On scientists and pseudoscientists

There are people which wrongfully believe themselves to be scientists.  They neither have formal qualifications nor are seen as equals by people with such.  One does not need to have formal qualifications to contribute to science.  Many useful ideas in science have been thought out by amateurs.  But for every such useful idea there are loads of other ones which are completely useless.

Real scientists are motivated by curiosity about how things work.  Pseudoscientists usually lack this curiosity.  Instead, they argue as if everything worth knowing was already inside their heads.  Is there something they don’t know about they deny it to exist.  This also applies to the methods used by scientist in the area.  If they don’t know how one can know something they deny one can know.

Several of my rules for a sensible discussion are formulated considering pseudoscientists.  They sound like the following ways of thinking were intellectually valid:

• I don’t understand how it is possible, therefore it is not possible.

Rule 12: It is possible for others to understand things which you, personally, can’t.

• I can’t imagine it, therefore it does not exist.

Rule 13: Others can imagine things which you, personally, can’t.

• I don’t know about any other examples, therefore there are no more.

Rule 17: There is always more than you in particular know.

• I don’t notice any change, therefore no change is taking place.

Rule 19: Change can take place without it being quick enough for you to notice it.

At least I have learned one thing when I have read about such people.  It is that the truth is not something you can take it for granted you already have.  You have to actively search for it!

Related to this is believing a minority of examples to be typical.  A creationist can for example claim all “important” fossils to be hoaxes.  (As if the general pattern of the fossils were dependant on a small number of “important” ones.)  Only a small number of fossils have later turned out to be fakes or were misunderstood at first.  Such are not at all typical.  For each such fossil there are loads which are neither.  It can by anything from a few to several thousands of its clade.

A more advanced error is to misunderstand probability.  Someone can have trouble grasping that random chance matters.  Or someone denies an event or a process to have taken place.  In the latter case the argument is it being too unlikely.  Besides faulty calculations such an argument does not work.  It is already well documented that the event or process really took place.  Probability then becomes irrelevant.

It just gets worse when real scientists are expected to behave as pseudoscientists.  When something has just been discovered the scientists are believed to be able to answer all questions.  When they then say they don’t know they are accused of lying.  The trouble is real scientists are aware of their own shortage in knowledge.  Such things are not considered by some.  Myself, I consider admittance of not knowing something specific to be a sign of reliability.  This indicates the person is aware of his or her limitations.

Then we have those poking fun of how real scientists express themselves.  Their oftentimes cautious expressions are misunderstood as extreme uncertainty.  It is in actuality an expression of knowing one could possibly be wrong.  However, some make these expressions sound like real scientists did not know anything.  One can’t tell how truthful something is from how certain the person sounds.  I think it is quite the opposite.  The most cocksure individuals are the most likely to be wrong.  This is because they don’t pay attention to the possibility that they themselves could be wrong.

In addition, there is the misconception of modern research consisting of some sort of high-pay schoolwork.  Scientific research is not so high-pay just because the scientists are highly educated.  Moreover, real scientists get pay for discovering new things.  If they don’t try to discover something new there is rarely reason to pay.  So their activities bear no greater resemblance to how people use to imagine schoolwork.

To me it is completely understandable that scientists lack respect for pseudoscientists.  First, they spend years of full-time training acquiring a highly complex skill.  Then they have it written off by individuals having the wrong idea of what they do in their profession.  Who want to be treated like that?  I don’t think anyone with an advanced skill wants to be treated this way.  If they don’t get any respect from others, they neither give any respect back.

 

Uploaded on the 29th of September 2023.