Quack Science and 'Denialists'

P

Perham1

2,500+ Posts
From a book review in today's NYT:

What bothered him (Michael Specter, the author) more than Dr. Weil’s advice was Dr. Weil’s philosophy. “The idea that accruing data is simply one way to think about science has become a governing tenet of the alternative belief system,” Mr. Specter writes. And the additional idea that the evidence of experience is as important as the results of meticulous scientific testing is, in Mr. Specter’s view, one of the most dangerous forms of denialism, especially when it comes from a figure of Dr. Weil’s stature. As “Denialism” puts it: “It is much easier to dismiss a complete kook — there are thousands to choose from — than a respected physician who, interspersed with disquisitions about life forces and energy fields, occasionally has something useful to say.”
 
I just dont' believe in the Standard Model for subparticle physics. I mean, it goes against my experience. Screw that consensus, really.
 
Folk medicine and denial of other scientific knowledge is rampant. People confuse the fact that science doesn't know everything with the notion that science knows nothing.
 
the evidence of experience = anecdotal evidence
The first thing that was hammered into me when I took a graduate level Experimental Design class at UT was that anecdotes =/= data.
 
I didn't read the article, but I can tell you that I have to constantly deal with people who have conspiracy theories regarding the pharmaceutical industry and homeopathym, that vaccines cause autism, and that the mercury in metal fillings (amalgam) cause health problems. I have all the facts on my side, but some people are so stubborn with something they read from a quack book or website that it gets too tiresome to fight. I don't know the addage but it goes something like "Never Argue With A Fool - They Will Drag You Down To Their Level, and then beat you with experience". At the same time, medical professionals feel the need to teach as that is the meaning of the word doctor.
 
Math, that reminds me of an episode on, iirc, This American Life (the Ira Glass show) where he talked about some guy who was convinced that e=mc^2 was incorrect. Maybe it wasn't This American LIfe. It doesn't really matter.

Anyway, the guy was pretty smart and very good at figuring things out for himself. He took this talent to the whole e=mc^2 thing and thought he found a mistake in the equation. He refused to listen to any expert who tried to correct him. Anybody who didn't agree with him was brainwashed.
 
A guy calls into my office not to long ago. Tells me they have wonderful new motor that creates energy as it uses it.

So I ask, "Your company has invented a perpetual motion machine?"

- "No, it's better than that! It creates more energy than it uses!"

So, who did this guy want to get in touch with to sell his God-tech to? Sewing machine companies. Yup, you read me right. Sewing machine companies. I'm guessing there's a huge demand to have your 3rd world sweat shop off the grid in the middle of nowhere.
 
A lot of this started in the 1970s with science-loathing of literary academia who said science was one of many paradigms for understanding reality. They said science was misogynistic (for example, by claiming the lack of research into fluid dynamics at the time was a male aversion to fluids that are associated with women). These idiots never understood science was not a body of knowledge but a philosophy and method for approaching questions. Science is trying to obtain the provisional truth, truth with a lower-cased t, in so far as it helps us solve more practical problems. It is conservative in that it takes a lot of evidence to overturn accepted theory but is also self-correcting. Famous scientific hoaxes and mistakes of the past century like cold fusion have always been snuffed out by other scientists, not the clergy or literary theorists. Because it's not married to any body of knowledge a new theory or even paradigm can win acceptance with dedicated research and good evidence. Creationists can scream about scientists not taking their beliefs seriously but it's because they just don't have anything, while evolutionary theory has truckloads of evidence and supporting theories.

If you want a taste of weird wild pseudoscience, listen to some late night radio. At midnight on 590 AM in Austin is Coast to Coast AM, a radio program devoted to pseudoscience and the paranormal.
 
I'm still waiting for some non-quack physics to emerge.

I find gravity the most puzzling example since it is known to be either 90% incorrect (missing mass) or infinitely incorrect (energy of zero point energy not accounted for), yet anyone who questions it is a heretic. OK second most puzzling, as the unidentified force behind the repulsion between protons and electrons at close distances and matter at long ranges, is the biggest hole in the standard model in my opinion.

When pressed most physicists will admit that the standard model is not very good, yet it's taught like it is gospel. It's all very troubling to me.
 
Physics tends to not make sense (to us now) at the quantum level. But that does not mean that creationism trumps the theory of evolution. I don't think you're saying that, but it seems to be in the arsenal of arguments trotted out by the creationist crowd.

But with gravity we're not (or so I think) saying that gravity doesn't exist; that if you drop an apple it won't fall to the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top