I came in contact with a new website the other day and the first article I read is the one that is going to be analyzed below. You can find it at the following link:
For people who claim to be objective, and demand that others be so, are very biased and unobjective when writing or talking about people they disagree with. Their own rules and standards are tossed out when they deal with those who disagree with them.
#1. Science is a systematic method of acquiring information. It depends on the idea that the natural world works according to certain principles, and that we can discover those principles through observation and experimentation. Science isn’t the the only way of knowing about the world, but we give it special respect because it works so well.
This is a very idealistic view of science. It is also a very naive one as it thinks that observation and experimentation on their own can actually determine what the truth is. It ignores the weaknesses of that field of research as well as omits the bias of the scientists involved. We must add that science doesn’t work that well and is often found to be in error and very far off the mark.
#2. Schools don’t do a very good job teaching students to recognize and understand good scientific research.
What she actually means is ‘schools do not teach students her way or secular science’s way’ so they must not be doing a good job. It is so sad to see this closed-minded and blind-eye approach to science. This approach ignores the reality of life and that science is human authored and run. The very reasons that unbelievers use to discard God and the Bible yet they applaud it here and use those reasons for membership in that field of study.
#3. Maybe not, but we should absolutely care when kids catch preventable diseases because their parents bought into the deception that vaccines cause autism.
Appealing to the emotional here which is far from true scientific attitudes. This attitude ignores the idea of immunity and how it is achieved. The scientist thinks that immunity must only come via their way and all other options are wrong. This is a grave error on the part of the scientist as they may be subjecting children to medicines that will and do harm the child; dangers which may not have become evident during their observation and experimentation process.
The people who avoid vaccines are trying to be careful and want their children immune not used as lab rats.
#4. Non-scientific, non-rational explanations are attractive because they appeal to the romantic, and can be fun to think about. It’s fine to believe what you want, but it’s dishonest and harmful to pretend that arguments are scientific when they’re not
Yet these same non-scientific and non-rational explanations come from mainstream scientists as well as those they label as pseudo-scientists. Mainstream scientists are as dishonest and harmful as those that author whines about, even though they may be ‘scientific’ and ‘rational’ in their presentation.
#5. The very first thing to do is to check the source of a claim. Where was it published? If it’s in a news article, does the article give a citation to a reputable journal? Then it’s probably reasonable to accept it (at least for your purposes…you’ll likely need more than a lay person’s education to distinguish between scientific articles after they’re published. If something is really really important to you, that’s the point at which you ask an expert).
For some reason that author thinks that only scientific journals are reputable and telling the truth. Some reputable scientific journals do not always jump on board with the author of an article and thus refuse to publish their work. She also seems to think that ‘experts’ are infallible and do not make mistakes. In most cases the experts are not telling the truth but present their best opinion on a subject and can be way off the mark in their assessment of a situation.
#6. Why a journal? Scientific journals are peer-reviewed, a process based on the simple idea that only experts are qualified to evaluate the work of other experts. Peer review is a pretty high standard, though it can’t always detect deliberate deception.
She also has a very naive and idealistic view of the peer review process. It’s supposedly high standards are not as high as she seems to think. It is also a system that is easy to manipulate or used to censor unpopular thinking. It can and has been used to promote deception and I am not talking about the example that author uses. Many scientific theories were proven to be hoaxes or in error after being published in magazines who used this reputable process.
They were not caught till decades later.
#7. But what about claims published in places other than academic journals? I’ve made a simple figure to illustrate the “hierarchy” of authority, to help you answer the question “Can I trust what this source is saying?”
Her hierarchy simply demonstrates her bias as she thinks that science is the ultimate authority for mankind and in reality it is not even close to that stature. Science cannot make claims to such authority for it is run by the blind who are deceived, the biased, the corrupt and many other negatives. In fact, many scientists want to have their field removed from being governed by morals, ethics and right and wrong. They want to be free to do as they please and do what they please. An attitude that only brings destruction not real constructive contributions to society in general.
It also declares scientists to being the elite, the only people who can determine anything and that attitude insults just about everyone who exists or has existed in history. Scientists know very little when you really examine their work and there is no way they should be elevated to a position of final authority.
#8. Presents a claim that can’t be falsified.The scientific method does not prove things right, it disproves wrong things. All conclusions are tentative, and subject to immediate revision if evidence is discovered that proves them wrong.
This is appealing to a false, man-made standard. It has no authority to determine what is true or false. If science can’t prove things right then it cannot prove things that are wrong for that would imply a standard of right and wrong exists and that science cannot determine the what constitutes the ‘right’ side of things. This makes science useless for mankind.
If conclusions are tentative then, again, what good is science? It is providing no one with any answers so its work is meaningless and wastes everybody’s time and money. That revision is not immediate as many error-filled theories and ‘facts’ of science have remained for decades in mainstream scientific thought. Her ideal and naive attitude comes through loud and clear throughout her work.
#9. Isn’t predictive.
A good scientific model, backed by many studies, can produce testable hypotheses. The theory of evolution, for example, makes certain predictions.
Appealing to another false and man-made standard. predictions have nothing to do with what is true or false. Absolutely nothing and mainstream science has taken this standard from pseudo-science, the very issue that author is complaining about. Predictions are used in presenting false scientific ‘facts’ as true as well.
In fact, there are so many false predictions it is any wonder that science progresses at all. Failed predictions are never talked about by the scientific community so a very distorted picture is presented to the public about this cherished area of scientific life.
#10. Invokes the supernatural.
Science is based on the philosophy that there are natural explanations for natural phenomena.
There may be ‘natural’ explanations for different phenomena but that doesn’t mean that the supernatural was not involved or does not exist. We can invoke the supernatural when the supernatural has intervened in human circumstances. But here we see that author’s religious bias which removes any hope of her being objective and honest. Real science would study all explanations and all data. Removing data and ignoring is not science but personal preference, something the scientist is supposed to leave at the door of the lab.
She is advocating a pre-determined opinion on the part of the scientist and that is another area that secularists criticize believers for holding. If the secular scientist was honest, they would look for the supernatural explanation and involvement but they are not as the saying goes– ‘a scientist will accept any theory as long as it does not contain God.’
#11. Has “proven” conclusions, and ignores or explains away facts that are inconvenient.
If facts contrary to a hypothesis are discovered, the hypothesis must be re-evaluated/rejected.
Again, her naive and ideal attitude of science. What is or isn’t ‘science’ is very subjected and can be changed at the whim of the majority who hold the same beliefs about the field. In other words, if creationists were in the majority then what they determine to be science is now science and on it would go.
#12. Uses anecdotal evidence. However interesting personal experiences might be, they don’t count for the purposes of scientific research.
Again, this is an area that is used by secular scientists all the time. I read it in their books all the time.
#13. Has various justifications for why it hasn’t been validated by the normal process of peer review.
Again, I have to say that this is used by mainstream scientists as well.
#14. Relies on “ancient wisdom”
We are better at science than ancient Egyptians or ancient Babylonians.
This is just pure arrogance and untrue. Ancient wisdom was considered wisdom because it was wise and they knew how to do science. I think that author has not seen the History channel’s series about Ancient Impossible and the episode on Ancient Einsteins. The ancient world was as, if not more, intelligent than the modern scientist claims they are.
I would go into this more at length but time and space just do not allow me to be redundant on a matter that has been discussed over and over.
#15. Argues from ignorance/personal incredulity
Just because a person doesn’t know how something works (yet) doesn’t mean that it’s unknowable, or necessary to invoke supernatural explanations.
Seems I need to repeat myself. This point is done by mainstream scientists as well. Many mainstream scientists do not know how something works and in fact Bill Bryson details this weakness a lot in his book A Little History About Everything. Modern scientists are stumped all the time. Then we see her religious bias which leads her astray as though scientists may present a natural explanation but they cannot provide the verification that they are correct or even close to being right.
In other words, the natural explanation concocted by scientists may be a close competitor to Aesop’s Fables in both quality and fantasy.
#16. This is obviously not a complete list, but hopefully it’s enough to help you sort through the most egregious examples of pseudoscience.
Of course not. What that article boils down to is ‘if you do not do science my way then you are not doing science.’ It is just pure arrogance on the part of the modern scientist who thinks that they are the only ones who know something yet are usually the last to the answer.
Thing issue for the believer in all of this is that neither God nor Jesus said to use science or any other field of research to get to the truth. They did so because they know that corruption, lies and sin permeate all those fields and their followers would be lead astray by such false teaching. Jesus said to follow the HS to the truth which means that the truth is not restricted to science or its methodologies.
It also tells us that science is NOT the authority on what is true or false. Only God is and the HS leads us to that truth as well.