Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill
From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Crank Science
Message-ID: <509@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Aug-85 17:34:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.509
Posted: Thu Aug  8 17:34:22 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 11-Aug-85 06:36:48 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 224

Pat Wyant's points are well taken; the questions raised in
net.origins cannot be solved by discussions of the kind we
have been having.  It is first necessary to recognize that the 
Creationist ethos is fundamentally opposed to that of science.  
Having learned a little of the vocabulary of science, the so-called 
"Scientific Creationists" imagine that they are engaged in a 
scientific discussion, and those of us on the other side are easily
fooled into sharing that delusion.  The discussion is not, in fact,
a rational discussion based on the same rules of evidence that 
are customary among scientists.  It is, as Pat points out, 
almost certainly a futile effort to approach it as if it were.

In many ways, Science is like a game.  Any game, such as baseball,
has certain rules, and anyone who wants to play that game has to
abide by those rules.  If, for example, I want to have a private
rule that says "four strikes and you are out", then I am no
longer playing baseball, but some other game.  It may be a
perfectly good game, it may even be a better game than baseball,
but it is NOT baseball.  In a similar way, those who play by rules 
different from the rules of Science may be engaged in worthwhile
activities, activities that may be more valuable than Science,
but they are NOT doing Science.

Suppose I were to join a baseball team, but insisted on playing
by my private rules.  The other members of the team would 
rightfully point out that I am not playing baseball, and would
probably kick me off the team.  If I insisted that I *was*
playing baseball nevertheless, they would rightfully call me a
liar.  Similarly, there are standard terms for those who claim
to be doing science when, in fact, they are not playing by the
rules of Science.  We call such people "pseudoscientists" or
"crank scientists", and what the produce is "Pseudoscience" or
"Crank Science".

It is not very difficult to recognize Pseudoscience.  Ted Holden's 
recent article illustrates very well some of the characteristics
that distinguish Science and Pseudoscience.  I will list some of
them and illustrate them by quotes from his article.

(1)  One of the characteristics of Pseudoscience
is the fact that pseudoscientists do not like to submit their
ideas for critical evaluation by acknowledged experts.  The
notion of Peer Review is alien to them.  They would much rather
engage in spreading their ideas among lay people, using the
popular print media, debates, popularly written books and the
like.  Thus, for example, Ted Holden writes:

>     My  own  training  was  in
>     science (math) and  not  religion.  I wouldn't feel 
>     good about publishing in  a  journal "refereed"  by
>     "scientists" in the  case of the creation-evolution
>     debate.  I would  prefer well attended debates with
>     members of the press  present  as  was  the case in
>     Roanoke. I know "scientists" a little bit too well.

The problems with debates and similar presentations is obvious:
Each side can claim victory, and no one can tell who really
won.  The press, with some notable exceptions (such as Walter
Sullivan), is ill-informed and ill-equipped to distinguish
between Science and Pseudoscience. Furthermore, pseudoscientists
aren't really interested in affecting the progress of science
anyway, since their real motivations lie elsewhere.  In the case
of "Scientific Creationism", for example, the real purpose is
to get Creationism taught in the public schools, or failing that,
to prevent the teaching of evolution.  So it is not surprising
that pseudoscientists prefer propaganda and debate to publication 
in scholarly journals.  To have the guts to submit an article
to a refereed journal, one would first have to believe that it 
will measure up to some minimal standards of scholarship.  
Pseudoscientists aren't generally willing to allow that kind
of exposure.  

I am sure that most scientists would agree that IF THE IDEAS IN 
AN ARTICLE ARE SCIENTIFICALLY VALID, THEN THE ARTICLE SHOULD BE 
PUBLISHED.  When I referee an article, that is the standard I 
adhere to, since I would rather have an article published that 
turns out to be wrong, than prevent the publication of an article 
that turns out to be right.  I may suggest changes or improvements,
but I am opposed to censorship.  To do otherwise would be to 
impede the progress of science.  I am sure that most journal 
editors would agree with me.  By the same token, however, 
IF AN AUTHOR IS NOT WILLING TO SUBMIT HIS IDEAS TO PEER REVIEW,
THEY ARE UNWORTHY OF THE ATTENTION OF SCIENCE.  Creationists, 
for example, consistently avoid even submitting their ideas to 
the only forum that counts in science...the refereed journals.  
Why, if their ideas are correct, do they avoid the *real* debate?  
THE FACT IS, MOST CREATIONIST ARGUMENTS ARE SO FULL OF HOLES THAT 
THEY COULD NOT STAND UP TO THE TESTING OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS.

(2) A second distinguishing characteristic of pseudoscientists
is that they portray them selves as heroic fighters for the
truth against an unyielding science establishment.  They whine, 
"They all laughed at {Columbus|Marconi|...}", all the time 
forgetting that they also laughed at T. J. J. See and thousands 
like him.  And they still laugh.  Among other things, 
pseudoscientists use this paranoia as an excuse to avoid submitting 
their work to refereed journals.  They carp about how the editors 
of these journals are going to reject Creationist articles out of 
hand, despite the fact that the hypothesis has hardly been tested. 
(See"The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation "Science"", *Quart.
Review Biology* *60*, pp. 21-30 (1985) for a detailed study).

A bit of this paranoia shows when Ted Holden says, explaining his 
preference for debates over publication in scholarly journals:

>     I know "scientists" a little bit too well.

(3)  Yet a third distinguishing characteristic of pseudoscience
is that those engaged in it consider themselves in possession
of a grand, unconventional view that can *explain everything*.
The more grandiose and crazy the idea, the more it conflicts
with conventional science, the more convinced of its correctness 
they are.  You can't argue them out of it, because they've got an 
"answer" to explain away every possible objection to their 
obsession.  Contrast this to scientists, who will readily 
admit the limitations of their knowledge!

For example, when I asked:

>>Really?  And  what mechanism  do you  propose to change
>>the force of gravity on the earth?

Ted Holden responded:

>     I can forgive Mr. Jefferys for this  one.  This one
>     involves   a   radical   departure   from   present
>     thinking.  Immanuel Velikovsky  was  aware  of this
>     but  refrained  from  including  it  in  "Worlds in
>     Collision, Vol  I"  specifically  because  it would
>     seem  too  weird  to  most  people.   

and continued:
>.........................................................
>
>     Velikovsky's long  promised  "Worlds  in Collision,
>Chapter II",  dealing with the nature of the world prior
>to the flood, was essentially published  in 1980  in the
>form of  "The Saturn  Myth" by  David Talbott, available
>from DoubleDay. ...

[Then he quoted from "The Saturn Myth"]

>     Prior to  the flood,  we were  a planet of Saturns.
>This sounds crazy at first, but the pictures  inside the
>pyramids  depict  this  repeatedly.  The idea definitely
>didn't sound  crazy to  Akhnaten.  The  North pole faced
>Saturn  directly,  and  we  hung perilously close to the
>small star.   The gravitational  interaction between the
>star and  planet was intense;  particals and debris were
>trapped in between permanently and picked up the glow of
>the  star,  resembling  a great mountain rising straight
>from the North Pole to the star, the myth of  the god on
>the  mountain,  Zeus  on  Olympus,  Jahveh  on Zion etc.

These ideas violate all the known laws of physics.  Not only
do they *sound* crazy, but they *are* crazy.  They are as 
"off the wall" as any of the many crank ideas that have 
been sent to me by aspiring  pseudoscientists over the years.  
To give only an elementary example, it is impossible for a 
planet orbiting another body to maintain its rotational axis 
pointing towards the other body.  To do so would require a
gross violation of angular momentum conservation.  

(4)  Another distinguishing characteristic of pseudoscience
is the failure of its adherents to do genuine research, research
that might possibly show their theory to be wrong.  Mostly they
engage in what we might call "armchair science", meaning a lot
of library work to try and find any piece of evidence that might
support their cause.  At the same time, they avoid noticing any
evidence on the other side.  On those rare occasions that they do 
actually get into the field, their purpose is not to advance science 
(for example, by journal publication) but rather to find
evidence that can be used to proselytize their cause
among the public at large.  For example, the Rev. Carl Baugh
has been digging at the Paluxy River in Texas for years.  Has 
he ever submitted any of his findings for publication?  No.  This
despite the fact that he has actually made a few significant finds
(he recently unearthed a genuine and rare dinosaur skeleton; 
unfortunately he didn't know what he had and he thoroughly bungled
the excavation, destroying the scientific value of his find by
his amateurish methods).  His real purpose is to stock the
"Museum" he is building at Glen Rose with "evidence" that humans
and dinosaurs once roamed the earth together, and to provide
Creationist debaters with ammunition.

This failure to do the obvious things that might prove ones pet
theory wrong (as all real scientists are obliged to do) extends to
a failure even to do the obvious calculations that would show
whether a particular claim is even physically plausible.  The
very first thing a physicist does when he has a new idea is to
do a "back of the envelope" calculation that shows whether, for
example, the energetics of the proposed idea make sense.  This
is something that is seldom, if ever, done by pseudoscientists.
For example, Velikovsky makes some amazing assertions about the
origin of Venus (it is supposed to have been a comet that was
ejected by Jupiter), but he doesn't do the elementary calculation
that shows the idea utterly preposterous on energetic grounds
(Carl Sagan has done it.  It is presented in a rather long article,
well worth reading, in his book *Broca's Brain*. I am
sure that Mr. Holden will tell us why we shouldn't believe
Dr. Sagan.)

These are only a few of the ways that Pseudoscience can be
recognized.  Perhaps if I have the opportunity I can provide some
others later.  The bottom line for me is this: I do not care
whether someone believes the kind of nonsense that Mr. Holden
has been writing.  It makes no difference to me whatever.  But
I strongly object when this nonsense is passed off as science.
I greatly fear for the future of our country if schoolchildren,
for example, were to have the Creationist model held up to them
as an example of good science.  The experience of the Soviet
Union under the pseudoscience of Lysenkoism shows what can 
happen when pseudoscience is allowed official sanction.  It would
be a great disaster if something like that were to be allowed
to happen here.

-- 
"Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from
	religious conviction."  -- Blaise Pascal

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill	(uucp)
	bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA		(ARPANET)