Editorial: Big Science, Earn Trust Before Demanding It

Calling anyone who distrusts Big Science’s omniscience
a “pseudoscientist” is just a gimmick. Trust must be earned.

 

Several recent articles and books by lovers of Big Science have tried pinning the label “pseudoscientist” on anyone who doubts the scientific consensus. For emphasis, the targets are lumped in with quacks using the Association Fallacy. Let’s take a look at the gimmick.

What is the difference between science and pseudoscience? (Space.com, 3 Aug 2023). Astronomer Paul Sutter starts right off with the Association Fallacy before backpedaling a little bit.

Ancient aliens. Astrology. Flat-Earth and UFO conspiracies. These are examples of pseudoscience, a system of beliefs that masquerades as true science but is far from it. To understand how pseudoscience works and why it’s so popular, you need a guide to spotting it.

“Pseudoscience” has many possible definitions, and some people argue that the term shouldn’t be applied at all. Perhaps the most useful definition of pseudoscience comes directly from the root words: The prefix “pseudo” is taken from the Greek word for “false,” so pseudoscience is quite literally “false science.”

When you see the word “useful,” always ask, “Useful to whom?” In this case, it is useful to Sutter to paint anyone with the ugly label “pseudoscience” who disagrees with his views on anything within the big tent of “Science.” But does that include blind acceptance of psychology and sociology, which are frequently wrong? What about the Hall of Shame in evolutionary biology?

The gimmick makes Sutter look good as a card-carrying scientist. An upcoming entry on cosmology (coming Monday) should make him feel a bit more humble. ‘Oh,’ but he would object; ‘I am humble—and proud of it!’

While a dissection of what makes science special could encompass an entire book, a few key features of the scientific mindset make it stand out. For one, science is rigorous, which means scientists take their ideas seriously and seek to explore the full logical consequences of any hypothesis. Science is also humble, because any theory, even one that has stood for centuries, can be proved wrong at any moment.

Next, science is skeptical, allowing for the evidence to dictate beliefs — not the other way around. Science is also open, where methods and techniques must be shared and publicized to the wider community. Science is connected, meaning that every statement a scientist makes must be linked to the broader knowledge of the entire community. Lastly, science allows itself to evolve, with new evidence and ideas supplanting earlier beliefs.

Because of the way Big Science currently operates (see 3 Aug 2023), these features are all half-truths, if not big lies. For one thing, those features—as noble as many of them sound—are often violated by scientists themselves. And those features are not unique to science. Every scholar—indeed, every human being—should be rigorous, serious, humble, logical, skeptical, open, connected and willing to change views in light of evidence. Even theologians strongly affirm those values.

“Real” science is quite different from those goals. Scientists are human, and to err is human. Whether by fraud, groupthink, or illogic, scientists are not immune to pseudoscience themselves unless they exercise moral character qualities, like integrity. The fact that flat-earthers and astrologers fail on those features does not mean professional scientists succeed at them all the time. Everyone should, but the best of them sometimes don’t. Why doesn’t Paul preach to his choir in the scientific community and urge them to do better on those counts?

Sutter’s description sounds like what scientists were claiming in the 1920s, when logical positivists found ways to define science in atheistic, materialist terms that they believed gave it “objectivity.” A lot has happened since then in the philosophy of science. Few philosophers would be so careless. Philosophers agree now that there are no demarcation criteria that can always discriminate between science and pseudoscience. The word “pseudoscience” is often used as an epithet to discredit an opposing view and shut down debate.

Part of the Association Fallacy is to use the most extreme examples to illustrate pseudoscience—examples that most educated and sober-minded people would agree are foolish—and then splatter the goo from those onto others who are trained in science and logic who ask questions the consensus doesn’t like. Yes, there are conspiracy theorists, and cult-like groups that are not open to debate. They are found in Big Science and academia, too.

For extra credit, read Nature‘s list of “Twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims” (20 Nov 2013). It’s intended for non-scientists and policy makers. Here are two of them: ‘Bias is rife’ and ‘Scientists are human.’

Challenging “counterestablishment” archaeology: What really matters (Science Advances, 2 Aug 2023). In his opinion piece, Mark Aldenderfer targets the creators of Ancient Apocalyse to make his point about the dangers of wandering outside the professional consensus in the field of archaeology. I have not watched that show, and would likely agree with Aldenderfer that it is a rhetorical fantasy with a thin veneer of misinterpreted scientific evidence. But the goo from that example should not be applied with a broad brush on everyone who harbors some “counterestablishment” view on something. Counterestablishment is a worse epithet than pseudoscience, because it embeds the false view that there is an “establishment” that determines what views are correct. No; one maverick who has better evidence can conquer thousands within an establishment (three examples here, two more here, one more here).

Michael Gordin in his recent book about pseudoscience labels people like Hancock as promotors of “counterestablishment science.” As he describes them, “these are not simply anti-establishment, although that is sometimes how mainstream scientists present them and they are not anti-science. Rather, their adherents believe that the establishment is corrupting or blocking the truth…”

Would he say that everybody who questions an establishment consensus should be dismissed as a pseudoscientist? Aldenderfer seems to attribute Inquisitorial powers onto the Big Science establishment. But let us recall that today’s Establishment believes that everything came from nothing, 95% of reality we cannot see and cannot find, life popped into existence from a chemical soup, as did eyes (the Popeye Theory of Evolution), and that our minds are totally defined by our brains (rendering thoughts and truths impossible to validate). These same people refuse to allow alternative voices to criticize them. Evolutionary biologists in particular are masters at corrupting evidence and blocking the truth. There are times when the Establishment should be countered!

Nevertheless, we would agree with him that someone presenting a claim as a maverick had better have good evidence and logic on his or her side, and should have spent years of study getting up to speed on the body of knowledge within that field. One doesn’t master mathematical physics in a year. Entering any field as a scholarly contender—whether history, literature or science—requires years of hard education. Many critics of Darwinism are exceptionally qualified on those counts. Logical thinking, by contrast, is open to farmers, bartenders, plumbers and everyone else who has eyes to see and ears to hear. Sometimes horse sense is superior to groupthink in the academic echo chamber. ‘Farmer Bob, scientists think you came from goo in a warm little pond.’ ‘Well, heh heh, doggone,’ he says, scratching his head. ‘As far as I recollect, I came from a momma and a poppa.’

Distinction must be made between genuine scientific skepticism and ‘dogmatic denial,’ warns expert (Phys.org, 31 July 2023). Watch out for that word “expert.” A clever definition of “expert” is “someone who agrees with me.”

The alleged expert in this case is Keith Parsons, author of a book Why It’s OK to Trust Science. A better title would be, “Why it’s OK to trust some aspect of science when a particular scientist is trustworthy.” Science is a big tent. There are many inside pretending to be scientists who don’t belong there. And like with any group of human beings, one will find both trustworthy individuals and untrustworthy individuals applying the wholesome word “scientist” to themselves. Offering unquestioned trust to a fallible human being wearing a Science badge is an exercise in folly. Look past the label. Where is his evidence? Where is her logic? Should you trust an evolutionist who says your brain is the product of millions of years of chance? Get real.

“Skepticism is essential to science. New ideas, however beautiful or brilliant, must be subjected to the most rigorous vetting that scientific communities can dish out,” outlines the Professor of Philosophy and Humanities.

“Skepticism, by definition, is defeasible. That is, when confronted with sufficient evidence, a skeptic will—provisionally—accept the well-confirmed claim. Mere refusal to accept any evidence is not skepticism.“

As we have reported for over two decades, though, some scientists are not skeptical enough of their peers. They do NOT accept contrary evidence. They do not apply rigorous testing to dinosaur soft tissue, carbon-14 in diamonds, or global flood evidence in front of their eyes. They look at complex molecular machines and say the Stuff Happens Law made them. They continue to believe evolutionary tales that have been falsified. They live in an echo chamber, categorically rejecting those outside their peer group. They censor opponents. Parsons: go preach to the Darwin Party! Tell them to repent.

How even the greatest scientists can fall for cognitive bias (New Scientist, 2 August 2023). Dan Leavitt gives a bit of refreshing realism in his article about confirmation bias. Even scientists, he says, are not immune from it. Bias needs to be recognized and brought under control.

But cognitive biases aren’t simply weaknesses that trip us up. They are also strengths. As psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky have shown, our brains are crammed with biases. Many are there for a reason: we couldn’t survive without them. We have to make assumptions in order to live. We would be paralysed if we constantly questioned whether the sun will rise tomorrow. Often, ideas that seem too weird to be true are, in fact, too weird to be true. Unconscious assumptions offer us shortcuts that allow us to avoid constantly rethinking everything.

As we say, everybody has faith. You can’t do science without faith that the laws of nature are usually reliable. One has to have faith in one’s senses, and in the integrity of other scientists’ motivations (sometimes blind faith). But taking simple things for granted doesn’t justify the leaps of faith Darwinians take.

Watch Leavitt’s mix of true and weird ideas.

We will never be entirely rid of biases. That is why even scientists, who pride themselves on carefully interpreting evidence, are prone to them. Biases are part of the human condition, and scientists need to be aware their brains are full of them. As those I profiled discovered, our cells are crammed, not just with enzymes, but with a mind-boggling assortment of molecular machines. DNA, not protein, is the molecule responsible for heredity. And the universe was once contained in a tiny point of space and time.

Good for him for acknowledging the wonder of molecular machines—one of the primary evidences for intelligent design! But in the very next sentence he assumes the Big Bang theory has proved the whole universe came from a tiny point. Leavitt is the author of a book with the title, What’s Gotten Into You: The story of your body’s atoms, from the big bang through last night’s dinner. His own biases serve up quite a dish: healthy science and nonsense.

We can endorse his final thoughts:

All kinds of things are possible that we would never expect. That is the beauty of life. The history of scientific innovation encourages us to remain humble, examine evidence with an open mind and try to see the world not as we would like it to be, but – to the extent that we can – as it truly is. Understanding this helps us to appreciate the amazing world we live in.

Amen to that. Now preach it to the materialists. And please read Jerry Bergman’s book about all the awful mistakes that Darwinian bias led to (left). Some of their blunders, frauds and forgeries fooled the best scientific organizations for decades! Think about that, and ask what blunders are being accepted now by the consensus, waiting their turn to be debunked.

Summary

We have to be careful when criticizing Big Science (as on 1 Aug 2023), because some will misunderstand and jump to a conclusion that we are criticizing “science” per se. The question to ask is, “What do you mean by science?”

If defined as a pursuit of the best evidence for truth about natural phenomena, we are all in favor of that. But many who wear the science label are unworthy of trust, including those practicing in the fields of evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, evolutionary sociology, evolutionary ethics, the naturalist origin of life, and all the other “evolutionary” fields that dogmatically exclude creation from the outset. The promoters of those views are not skeptical in the sense described by Parsons. Their just-so stories have been falsified repeatedly yet they never question their core beliefs. And they censor all Darwin skeptics. That is wrong. It is against the founding ideals of science that were practiced, believed and taught by many of the greatest scientists in history (list).

To the DODO establishment (Darwin-Only, Darwin-Only), we ask, please “evolve” some humility and integrity, if you can! Get your atheistic, materialistic worldview to account for non-evolving truth and morality. Admit that your miracles, like the origin of the universe, life and mind, are irrational. Then you might begin on the path to earning some trust. Until then, you are living in Darwin Fantasyland and deserve no respect from anyone, because your worldview refutes itself (see Darwin’s quote below).

C.S. Lewis rebutted the idea of “science” as an independently verifiable kind of thinking:

The physical sciences, then, depend on the validity of logic just as much as metaphysics or mathematics. If popular thought feels ‘science’ to be different from all other kinds of knowledge because science is experimentally verifiable, popular thought is mistaken. Experimental verification is not a new kind of assurance coming in to supply the deficiencies of mere logic. We should therefore abandon the distinction between scientific and non-scientific thought. The proper distinction is between logical and non-logical thought.

What the writers of the articles above should be saying is not to embrace “science” vs pseudoscience, but logic vs illogic.

We should reject evolutionary materialism not because we are “counterestablishment” or “pseudoscientific” or “unskeptical” but because it is illogical. Regarding evolutionary materialism, including Darwin’s own “horrid doubt” about the human mind, C.S. Lewis said,

A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound—a proof that there are no such things as proofs.