Questions and articles based on Astrobiology work created by TERC/NSF.
Please read the following description and then complete the activities that follow. Parts 1 and 2 are due by 12/17/10. Part 3 is due by 1/5/11.
Pseudoscience and Skeptical Thinking
What is pseudoscience? At its most basic, pseudoscience is “false science.” That’s what pseudo means—false. More descriptively, pseudoscience is a way to explain or make claims about phenomena that cannot be proven scientifically through experimentation that can be reviewed and repeated by other scientists.
Science deals with theories that are measurable, testable, and verifiable. Scientists conduct experiments and make observations to collect data upon which conclusions can be based. They then report their conclusions, data, and methods so that other scientists can repeat that work and verify the results. As new evidence becomes available, scientific theories are subject to change or modification. Pseudoscience makes claims without meeting these requirements and often ignores new evidence disproving a pet theory.
Pseudoscience is pervasive in our society. Consider the popularity of astrology, Big Foot, and the Loch Ness monster. Although it can be entertaining, pseudoscience undermines developing a scientifically literate public. The ability to think critically is important when evaluating information that can influence decisions about anything from our quality of life to how the government allocates money for scientific research. For example, topics such as global warming and the existence of intelligent civilizations on Mars can only be resolved through critical examination. Your success in interpreting such reports depends on your ability to pick out which theories can be supported scientifically and which cannot. Those that cannot are pseudoscience.
Why has pseudoscience become so pervasive in our society? One reason is that sensational claims, like those that use the “Face on Mars” to say there is intelligent life on Mars, help sell tabloid newspapers or books on the subject. Also, many people like to believe certain ideas, no matter how poorly supported they are. Pseudoscience offers a way for people to believe in fantastic ideas just because they sound so real and scientific. Pseudoscience frequently uses scientific language that sounds impressive to non-critical readers and viewers, but is, in fact, purposely misleading.
How do you tell the difference between science and pseudoscience? When evaluating reports that claim to be scientific—whether in print, on television, on the Internet, or by word of mouth—it is important to be a skeptical thinker. A skeptical thinker is one who recognizes, or at least questions, if a claim or theory is supported by evidence. Here are some basic guidelines for recognizing pseudoscience:
How valid are the sources of information?
Experts are usually cited in support of a claim. Check them out. What are their biases? Are they likely to benefit significantly by supporting one claim over another? Experts cited without names, without affiliations, or without other references that would make it possible to identify and contact them are suspect. Anonymity is not part of the scientific process. Moreover, a legitimate scientist will have publications. These are often available on the Web. If in doubt about sources cited in an article, use a search engine to see if the individuals have been active in the field of research they are being referenced on, or if these people even exist!
How do alternate theories compare?
When a specific theory is being presented, consider alternate explanations. Start with the simplest explanation first. The more complex, confusing, and twisted the logic used to support a hypothesis, the greater the likelihood that it is false. Theories that depend on conspiracies or that deny any contrary evidence are most suspect. Often in pseudoscience, any data that question the validity of a claim are rejected as having been faked or covered up.
Is a statement or theory open to scientific testing?
If scientists cannot design an experiment to test a theory, then the theory is out of the realm of science. Statements based on faith or opinion are not necessarily unimportant, but they are not open to scientific scrutiny. Be wary of statements supported by scientific-sounding explanations but that stop short of offering real evidence that can be verified by independent researchers. Scientific testing includes peer review (review by other scientists) and publication in professional journals. Be cautious of reports presented in obscure publications or publications that are not open to peer review.
Can evidence offered in support of a statement or theory be confirmed?
Speculation without evidence is nothing more than opinion. Opinion is useful to begin a discussion, but it is unacceptable as the basis for sound decisions. Other people should be able to set up an experiment and come to similar conclusions. If new data call a theory into question, then the theory must be reconsidered. It may be totally false, or it may need to be revised based on new evidence. This is one of the cornerstones of science. Scientists do not fear the revision of a theory as a result of new data. In some cases, a theory is thrown out altogether while in others it is strengthened by new evidence.
If in doubt, check it out
Pseudoscience is most obvious when it is presented in a tabloid that specializes in exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims. However, it is important to recognize it when it appears in scientific reporting by the non-tabloid media. To simplify the reading level or to catch the attention of a passerby, reporters might overstate or sensationalize what they are reporting. Be a skeptical thinker; analyze everything; and if in doubt, check it out.
Assignment
Part 1: Read the following "science" articles and then post your answers to the related questions.
Article 1
Article 2
1. In each article, what is the theory or hypothesis used to explain the Viking image of the “Face” on Mars?
2. What experiment did scientists use to collect data to prove or disprove each theory?
3. Compare how the two articles used data in their contradictory reports on the “Face” on Mars.
4. How would you check out the statements made in each article to verify the claims?
5. Which article would you classify as pseudoscience? Explain your answer.
Part 2: Write a reflective post based on the following:
In this activity, you saw how easy it is to make an extraordinary claim sound scientific. Much of our view on whether we should expend time, energy, and money on searching for life in our universe is determined by reports we see presented in print or shown on television. What is the responsibility of the media in reporting on the search for life? What is the responsibility of the scientific community in reporting what their research
shows? What is your responsibility when you read such reports?
Part 3: Write a one page tabloid-like front-page story that includes a drawing and description of what you think life on another world might really look and be like. Use the Pseudoscience Tabloid Format as a guideline for your article. List how you violated the guidelines for valid scientific reporting as outlined in the Pseudoscience and Skeptical Thinking article at the start of this post.
Pseudoscience Tabloid Format
