(PSEUDO)Science

NOTES

How evidence is distorted

1. Authority- Ethos makes us believe silly/irrational ideas

It is crucial to verify the source to establish the credibility/confirm the veracity of an argument.

Claim: Fish oil pills increases productivity in children
3,000 children- 6 pills each, then would compare exam results/performance to what they "predicted" performance to be. The problem with such an experiment is the fact that the data and observations that the treatment results will be compared to are purely fictional and hence eradicate the reliability of the data derived.

Placebo effect: our cultural belief in treatment. Feels like a much more dramatic intervention. Done as our beliefs and expectations can be manipulated.

Rig your data by making the competing new drugs distorted/rubbish to make one drug appear to be better than another

Industry funded trials are 4 times more likely to produce more flattering results than independently funded trials

Publication bias present in publication bias
- whereas the unfit data is withdrawn from data set to skew data to fit the product.

If we remove half the data, we can never know the true impact of the data or come to an accurate conclusive result

Scientific claims:

-Observations
-Predictions
-Experimentations
-Analysis
-Conclusion

Pseudo Science Claims
-Observations
-Predictions
-Generalization
-Expectation
-Conclusion

Claims Evaluation: superstitions often distort reality

HomeworkQuestions

1)    When does an observation become scientific law? How many times should an experiment be conducted to make turn and hypothesis into a theory? 

An observation is essentially an occurrence noted in nature. For instance, Newton’s observation of the falling of the apple can be classified as an observation that ultimately propelled the scientific law of gravity. However, an observation does not just become a law overnight. In fact, for an observation to become a scientific law the observation must become universally accepted and there should be no room for argument concerning the nature of the law, which is when an observation finally becomes accepted as a scientific law. Moreover, these scientific laws are oft mathematically based and hence almost every law has a corresponding mathematical formula. We could take into consideration for example Avogadro’s constant in chemistry, which is represented by the figure 6.02 x 10²³ and has become a universally accepted number in regards to the number of particles of a substance present per mole of anything.

2)    Is science created or discovered? 

If were to say that science as an entity is “created,” it would be implied that the phenomenon that we know of today were not pre-prevalent to our knowledge and only came into existence once man created it. Contrariwise, to say that science is discovered would allude to the notion that man itself becomes of pre-existent knowledge through exploration and discovery. Hence, I personally believe that science in the true essence is discovered as opposed to created as scientific intellects oft discover novel ideas based on prior discovered knowledge that serves as a fundamental foundation to further more discoveries. Examining a more specific example, we could perhaps consider Gregor Mendel’s extensive experiments based on pea plants.  Mendel, also known as the Father of Modern Genetics, spent extensive hours working on pea plants to understand the phenomenon of inheritance. That being said, Mendel himself did not “create” the science behind inheritance, but instead plays an instrumental role in the discovery of the notion of inheritance. Thus, this particular example corresponds to now science is essentially discovered as opposed to created. Nevertheless, this declaration does not necessarily hold completely true in modern day whereby science is in fact being created. If we were to look at contemporary techniques of genetic modification, designer babies, cloning, or the branch of bioinformatics in general, it is safe to say that with the aid of technology, science is being created. For instance, the novel CRISPR technology that directly allows gene editing is a technology that has been created by man as a mode of science and hence again, the answer to whether science is created or discovered cannot be cannot lucidly be answered in contemporary times.

3)    How reliable is your science textbook?

The reliability of a science textbook can be questionable primarily due to the fact that science is a field of continual evolvement. Discoveries in the scientific field are yielded almost incessantly and hence the authenticity of the content presented in our textbooks become questionable since the textbooks cannot be constantly updated with newfound information. However, in different systems of education the system of updating textbooks continue to remain different. For example, relating from personal experience, at one of my older schools, the Geography textbook stated that there were 9 planets in the solar system, including Pluto. However, at the time that I was studying this book, the declaration that Pluto itself would not be deemed as a planet anymore but rather a dwarf planet had come about. Thus, I vividly remember going up to my teacher and clarifying whether we were expected to still continue saying that 9 planets remained in the solar system or whether we could comply with the novel discovery. Nonetheless, my teacher dismissed my queries by simply stating that “the textbook is always right, and we must follow the textbook.” This continues to be one of my most vivid memories from my old school primarily because the world had been buzzing about the novel discovery yet we were asked to rely solely on the information present on the textbook which of course highlights how the content oft present in school textbooks may be outdated and cannot be relied upon to stay updated with current affairs in the scientific realm.  

Falsificationism

Falsificationism essentially refers to the Karl Popper's approach in science whereby theories cannot be proved but that theories or hypotheses can be disproved, or falsified. 

While Popper's theory can be pegged as theoretically commendable, the practical essence of the theory does not manifest as to some degree the falsifiability of certain theories are practically impossible. For instance, if we were to consider the law of conservation of energy, whereby energy can not be created nor destroyed, but can only change form, falsifying this theory is not feasible.  

Furthermore, experimental facts themselves are theory-laden. So, we can never test a theory against "pure" experimental facts, independent of a theory (e.g., a theory used to understand how the experimental apparatus operates). These assumptions and conditions of testing a theory can be so numerous that falsifying a theory, in a strictly logical sense, is often practically impossible.

Ways of Knowing associated with Natural Sciences- 

Imagination

Sense and Perception 

Reason

One debatable Way of Knowing in this context is intuition as it is difficult to determine where intuition is sufficient to prove a theory. Our intuition is not always very scientific however, often times it is intuition and imagination that can propel various scientific discoveries. 

[ From Chalmers (1999):

·       Problems stemming from the logical situation

o   "When observation and experiment provide evidence that conflicts with the predictions of some law or theory, it may be the evidence which is at fault rather than the law or theory."

o   "A realistic scientific theory will consist of a complex of universal statements rather than a single statement like “All swans are white”. Further, if a theory is to be experimentally tested, then more will be involved than those statements that constitute the theory under test. The theory will need to be augmented by auxiliary assumptions, such as laws and theories governing the use of any instruments used, for instance. In addition, in order to deduce some prediction the validity of which is to be experimentally tested, it will be necessary to add initial conditions such as a description of the experimental set-up."

·       Falsification inadequate on historical grounds

o   "In the early years of its life, Newton’s gravitational theory was falsified by observations of the moon’s orbit"

o   "A second example concerns Bohr’s theory of the atom, and is due to Lakatos (1970, pp. 140-54)."

o   "A third example concerns the kinetic theory and has the advantage that the falsification of that theory at birth was explicitly acknowledged by its originator."

o   "A fourth example, the Copernican Revolution, will be outlined in more detail in the following section." ]

http://science.martinsewell.com/falsification.html

Conclusively, falsificationism is a notion good in theory but does not make sense in a practical sense. 

Not all scientific studies are created qual TEDEd (Key Terminology)

RCT= Randomized Clinical Trial

Epidemiological Study 

Cohort vs. Compare group

Causal relationships 

Inherent flaws

When I think of good, bad or pseudo science, I personally think of the nuances of science that have emerged and evolved over time in these classifications. For instance, if we were to consider "good" science, in this essence we would connote science that is essentially delivered in an honest manner with data collected as observed. On the other hand, "bad" science to me connotes unethical or immoral science. For instance, animal testing can be deemed as "bad" science from the elemental perspective that the pain endured by the animals is not taken into consideration in the process. 

Natural Sciences (Intro)

Continuing on with the Natural Sciences...

Having watched the TED Talk based on natural sciences propelled by speaker Adam Savage, the central takeaway from the video, in my opinion, is the fact that simple ideas lead to scientific discoveries and it is essentially a questioning attitude that people need to develop in order to explore larger concepts. Hence, it is fundamentally curiosity that has the potential to transform the world around us. For instance, Aristotle proved that earth is spherical as he observed that different shapes were formed by the shadow of Earth on Moon and that would logically only be plausible if the Earth is spherical. Another example could be Feynman's questioning of the notion of inertia as the simplistic rolling of a ball to the back of a wagon prompted and provoked him to discern what the true meaning of the term inertia truly is.

Moreover, one notion that I couldn't agree more from this video is that Science is not a closed black box, but an open field. I honestly believe that this quote holistically encapsulates the true essence of science as science itself is a constantly evolving and expanding realm and hence, the confines that the external world imposes on the realm of science do not necessarily hold much substance.

The order of the Scientific method: Observation --> Question --> Hypothesis -->  Prediction

A hypothesis is a tentative statement: "If this happens to A, then this will happen to B" which allows the provability of falsification of the statement through direct experimentation or observation. An example of a hypothesis could be- if the temperature of liquid is increased to a certain degree, then it will start boiling.

A law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describe a phenomenon of nature (often based on mathematics), proof that something happens exists but without a tangible explanation, but continues to be accepted by society. Newton's Law of Gravity and Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment can be deemed as examples of scientific laws.

An in-depth explanation of a particular phenomenon the other hand can be classified as a theory. A theory essentially provides a logical explanation for a given prediction whereas laws find their base in mathematical foundations and are generally accepted without much questioning. For instance, it is the theory of chromosomal inheritance that provides an explanation for the validity of Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment or Einstein's Theory of Relativity that explains Newton's Law of Gravity.

Contrariwise, a fact can be classified as an observation that has repeatedly been confirmed and hence is considered 'true' in society as empirical evidence bolsters the validity of a fact. For example, the notion that the Earth is spherical is widely established as a fact.

Lastly, belief pertains to an individual's or collective community's acceptance of something being 'true' despite the lack of evidence to support it. A renowned conflict in terms of belief could be considered as an example as some people believe in the possibility of 'aliens' whereas others do not.

Natural Sciences

What are the Natural sciences?

A natural science by definition is a branch of science which deals with the physical world, e.g. physics, chemistry, geology, biology. Moreover, the constant evolution of these sciences is essentially the medium that allows for the expansion of our knowledge of the living world around us. 

How do the natural sciences gain knowledge of the world? 

Unlike other facets of our lives, natural sciences are very much grounded in reality and realism, for the lack of better words. The constituents of knowledge that fall under the umbrella of "natural sciences" are oft derived from theoretical and practical findings with further evidence to support the claims being made. Thus, the influence of bias, emotion and religious faith and/or beliefs is minimal in the realm of natural sciences. Subsequently, the knowledge gained from the natural sciences can also be classified as oft- universally accepted shared knowledge, whereby initial conjectures and hypotheses from different knowledgable individuals amalgamate to form the basis of a mutual scientifically accepted conclusive stance. 

We can look, for instance, the Rosalind Franklin's discovery of the 'X' or double helix shape of the DNA molecule. Or, perhaps even looking back at Newton's discovery of the phenomenon of gravity. The aforementioned cited discoveries serve as examples of theories that have since been the building blocks of knowledge in the natural sciences. 

However, one thing to keep in mind in relation to discoveries that pertain to natural sciences is the fact that the knowledge embedded in natural sciences must always be worthy of falsification or validation through the means of complementary evidence to support, prove or disprove a notion. Moreover, for a piece of knowledge to even be deemed as "knowledge" in the realm of natural sciences, theories/explorations are carried out in-numerous times by different scientists to finally be classified as worthy of recognition. Hence, it is safe to say that the world of natural sciences is utterly stringent with the information it allows for consumption by those who wish to be informed. 

End of Unit Questions (Continued...)

·      -Is it possible to experience an emotion, a feeling, an attitude or sensibility that cannot be expressed in language? Can an emotion, such as love or grief, have its origins in, or be shaped by, language?

       I certainly believe that it is possible to experience a sensation that is inexpressible through language. For this same reason, we often hear people make statements such as "I don't know how to explain what I am feeling." That being said, I disagree with the latter part of the question, as I actually believe in quite the opposite. Whilst I do not think that emotion itself is shaped by language, I do on the other hand think that language can be shaped by emotion. It was emotion that came first and then methodologies to label these emotions followed suit. Thus, I feel like language was molded to adapt to communicating a certain emotion and not vice versa.

·      -Is the knowledge gained from emotional responses influenced by culture? Are concepts such as patriotism and racism examples of collective emotions? What does it mean to be responsible for our emotions? Can emotions be classified as ‘good’ or ‘bad’? Do emotional responses emanate from cultural influences?

       In my opinion, concepts like patriotism and racism are very much embedded in a societal mindset and are thus emotions heavily influenced by one's cultural background and upbringing in general. That being said, I also believe that an individual himself is responsible for the emotions they exhibit and the entire cause of how one feels cannot be attributed to a group/culture. For example, for the large part in my culture, inter-religion marriages are not necessarily appreciated, however, I still do not have a particular stance on this notion due to the fact that I have never been someone who blindly abides by societal norms. I do not think that emotions can broadly be classified into 'good' and 'bad' however what I do know is that displaying an extremity of any emotion is not healthy. Yes emotional responses do to a great extent emanate from cultural influences and the dynamic exposure an individual has encountered in life. For example, in most cultures the slaughtering of cows for beef is deemed acceptable however in my culture, a Cow is considered as a sacred animal and consequently the consumption of beef itself is not a part of my culture. Our cultures accordingly play a pivotal role in shaping who we are. 

·     -Does emotion reside in the realm of private knowledge in the sense that it cannot be verified by others? Is all private knowledge necessarily some form of emotion? Is physical pain or hunger an emotion? Can people be wrong about their own emotions? Do people have, in some sense, exclusive access to their emotions or can others lead them to recognize previously unknown emotions?

       I think that whether emotion resides in the realm of private knowledge or not is very much a personal choice. For many individuals, their internal emotions are not something they try to hide and these are easily identifiable in their reactions to certain things. On the other hand, for some people they like to keep their emotions to themselves and what is shown to the world externally is merely a facade masking what is hiding in the depths of their emotions. I do not agree with all private knowledge being a form of emotion as much as I believe that emotion can, by choice, be a part of private knowledge. I do not think physical pain and hunger are emotions as emotions are sentiments/feelings that are not really physically more perhaps more cognitively experienced. I think people can only be wrong about their emotions if they do not really know themselves and have not explored and established who they really are. I am convinced that other people can certainly lead an individual to experience unknown feelings. One does not know how jealousy, love, sympathy, empathy or even hate feels like before they encounter another individual who makes them acquainted with these unfamiliar emotions. 

·     -Is there any kind of knowledge which can be attained solely through emotion? Is the answer to the question dependent on factors such as gender, age, culture, and/or socioeconomic group?

       Knowledge in terms of social interaction between two individuals can certainly be attained through emotions, if they are explicitly expressed. However, besides that, I am unsure of any kind of knowledge that can be attained solely through emotion. The factors listed above definitely play a role in this notion as these outlines essentially paint a picture of generalized groups that have distinct characteristics and hence their perception of the world can influence the amount of knowledge that can be gained through emotion. 

·    -Is emotion an essential ingredient of scientific or artistic knowledge? Can there be creativity without emotion?

       While I do think that emotion is an essential ingredient in artistic knowledge, according to me, scientific knowledge has always been very distant or independent of emotion. Artistic knowledge in my view is very much linked to emotion, as it is one's internal emotive state that propels art. I do not thus think that creativity can exist without emotion as these elements are inextricably intertwined. Art is often called a form of expression, a medium for one to communicate how they feel and hence to think that creativity itself can exist without any emotion to stimulate it seems unreasonable.