This page is synthesized from material written by Prof. Sekula in Spring 2014. We'll try to equip you with tools for understanding these phenomena. Show
SkepticismSkepticism is critically appraising the reasons or evidence for a claim. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required to support it. Carl Sagan expressed it as "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." A trivial claim might be acceptable at face value. A skeptic does not immediately accept all new claims, but rather waits until that information has been verified through the scientific method. There is a minimum amount of evidence required, past which the skeptic accepts the new information and moves on. A skeptic has an open mind, but not so open that their brains fall out. A good scientist must be a good skeptic. This means properly using the scientific method, good logic argumentation (no fallacies), and the standards of good evidence. Everything in science is tentative, so the scientist (skeptic) must be prepared to accept a new idea if the evidence for it is convincing. Science is critically assessing someone else's evidence for someone else's hypothesis. Skepticism is:
Scientific ControversyWe'll start this discussion with a trial question. Which of the following is a scientific controversy?
It is necessary to understand the characteristics of a scientific controversy, going beyond the vision of scientists arguing with each other. First and foremost, a scientific controversy must stem from a stage in the scientific method. It is not a value debate. It is a disagreement arising from some part of the scientific process. There are other types of controversies. Issues debated in a scientific controversy are quite concrete. Here's a sampling of what questions might be involved.
A recent example would be the 2011 announcement by the OPERA experiment in Europe that they used a neutrino beam from the LHC at CERN and had detected neutrinos moving slightly faster than light. This is a radical result given that all physics so far indicates that light represents the cosmic speed limit; nothing goes faster. This aroused a LOT of discussion, with most scientists suspecting an undiscovered systematic error. A lot of questions got asked. Announcements in June and July told the scientific world that a systematic error had indeed been found; a problem with a cable had introduced errors into the timing circuits, resulting in incorrect velocity measurements. Before accepting a new result, scientists want to know that the work has been done properly and that no equipment or analytical errors have crept in. Here are a few more examples; this list can always be made longer.
Now that we have detailed what controversies are, let's return to that trial question. Which one is a scientific controversy?
DenialismDenialism is the refusal to accept evidence for a claim, no matter what the quality or weight of the evidence. This is often done to protect some world view , which itself may not have anything to do with the science issue. The denialist will not or cannot accept something which is quite clear to scientists. The response is to deny the evidence, no matter how overwhelming. This is not skepticism. Denialism is a sub-species of pseudoscience. Recall that pseudoscience is the practice of making claims using the trappings and appearance of science and skepticism but lacking the substance of science. If, in discussion of a scientific claim or issue, you hear someone say that there is no amount of evidence, no matter how good, that would convince them that the claim is true, then you are looking at denial. Accepting the science would require invalidating one or more of their core beliefs or possibly taking some sort of financial damage.. We can see at least two motivations for denying a scientific finding. Accepting the science would
We have already reviewed what a scientific controversy is.
A denialist will use any means necessary to ignore or refute an established body of evidence. These tactics include:
Common themes in campaigns to manufacture a false scientific controversy
Are you a Denialist or a Skeptic?We've discussed the difference between "denial" and "skepticism" before. To repeat:
Refuting claims is certainly part of the scientific method. However, it is not enough to refute a claim by saying "That can't be true" or "I don't believe it." A scientist (a skeptic) constructs an experiment to test the claim, or constructs a new, independent experiment to assess the original experimental results. Just because new information refutes or confirms earlier evidence doesn't make it true or false. Its veracity is only established through the weight of the evidence gathered by repeated application of the scientific method. Putting it all together: A Denialism ToolkitHere is a simple "Denial Toolkit":
What do I do when faced with denial?What can you do if you encounter denial?
ResourcesFurther reading on this subject will help you understand. This is a lecture that touches on MANY issues addressed in greater depth, both in this course's own lecture notes and in external books. Here are links to things to help you understand the key issues in more depth. |