It's hard for the layperson to distinguish real science from cleverly
done pseudo-science. Sometimes the pseudo-science puts on such a
"scientific" performance, with all the right jargon and all the right
credentials (that of course we can't possibly confirm) and even the
right "peer review" (again impossible to confirm).
To
a large extent we have to accept the authority of the scientific
community. Isolated "findings" that get ignored by the community are to
be suspected, and when debunkers appear from within that community, then one feels pretty confident.
However, as we all know, "science" can be wrong (although this is less common than many would have us think).
I
use a few personal tests. First, I discount personal stories and
testimony. It is too bad that this has to be, but it has to be. Even
the most honest person can have moments of delusion, moments of "filling
in" details that aren't real (psychologists have demonstrated this many
times). Also of course not everyone is honest. Liars abound, and not
just those out for personal gain. The history of religion is filled
with pious frauds where the motive for the lies and exaggerations are to
save someone's soul.
Second, I discount certain
kinds of physical evidence that are subject to manipulation that may not
be detectable, such as footprints and lie-detector tests and of course
photos.
Third, I try to apply "common sense" and a sense of probability. If something is too good to be true, it probably is. If something is totally awe-inspiring and wondrous, I doubt. One-headed bicyclists mistaken for two-headed bicyclists are more common than real two-headed bicyclists.
No comments:
Post a Comment