Woo Woo Taboo

Today lets talk about science. First I want to define science and the scientific method,  terms that are widely misused and abused.

Science: "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation" -- merriam-webster.com

Scientific Method: "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses" -- merriam-webster.com

Or as I was taught in school, the scientific method is as follows: You observe the world, make observations and collect data. From that data you construct a hypothesis about how what you see works or why it is the way it is. Then you design experiments to test your hypothesis. If the result of your experiment agrees with your hypothesis, you can accept it as provisionally true and perhaps, with enough experiments, promote it to a theory. If the results don't agree, you must go back and change you hypothesis or create a new one. The point here is that every hypothesis and theory is only provisionally true, it can be disproved at any time. A theory is like a balloon, no matter how perfect it may seem, it only takes a single, tiny hole to deflate it completely. It doesn't matter how well a theory is accepted or how famous or well respected it's proponents are, one hole, all gone.

The difference between religion and science, as I'm told, is that religion is biased on faith in dogmas, statements that absolutely cannot be questioned under any circumstances, while science is biased on faith on theories, which can be disproved, revised, or discarded at any time. Sounds good, but in fact, people get really attached to their theories and don't give them up easily, that's human nature. Scientific discoveries are bottled up not just on religious grounds, but on selfish or monetary grounds as well. Thus "Funeral by funeral."

Every heard "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?" Sounds good, but is it science? Here's the problem, what is the scientific definition of "extraordinary"? "Extraordinary" is a value judgment, it's not a measurable quantity. Who decides what claims are "extraordinary", and what level of proof is "extraordinary"? This is frequently used by scientists to dismiss any claim they don't like. They just assert that no existing level of proof is "extraordinary" enough to meet their standards. And if the level of proof is raised, that's still not enough. Thus has been the case of psychic research for almost a hundred years, no matter how many objections are answered, no matter how high the level of proof, it still isn't enough.

Fringe, and religios types frequently misuse science terms and the scientific method to muddy the waters of the popular perception of science and technology. Scientists contribute to this mess by slinging their own confusing and frequently misleading jargon when trying to defend their positions against pseudo-science, which, all to often, means any idea that might threaten your research funding or offends your intellectual sensibilities. Which gets us to the crux of the matter: Scientists and science writers and supporters almost never bother to distinguish be ideas that are provably false and those that might be true, but they're not allow to say so because they are taboo.

In Taboo woo woo science? Dr. Dean Radin does a wonderful exploration of the taboos in science, the field that regularly claims not to have any. The fact that there are subjects that any creditable scientist and researcher will not mention, will not touch with the proverbial triple-radiation-shielded-remote-controlled-10-foot-pole, gives the charlatans, the fakers and con-artists free rein to say whatever they like. Since science refuses to give us the tools we need to distinguish fact from fiction, the fakers are free to have a field day, and we're left to sort out the mess. Thanks a lot guys!