitely lost me.

 

How am I ignoring oodles of ideas?  How do you even know which fields I'm talking about?  How do you even know who I was talking to?  How do you know what my expectations are/were?

 

I'm definitely NOT arguing against the scientific method.  I'm saying it costs money to do research, so many potentially good ideas get stopped at that point.  Some (esp medical folks, but others too) work to continue research on their own (informally) to get results to sell their ideas to places where they can be formally tested.  At that stage these "treatments" would be considered alternative/pseudo as they are not even "experimental" by official standards.  If they are really outside the box ideas one can even get ridiculed for them.  If one gets good results and can persist with it, then there is a chance to get funding to see if it later becomes "science."  Then it's accepted and becomes part of history.

 

I could write more, but I doubt it's worth it to be honest.  There's a reason I don't get into baited threads.  Too many people have closed minds and really want a JAWM (just argue with me or just agree with me).

 

If one really wants to know how things work, it's often best to talk with those truly in the field - researchers - rather than just looking at a thread on a homeschool message board.  ;)

[albeto.]

I could write more, but I doubt it's worth it to be honest. 

 

I understand. Thanks for the comments.

 

:)

[Ausmumof3]

I sometimes see scientist use the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. It's generally to avoid explaining things that trained in science people already know but it's harder for us mere mortals to accept what they are saying when they aren't willing to explain the steps.

 

I also read awesome science stuff that is broken down small for us all to understand.

 

I want to use a bit of an analogy here though it's far from perfect.

 

A friend is trained in classical music. She's great at it but she finds there's not much of an audience because of a decline in interest in classical music.

 

She can either

 

1. Complain about societies lack of interest in classical music or

2. Figure out awesome ways of marketing herself without compromising the quality of her playing.

 

I see science in a similar way. People aren't always great at applying scientific thinking. Scientists can either complain about the lack of understanding or invest a little of themselves in marketing and selling themselves in such a way that interest is generated and people learn more about scientific thinking.

 

I think a lot of scientists are doing an awesome job of taking the latter approach.

[Audrey]

I see what you did there.

 

 

See, I was thinking she was going

.

 

But, that could be because I'm trying to figure out the guitar parts for that one.

[Dicentra]

Well...  My friend did come back to say that she appreciates my input.  That makes me feel slightly better. :)

[albeto.]

Some (esp medical folks, but others too) work to continue research on their own (informally) to get results to sell their ideas to places where they can be formally tested.  At that stage these "treatments" would be considered alternative/pseudo as they are not even "experimental" by official standards.  If they are really outside the box ideas one can even get ridiculed for them.  If one gets good results and can persist with it, then there is a chance to get funding to see if it later becomes "science."  Then it's accepted and becomes part of history.

 

What separates science from pseudoscience isn't the stage of development within social acceptance. Science doesn't evolve like this:

 

imagination ---> pseudoscience ---> science

 

Pseudoscience is attributing scientific words and concepts to nonscientific beliefs. It's not limited to the uneducated. 

 

 

A German biologist who offered €100,000 (£71,350; $106,300) to anyone who could prove that measles is a virus has been ordered by a court to pay up.:

 

Stefan Lanka, who believes the illness is psychosomatic, made the pledge four years ago on his website.

 

The reward was later claimed by German doctor David Barden, who gathered evidence from various medical studies. Mr Lanka dismissed the findings.

 

But the court in the town of Ravensburg ruled that the proof was sufficient.

 

Reacting to the verdict by the court in the southern town, Mr Lanka said he would appeal.

 

"It is a psychosomatic illness," he told regional paper Suedkurier. "People become ill after traumatic separations."

 

 

Holy freakin' moley. A biologist! Eep!

 

No amount of testing will verify the "psychosomatic theory of measles." To believe and promote it anyway is to believe and promote pseudoscience. It's to rely on logical fallacies rather than defer to objective data, analytic reasoning, and the review of others whose biases are unlikely to conform to your own and blind researchers from certain facts. 

 

 It's also a way to separate the fool and his money, apparently. 

 

Medical treatments that are not yet established medical practice are not in the "pseudoscience stage" but in the "research stage" of development. Science is a method of exploration, not a ferry to transport ideas from the banks of bizarre to the shores of Insurance Companies. 

[Pam in CT]

I think what creekland is getting at is, in many fields, the scientific method (and the related process of getting medicines in particular through the regulatory process) is expensive, that that fact -- logically, rationally -- has disruptive effects.  In rare but extreme cases, those effects can include good science being wrongly labeled as pseudoscience.

 

 

 

...

I'm definitely NOT arguing against the scientific method.  I'm saying it costs money to do research, so many potentially good ideas get stopped at that point.  Some (esp medical folks, but others too) work to continue research on their own (informally) to get results to sell their ideas to places where they can be formally tested.  At that stage these "treatments" would be considered alternative/pseudo as they are not even "experimental" by official standards.  If they are really outside the box ideas one can even get ridiculed for them.  If one gets good results and can persist with it, then there is a chance to get funding to see if it later becomes "science."  Then it's accepted and becomes part of history.

 

 

Decades ago, a good family friend -- a longstanding neurologist at Johns Hopkins -- pioneered a treatment for patients with such a severe form of epilepsy that existing pharmaceutical treatments were unable to help.  The treatment essentially amounted to a very extreme diet, called Ketogenic Diet.  Well, who's going to fund a large population double-blind clinical trial of a diet?  Diets don't generate any profits for the pharmaceutical companies that ordinarily are in the business of designing and implementing such trials.  Not only did he have a tremendous difficulty in getting funding for the trials -- this, despite his reputation at one of the best hospitals in the country -- but the sales and marketing power of the companies with existing drugs were -- logically, rationally (I am NOT positing a conspiracy theory here, nor bashing Big Pharma) -- inclined to dismiss the new competing treatment, which threatened their product, as "untested" and "alternative."

 

Which it was, for a long time.  Too long, for the most vulnerable populations.

 

Eventually, and in large measure because the idea originated with a well-established neurologist in Johns Hopkins, they got public grant money and did the trials.  Today the KD is accepted mainstream treatment, particularly for patients who are unresponsive to drugs.  But for *years* it was maligned as pseudoscience, and I do think it is fair to speculate that it would have done so even longer were the idea to originate with less august and respected credentials.

 

John died last year.  As this eulogy in the Baltimore Sun notes (at the bottom), "As recently as 1995, many physicians considered KD no longer a viable treatment," according to a Hopkins announcement of Dr. Freeman's death.  He was developing the diet and using it with his own patients at least twenty years prior, enduring all sorts of defamation re: "alternative treatment," in the meantime.

 

 

 

I can see this anecdote going either way -- proving (what I think to be) albeto's point that with enough time, the scientific method sifts out the wheat from the chaff... or (what I think to be) creekland's, that public discussion and awareness follows the money as much as it follows the better idea.

[creekland]

Decades ago, a good family friend -- a longstanding neurologist at Johns Hopkins -- pioneered a treatment for patients with such a severe form of epilepsy that existing pharmaceutical treatments were unable to help.  The treatment essentially amounted to a very extreme diet, called Ketogenic Diet.  Well, who's going to fund a large population double-blind clinical trial of a diet?  Diets don't generate any profits for the pharmaceutical companies that ordinarily are in the business of designing and implementing such trials.  Not only did he have a tremendous difficulty in getting funding for the trials -- this, despite his reputation at one of the best hospitals in the country -- but the sales and marketing power of the companies with existing drugs were -- logically, rationally (I am NOT positing a conspiracy theory here, nor bashing Big Pharma) -- inclined to dismiss the new competing treatment, which threatened their product, as "untested" and "alternative."

 

Which it was, for a long time.  Too long, for the most vulnerable populations.

 

Eventually, and in large measure because the idea originated with a well-established neurologist in Johns Hopkins, they got public grant money and did the trials.  Today the KD is accepted mainstream treatment, particularly for patients who are unresponsive to drugs.  But for *years* it was maligned as pseudoscience, and I do think it is fair to speculate that it would have done so even longer were the idea to originate with less august and respected credentials.

 

John died last year.  As this eulogy in the Baltimore Sun notes (at the bottom), "As recently as 1995, many physicians considered KD no longer a viable treatment," according to a Hopkins announcement of Dr. Freeman's death.  He was developing the diet and using it with his own patients at least twenty years prior, enduring all sorts of defamation re: "alternative treatment," in the meantime.

 

 

 

I can see this anecdote going either way -- proving (what I think to be) albeto's point that with enough time, the scientific method sifts out the wheat from the chaff... or (what I think to be) creekland's, that public discussion and awareness follows the money as much as it follows the better idea.

 

I see this as a perfect illustration of what I'm talking about.  There is a stage where out of the box thinking is considered alternative at best and pseudo at worst.  Years later it may or may not be accepted science, but in the present time it's not.  Hand washing before childbirth was the same way.  

 

If we were only to stick with known "science" there are oodles of advances we wouldn't have because the pumbas in power would ax those they disdained.  I do not care to do that as it would be incredibly limiting.

 

Who of us knows what we smirk at now that will be known science 30 years from now?  I prefer to keep my mind open and look at any studies available.  When studies are few, theories need to be looked at.

 

And I wish more $$ would be funneled into research in order to separate the good from the bad more quickly.

[fraidycat]

I find accepting "only that which has been proven scientifically, thus far" to be incredibly arrogant and limiting.

 

Life on Earth is lightyears ahead of science in minute nuances that we do not have the technology to build the technology to even begin to measure yet. We keep making progress every day.

 

And as others have mentioned, we must, absolutely "follow the money" when it comes to what is and is not researched and marketed. This is not just in relation to science/medicine.

 

I teach my kids first and foremost to question "Who benefits?" "Where is the money going?" "Does this person/company/group care about me, or do they care about their bottom line?"

 

This goes for food/diet, toys, essential oils, clothes, supplements, medication, etc. We are always questioning motives. Always.

[hornblower]

Are we taking bets as to how many pages it will get to first?  THAT could get me interested... pending what the prize was.   ;)

 

Otherwise, same old, same old.

 

The prize is a box of essential oils with a bonus gift pack of homeopathic remedies. Still working on the astrology reading donation.

[Ausmumof3]

I think what creekland is getting at is, in many fields, the scientific method (and the related process of getting medicines in particular through the regulatory process) is expensive, that that fact -- logically, rationally -- has disruptive effects. In rare but extreme cases, those effects can include good science being wrongly labeled as pseudoscience.

 

 

 

 

 

Decades ago, a good family friend -- a longstanding neurologist at Johns Hopkins -- pioneered a treatment for patients with such a severe form of epilepsy that existing pharmaceutical treatments were unable to help. The treatment essentially amounted to a very extreme diet, called Ketogenic Diet. Well, who's going to fund a large population double-blind clinical trial of a diet? Diets don't generate any profits for the pharmaceutical companies that ordinarily are in the business of designing and implementing such trials. Not only did he have a tremendous difficulty in getting funding for the trials -- this, despite his reputation at one of the best hospitals in the country -- but the sales and marketing power of the companies with existing drugs were -- logically, rationally (I am NOT positing a conspiracy theory here, nor bashing Big Pharma) -- inclined to dismiss the new competing treatment, which threatened their product, as "untested" and "alternative."

 

Which it was, for a long time. Too long, for the most vulnerable populations.

 

Eventually, and in large measure because the idea originated with a well-established neurologist in Johns Hopkins, they got public grant money and did the trials. Today the KD is accepted mainstream treatment, particularly for patients who are unresponsive to drugs. But for *years* it was maligned as pseudoscience, and I do think it is fair to speculate that it would have done so even longer were the idea to originate with less august and respected credentials.

 

John died last year. As this eulogy in the Baltimore Sun notes (at the bottom), "As recently as 1995, many physicians considered KD no longer a viable treatment," according to a Hopkins announcement of Dr. Freeman's death. He was developing the diet and using it with his own patients at least twenty years prior, enduring all sorts of defamation re: "alternative treatment," in the meantime.

 

 

 

I can see this anecdote going either way -- proving (what I think to be) albeto's point that with enough time, the scientific method sifts out the wheat from the chaff... or (what I think to be) creekland's, that public discussion and awareness follows the money as much as it follows the better idea.

There is a similar story here about the guy that discovered that stomach ulcers are linked to a bacteria. He was initially dismissed but eventually the idea gained credibility. He even imbibed the bacteria and showed how after a time he started having gastric issues etc.

 

He did use the scientific method to prove his ideas but it's a process that takes time.

 

Obviously there are plenty of ideas that are disproven by science which deserve to be ignored but there are some ideas that are in an initial stage that will eventually gain credibility.

 

There are also ideas that may be correct but will never likely be proven or disproven because funding for research is limited and scientist have to make an income too.

[albeto.]

I think what creekland is getting at is, in many fields, the scientific method (and the related process of getting medicines in particular through the regulatory process) is expensive, that that fact -- logically, rationally -- has disruptive effects.  In rare but extreme cases, those effects can include good science being wrongly labeled as pseudoscience.

 

No doubt research is expensive. No doubt the research community is fraught with biases. The ether theory is one such well-known bias. Everyone "knew" it existed and was a very real and integral part of the universe. The problem was, no one had actually tested it. It was a belief that was accepted without evidence, and yet accepted it was by most scientists. When it was tested objectively, the theory failed. The claims were unsubstantiated, and subsequent hypotheses reflected the new information. That scientists come to the lab with cognitive biases unknown to them is not a testament to the scientific method in a negative way. It is, if anything, a testament to the scientific method in a positive way because only through the objective, analytic, detail and data oriented methodology are these biases discovered and accounted for. Personal biases don't negate the scientific method, nor does personal profit. 

 

I can see this anecdote going either way -- proving (what I think to be) albeto's point that with enough time, the scientific method sifts out the wheat from the chaff... or (what I think to be) creekland's, that public discussion and awareness follows the money as much as it follows the better idea.

 

 

I find it interesting that time is a strike against the scientific method. Because what was once scoffed at and rejected is now standard medical procedure in some cases, the argument seems to be, what is scoffed at and rejected today may be standard medical procedure in the future. While this may be true, it doesn't reflect the methodology (science or not) by which any particular claim is being explored. The claims for acupuncture or homeopathy or prayer, for example, are potentially accepted as true based on one or another logical fallacy, not evidence. That the desired claim has been put to test and failed seems to be ignored, and science is considered less reliable because it doesn't confirm one's beliefs. I find this to be no less indicative of an anti-science sentiment just because it's subtle or because one enjoys science as a field of study. 

 

[creekland]

The claims for acupuncture or homeopathy or prayer, for example, are potentially accepted as true based on one or another logical fallacy, not evidence. That the desired claim has been put to test and failed seems to be ignored, and science is considered less reliable because it doesn't confirm one's beliefs. I find this to be no less indicative of an anti-science sentiment just because it's subtle or because one enjoys science as a field of study. 

 

You are aware that many meds do not work for many people either, right?  Are we to say they failed (overall) because they failed certain segments of the population?  We don't always (often) know why they fail person A and work for person B.

 

There are few tests that outright pass when researched.  They provide odds of working or how much they work.

 

And remember, the washing of hands or bacteria causing ulcers or diets working against diseases, etc, are all success stories where alternative meds became science methods.  I've no doubt there are many that could have progressed but didn't due to lack of time/money or resources for the person who had the idea.  I'm guessing you don't believe that can happen.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Some paths end up being outright failures even if they were previously accepted as science.  That's true.  I think we all know that.

 

But I really get the feeling that some trust currently known science as a gospel of sorts.  Most science folks do not.  We see it as a work in progress and carefully consider MANY things, including those currently thought of as alternative.  It in no way means we won't use accepted deals.  I've recently used antibiotics to treat a couple of infections, etc.

 

If science folks weren't interested in alternatives as possibly being "real" there would be no research! ;)

[Tanaqui]

You are aware that many meds do not work for many people either, right?  Are we to say they failed (overall) because they failed certain segments of the population?  We don't always (often) know why they fail person A and work for person B.

 

Are you suggesting that every time homeopathy has been subjected to a double blind test, they just happened to divide the groups such that those whose bodies won't respond properly were in the test group instead of the control?

 

[albeto.]

 

And remember, the washing of hands or bacteria causing ulcers or diets working against diseases, etc, are all success stories where alternative meds became science methods.  I've no doubt there are many that could have progressed but didn't due to lack of time/money or resources for the person who had the idea.  I'm guessing you don't believe that can happen.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

 

 

I suspect you're conflating the issues between science and the behaviors of scientists. Washing hands and certain diets became medical standards because they were found to be reliable because they were vetted through scientific testing. That's science at work. 

 

My intent isn't to agree or disagree with you, but to share some logical fallacies that fuel anti-science sentiment. If you make a claim that something is true, I will ask if I am confused or question it or disagree with it. It's not to bait you or to start a ruckus, but to clarify my own understanding so I don't misunderstand you or comment about things you're not saying. I think I misunderstood you earlier, and subsequent dialog helped to correct my misunderstanding. 

 

I interpret your argument to be advocating the idea that because things were once dismissed and are now accepted, those things you accept may one day be accepted by the scientific community at large, without deference to evidence or the scientific method. That's an interesting claim - that evidence isn't necessary in this case because it's something that you genuinely believe in yourself. 

 

Let me see if I can move this general argument away from medicine and illustrate it in a different scientific field, aviation. The Wright Brothers were the first to successfully sustain flight in a controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human machine in 1903. They weren't the first to attempt this, and we have all kinds of film clips showing some of the earlier attempts (usually used for humor purposes). To say in 1900 that people will never sustain controlled flight in a powered, heavier-than-air human machine would be a prediction that would prove to be false. But to say that because the Wright Brothers did it, then any machine I can conceive of can do it, would be to ignore the very things that make flight possible. To suggest that these details aren't important because the Wright Brothers were laughed at too, is to completely disregard how aviation works and to dismiss the scientific method altogether. 

 

If that's not your argument, and instead your argument is that it takes time for the scientific community to ferret out accurate from inaccurate hypotheses, then we are in agreement. If your subsequent argument is that it is unnecessary to wait for the scientific community to "catch up" to modern hypotheses, I disagree with that. That's the kind of anti-science sentiment safely tucked within these logical fallacies that inspires all kinds of preventable problems, increasing cases of measles being one example. 

 

But I really get the feeling that some trust currently known science as a gospel of sorts.  Most science folks do not.  We see it as a work in progress and carefully consider MANY things, including those currently thought of as alternative.  It in no way means we won't use accepted deals.  I've recently used antibiotics to treat a couple of infections, etc.

 

 

 

I hear this claim a lot here, too, the idea that science is used as a gospel of sorts. I'm not sure what that means. I interpret it as a dismissal and sign of frustration, but I do not understand what it means to trust science as a gospel. A gospel, as I understand it, is a biography of a divine being, a story that tells of his/her earthly life in order to lend credibility to the claims of religion. Science makes no such claims of divine revelation, so I'm at a loss as to what that really means. 

 

But anyway, moving on...

 

If science folks weren't interested in alternatives as possibly being "real" there would be no research!  ;)

 

 

I recall one story from Neil DeGrasse Tyson's Cosmos about a scientist whose alternative theory was hushed from the collective "voice" of the scientific community. Sadly, he wasn't the first, but his was an intriguing hypothesis. The real disappointment in this episode of history, Tyson postulates, isn't that an answer was censored. The guy was wrong. His hypothesis would never work out because his data or his analysis wasn't accurate and it wouldn't have panned out. The real disappointment was that his voice was essentially silenced. This is exactly what is needed for the scientific method to work - voices, hypotheses, questions, risks. All these things work together to push to the surface the ideas that seem to have merit, and from those ideas, research and tests and analysis confirm the hypothesis as being accurate or not. This illustrate's Pam's example of the KD treatment. 

 

I'd like in this thread to avoid the discussion about the scientific community, the individual and collective positives and negatives, and instead focus on science itself, and the logical fallacies that fuel anti-science sentiment. 

[creekland]

 

 

I'd like in this thread to avoid the discussion about the scientific community, the individual and collective positives and negatives, and instead focus on science itself, and the logical fallacies that fuel anti-science sentiment. 

 

 

No problem.  Not my thread, nor a topic that interests me in the least.  I'm pretty sure most have a decent understanding of what I was saying anyway.  ;)