Download Assignment 2

Assignment 2 - Demarcation of Science and Pseudo-science
Sriram Sundar Rajan
Masters in Software Engineering (60 Credits)
[email protected]
Vijaya Krishna Cherukuri
Masters in Software Engineering (60 Credits)
[email protected]
1. Please give a short summary of all three articles [1-3] taken together as a discussion of the
difference between science and pseudo-science in general, and particularly astrology as
example pseudo-science.
Brief Summary :
Article 1 clearly explains what is science and pseudoscience , purpose of demarcation ,
problem of demarcation and various approaches that can be used for demarcation.
Article 2 vividly illustrates the background of pseudo-science , the characteristics of pseudoscience and the boundaries between science and pseudoscience.
Article 3 analyzes in depth the reasons why astrology cannot be classified as Science . The
author provides details of a thorough experiment and results of which clearly reveal why astrology is
one of the best examples for Pseudo-science.
Various Criteria to differentiate Science and Pseudo-Science from all three articles taken together :
(1) Absence of progress : Science has made tremendous progress over the centuries :
From the time when the atom was considered to be the smallest particle to now where it
is proved that even protons have sub particles. Astrology, on the other hand, has
remained stagnant over thousands of years and no real progress has been made.
(2) Reproducibility and inter-subjective verifiability : Any theorem or concept to be
universally acceptable must be tested by different people across various places and
must yield the same result. It is very clear from the Astrotest mentioned in article 3 that
the astrologers got different results for the same test subject. Also, in astrology, there is
no written document proof explaining the predictions. On the other hand , every new
concept in Science must be supported by solid proofs and logical deductions.
(3) Belief in authority : Astrology heavily believes in authority and that astrologers have a
special ability to determine what is true or false . The first experiment in Astrotest which
was conducted by Geoffery Dean illustrates that the astrologers had a success rate of
50% which was as if they had tossed up coins to determine their choices and they
possess no unique ability as generally believed. Science has no place for authority and
emphasis is only on logic and rationale.
(4) Established Institutions : Scientific theorems and facts are always critically analyzed
and verified by established institutions. These institutions always ensure that there is no
dilution of science at any point of time . Astrology has no established institution to speak
of and relies heavily on intellectual traits of individuals.
2. Why is it important to distinguish science from non-science? Describe the problem of
demarcation and its significance for science according to Sven Ove Hansson’s article [1]
Important to distinguish between science and non-science :
1) According to Mahner , the demarcation can be made at both theoretical and practical
level. From a theoretical point of view it contributes to the philosophy of science and
from a practical point of view it provides guidance and clarity in both public and private
life.
2) Since science is the most reliable source of knowledge in a wide variety of areas, it must
be distinguished from its imposters.
3) As science enjoys high status in the present-day society, there are always attempts from
different quarters to exaggerate the scientific status of various claims, teachings, and
products.
4) The society is heavily dependent on science to make important decisions in various
fields. In case of healthcare , science develops and evaluates treatments according to
the evidence of their efficiency . Pseudoscience like homeopathy is inefficient and at
times has adverse effects on the patients .Similarly science has a very critical role in
expert testimony , environmental policies and science education to name a few.
Problem of Demarcation and its Significance for Science.
Two fundamental problems with demarcation are that there is no established technique
that could be used across all branches of science and that these techniques change and evolve with
time.
1) Object of Demarcation :
Science has not been able to identify a fundamental proposal that could be used as a
base for demarcation . Even though there have many proposals such as research
program (Lakatos 1974a, 248–249), an epistemic field or cognitive discipline, (Bunge
1982, 2001; Mahner 2007), a theory (Popper 1962, 1974), a practice (Lugg 1992;
Morris 1987), a scientific problem or question (Siitonen 1984), and a particular inquiry
(Kuhn 1974; Mayo 1996) , these proposals cannot be applied to all facets of science.
2) Time bound demarcation :
Some authors have maintained that the demarcation between
science and pseudoscience must be timeless. This argument is based on a
fundamental misconception of science. The author makes a valid observation that the
demarcation of science cannot be timeless, for the simple reason that science itself is
not timeless .Derkson (1993, 19) rightly pointed out three major reasons why
demarcation is sometimes difficult: science changes over time, science is
heterogeneous, and established science itself is not free of the defects characteristic of
pseudoscience.
3. What are the characteristics of pseudoscience according to [2]
If there exists a field or body or a part of knowledge which claims to adhere with the scientific norms
and research but fail to be proved correctly when using scientific methodology to test them, it is said to
be Pseudoscience. The following are some of the characteristics of pseudoscience:
Usage of Vague claims: An area of knowledge or claim is pseudo scientific, if they are kept vague
and were never refuted. It also consider many aspects such as lacking of boundary conditions, failing
to seek explanation which require little amount of assumptions, lack of double-blind etc.
Relying more on confirmation: Rely more on aspects such as the authority which has claimed it, the
community they believe in , testimonies, personal experiences. It often try to take in the claims that are
supportive and vomit the considerations that are suppressive to the beliefs.
Unwillingness to test or lack of openness to test: Many pseudo scientists show disinterest in
getting the review of their claims to be done by the peers. Some fail to provide their findings to other
research institutions for testing.
No progress: Many don’t have the will to progress the claims. For example, the scientific research
advancement in atomic theory has been consistent, whereas astrology remained unaltered since the
time of its creation.
Issue personalization: Many pseudo-scientific societies or groups or subjects, cannot bear criticism.
They will not use the criticism as a trigger for advancements.
Using mis-leading language: They tend to misuse the accepted technical jargon and thus try to
persuade non-experts who read them to believe the false prophecies and theories.
4. Give a short account of astrotest [3] and its results.
The author, Rob Nanninga, had devised a scientific method called Astrotest. The participants received
the birth details of all the seven subjects that they requested in the first place . They also received the
questionnaires filled by the seven subjects. The questionnaire was a consolidated version of the
participants questions only. The author also selected the test subjects in such a way that their birth
details did not contradict each other and there was no room for any confusion. All the details were
clear, distinct and unambiguous. When the astrologers matched the birth details and questionnaires of
the subjects and submitted their work after ten weeks , the results were stunning to say the least.
When the astrologers were asked to expect how many correct matches they have made, 50% of them
replied that they have matched all the subjects exactly with their respective birth charts . But
conversely, only one astrologer could make it up to maximum of three right matches. Almost half of the
astrologers could not predict a single correct match. Scientifically most of the matches were totally
unexpected and unacceptable.
Moreover, despite unconvincing predictions, there arose many excuses from the astrologers which in
turn were also unconvincing. Some remarked that Astrology works only in practice, others were
adamant that most of the horoscopes were too much alike which created confusions and made them
give only approximate matches. Some opined that the subjects might have not given truthful answers
to the questions.
Finally, the author concluded that a test that satisfies and that can appease both astrologers and
scientists can be devised provided astrologers can specify what type of test can be acceptable by
them. Moreover the point of defense by astrologers is that the astrological effects are so subtle and
volatile in nature are against scientific principle of experiencing certainty.
5. What are your conclusions on science contra pseudo-science discussion?
1) The demarcation between science and pseudoscience is part of the larger task to determine which
beliefs are epistemically warranted .It is very important a clear demarcation is available since Science
plays a huge role in decision making in public and private life.
2) it is emphasized that there is much more agreement in particular issues of demarcation than on the
general criteria that such judgments should be based upon. This is an indication that there is still much
important philosophical work to be done on the demarcation between science and pseudoscience.
3) Two basic principle which can be used for demarcation across different branches of science are
reproducibility and inter-subjective verifiability . Both the principle enable peer view and validation of a
hypothesis or theory related to a phenomenon.
4) Demarcation rules for pseudoscience cannot be concrete . As science evolves with time, so will the
demarcation rules.
REFERENCES
[1] Hansson, Sven Ove, "Science and Pseudo-Science", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/pseudoscience
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
[3] The Astrotest A tough match for astrologers (Rob Nanninga), http://www.skepsis.nl/astrot.html