Whenever our society faces a difficult question, it almost always looks to some branch of science for help. Should we allow a nuclear waste dump in the neighborhood? How about a nuclear power plant to keep it full? What should we do about the AIDS epidemic? Does smoking cause cancer? Is homosexuality biologically determined? Can we build a shield against nuclear weapons? Billions have been spent on looking for answers to such questions, mainly because we feel reasonably confident that, with enough time and money, scientists can give us the truth. On the other hand, a lot of what in our society masquerades as science is really bunk. The next time you pass through the supermarket checkout, examine some of the reading material you find there. It's full of readily discernible bunk.
But it's not always easy to tell when something is science and when it's not, especially if the alleged experts themselves disagree or, even worse, if you can't figure out who, if anyone, is an expert on the question at hand. Consider the following scenario:
Unless you do about thirty sit-ups every morning (knees raised!), it's virtually certain that you will lose at least a few days' work to low back pain at some point during your life. Some of you will be even more unlucky - one of your spinal shock-absorbers will suffer a blow-out (what people mislabel a 'slipped disc') that irritates one of the main nerves to your legs, the sciatic nerve. Sciatica can be chronic and so excruciatingly painful that even large doses of narcotics don't provide much relief. Suppose you are one of the unlucky ones who suffers a blow-out and a friend stops by to visit you in your bed of pain. She says, "I know what you're going through. I've been through it myself. And I know what you should do: see my chiropractor, Dr. Smith. He'll do some adjustments and you'll feel like a new person. But don't go near any of those knife-happy back surgeons! They'll make you worse, if you can imagine that." Then another friend visits and advises, "I know what you're going through. I've been through it myself. And I know what you should do: see my orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Jones. She's very careful - not at all knife happy - and she'll recommend surgery only if it's really necessary. While she's doing the necessary tests and exams, she and her marvelous staff of physical therapists will make you more comfortable. But the one thing that you must not do under any circumstances is to go to one of those chiropractic quacks! I went to one of those pseudoscientists, and I left feeling even worse, if you can imagine that." If you're more thorough than most, you might examine some chiropractic and orthopedic textbooks, though they're so large and heavy that it won't be easy in your present condition. Even worse, they use some of the same texts in their schools, and all of them are full of impressive terminology and pictures. You need to take action. Which doctor do you see? When faced with an urgent practical matter, wouldn't it be marvelous to have a simple, sharp, clear, brief principle that you could use to sort out science from pseudoscience, so you could take the most reasonable course of action?
What we need, then, is a 'gatekeeper', some general principle of demarcation that will help us to separate real science from its junky, bunky imitation. And we'd prefer a simple, clear, sharp, practical answer to the question, How does science differ from pseudoscience?
So, at least initially, let's adopt an appealingly simple picture: let's think of science as a highly competitive race for the truth, with strict qualifying conditions that determine which theories, hypotheses or explanations deserve a place at the starting line (and which do not). Just as not everyone can enter the Olympics, not every theory deserves scientific consideration. Our resources are too precious to waste on underqualified, pseudoscientific bunk. And just as it makes no sense for an Olympic competitor to be a 'bit of a starter', it makes no sense to see the difference between science and pseudoscience as one of degree. A theory is either a starter (scientific) or a nonstarter (pseudoscientific); there's no middle ground. Of course, not every starter in the race will be a winner: most theories that really do deserve a run will turn out to be false, but a theory can be worse than false: it can be pseudoscientific!
We'll begin by looking at some allegedly clear examples of pseudoscience: astrology, phrenology, parapsychology, and UFOlogy. Astrology and phrenology were influential attempts to account for human destiny and personality. Parapsychology, the study of "ESP" and other so-called paranormal phenomena, explores the limits of human mental power. UFOlogy seeks to discover if there are intelligent Ets mingling with human beings. Alas, none of the gatekeepers commonly proposed works as well as by the critics of pseudoscience hoped.
We will then investigate the most controversial case of alleged pseudoscience: Scientific Creationism. We'll find that some of the most widely accepted reasons for dismissing it as pseudoscientific are worthless; once we replace them with better reasons, we'll see that Scientific Creationists do a great disservice to religion by misusing the very sort of purpose-directed explanation that plays a central role in almost all religions. (We will also see that, given their views, there is a curious gap in educational efforts of Scientific Creationists since they fail to advocate the public school study of fallen angels as agents of evil in human affairs.) But at least Scientific Creationists do not sink to the intellectual depths of New Agers, who dilute purpose-directed explanation to the point of disappearance by insisting on 'explaining' every similarity in this way (except when marketing considerations intervene).
To round out the discussion of gatekeepers, we will examine a widely touted view of science as defined by paradigms, as well as the idea that what really matters in defining science's role in making public policy is its practical utility together with its ability to remain free of political influence and bias. None of these survives critical scrutiny, as our discussions of Chaos theory, Chinese acupuncture, and sexology will show.
Although the advocates of Creation Science are typically religiously inspired, not all religious believers are in sympathy with Creation Science. In fact, many members of the clergy are adamantly opposed to making Creation Science a part of public school teaching. There are many reasons for their opposition, but one of the most widely and deeply held is that religion and science are 'worlds apart': if religious beliefs are not open to scientific test, then believers have no reason to feel threatened by scientific findings. Some go further and say that there isn't even any possibility of basic conflict between religion and science, so different are their questions, approaches, and answers. So what, exactly, is the difference between religion and science?
We will look at eight ways science and religion are commonly said to be essentially and systematically different:
Science does, but religion does not, attempt to meet high standards of explanation (perhaps because science is a 'matter of the head', but religion is a 'matter of the heart').
Religion does, but science does not, make reference to God, the Designer of the Universe.
Religion does, but science does not, take an attitude of awe and wonder toward Nature.
Religion aims for personal improvement, but science does not.
Religion says that changes in nonphysical objects cause changes in physical objects, but science does not. (deferred until the discussion of dualism; see below)
Religion does, but science does not, try to say what morally ought to be.
Religion is, but science is not, based on faith. (-the odds-on favorite)
Religion does, but science does not, need purpose-directed explanation.
We'll find that all except the last proposal are wrong. But even the last proposal faces a serious problem: there are at least two branches of science - biology and psychology - that are full of 'purpose'-talk of some kind or another. To find out whether or not there is a real difference between science and religion, we will need to dig deeper and find out what kind of conceptual resources are really needed in biology and psychology. (And, as an interesting footnote to the eighth way, we'll take a brief look at the recent, but misguided, attempt by some physicists to re-introduce a kind of purpose-directed explanation into cosmology, the physical theory of the origin and nature of the universe.)
The final major question we investigate is therefore: Is some irreducible concept of purpose necessary in either biology or psychology, or can we get along with a reduced store of concepts from other branches of science (for example, 'cause and effect' and a few others from physics)? To raise the stakes for such questions about the reducibility of one kind of explanation to another, we will consider a solution to the age-old Problem of Freedom and Determinism, offered by 20th century physicist Max Planck, in his essay, "The Mystery of Our Being."
If living and thinking things were merely very complex and sophisticated machines, then a reduced store would suffice. And it is from an analogy with one kind of machine - the modern computer - that Cognitive Science gets its resources; it is based on a computer model of the mind, a model that was motivated by the problems that bedevil older dualistic and behavioristic theories of mind. The computer model, however, suffers from some problems of its own, problems that are neatly addressed if we include purpose-directed explanation in our theory of the mind, which suggests that such explanation is needed in science as well as in religion. (Biology is a trickier case, but there is also good reason to believe that the concepts of normal biological function are irreducible.)
Our last and most promising way of distinguishing science and religion thus appears to fail, and we are left with no good reason for thinking that there is any systematic, essential difference between them.
How, then, are we to interpret the First Amendment to the US Constitution when it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."? If we really can't distinguish religion from science, how are we to define "religion" in this context? Since the entire US system of public education is shaped by that definition, this is not an issue we can afford to defer. It looks like all of us in the United States have a serious problem.
start Science and Pseudoscience: the Search for a Gatekeeper: Astrology
2000 David F. Austin