|
|
HONR 228A "Science & Pseudoscience"General course description |
|
Chip Denman
|
Every day we encounter remarkable claims--from the properties of black holes to the existence of ESP to recent sightings of Elvis. Modern science has been responsible for many seeming miracles, resulting sometimes in a blurred distinction between the proven, the sought after and the fantasy. Newspapers, magazines and TV often report sensational, mind-grabbing stories as if they were established fact. As consumers of this information, how can we sort out the useful from the bogus? This course will explore some of the features which distinguish scientific methodology from pseudoscience. Through a variety of readings we will look back at the history of spiritualism, at controversial healing practices old and new, at "creation science," and at other extraordinary claims which class members may wish to examine. We will address mechanisms of belief, perception and deception to better appreciate why intelligent people sometimes make colossal errors of judgment. The main emphasis is NOT on giving pat explanations for alleged events--weird claims are our starting point, but the real purpose of the course is to develop an understanding of what constitutes scientific proof, rigor and evidence. Basic scientific literacy is presumed, but the emphasis will be on scientific methodology and process rather than on particular facts. An extensive scientific background is not required; an intention to think analytically and critically is the only prerequisite. One section of this course will address the design of experiments and will emphasize probability and statistical thinking with a minimum of computation. We will examine historical experiments as well as propose new experiments to test weird or extraordinary claims; as a class we will critique the experimental designs to examine the potential strengths, weaknesses and hidden traps. Class discussions will be organized around a series of readings and guest speakers. Requirements include class participation, several short assignments, the design of an experiment for class discussion, and a final paper. Also, we will make extensive use of e-mail to supplement class discussions. This course has been evolving since Fall '89. It has never covered exactly the same ground twice, but the underlying subtext--scientific evaluation of remarkable claims--has always been there. I've been asked several times, in several ways, if this class is just going to "disprove" one thing after another. I have thought about this a lot. The point of the class is NOT necessarily to debunk everything that comes down the pike. During the short time of one semester, my goal is to introduce you to a wide range of claims and to examine whether those claims have any scientific basis. In the process, I hope to open your eyes to many illusions, delusions, fallacies, and other mental banana peels that we are all (myself included) prone to slip on. Forewarned is forearmed. I am focused not so much on what any of you personally may believe or disbelieve. I'd be less than honest to say that I don't care at all about your beliefs, but your standing in the course does not in any way depend on these beliefs. What REALLY matters to me is how we arrive at our beliefs and how we support them once we get there. I hope that by the end of the semester, you will be able to distinguish between a scientifically supported theory vs. faith, intuition, wishful thinking, or other non-scientific reasons, good or bad. If, any time during the semester, you are looking for the focus of anything we do, come back to this last point. In a way, the question of "disproving" things is a slippery one. It's often said that you can't prove a negative. With some qualifiers, I would agree. Have we "disproved" astrology? Maybe the NEXT experiment will demonstrate "real" astrology, but based on the data so far, I'm doubtful. Sometimes I'm asked, "Is ANY of this stuff real?" The question is a little imprecise. After all, there are plenty of scientific predictions, hypotheses, and theories which are well supported by data. There's even plenty of really WEIRD stuff that is supported by science; for starters, take a look into Einstein's special relativity, the biological activity at deep ocean vents, the chemistry of low-temperature superconductors, or the emerging field of psychoneuroendocrinology. I guess the underlying question is something like, "Is any of this weird stuff that lies outside the bounds of normal science real?" I don't know. The best I can do is address the scientific evidence and encourage you to think about how the methods of "normal" science really can be used to investigate an awful lot. This thing called science is a good tool for any claim that has implications on what we can measure--anything that we can poke, prod, count, smell, or take a bite out of. There are limits--"Is there a God?" perhaps--but the limits may stretch further than it seems at first. And finally, I acknowledge that in the broad approach of our class, I am not trying to cover the depth of any particular claim. There are indeed interesting anomalies. Ask me later about the so-called "Mars effect" of Michel Gauquelin. Later we will talk about homeopathy and other "alternative" medical practices; in many cases, good tests have never been done, but when they are done, a FEW seem to produce positive results. There have probably been more formal tests of "ESP"-like phenomena than any other para-science claim. Later you will read about the problems with the famous Putoff, Targ & Geller experiments. Although they created quite a stir in the 70s, these experiments are not taken very seriously any longer. But today, a group at Princeton, led by the dean emeritus of the engineering school, Robert Jahn, reports experiments in which subjects seem to be able to affect a random sequence of 0s and 1s simply by willful intention. The effect is statistically very significant, but in practical terms very small (equivalent to getting 1 extra "heads" out of 2,500 coin tosses). The researchers are certainly competent, and no one has yet found a definitive flaw in the experiment. None the less, most of the scientific community remains skeptical. For the moment, I am perfectly comfortable saying "I don't know," while I wait for further investigation and independent replication. Chip Denman |