Teachers should explain to students that none of these warning signs is by itself sufficient to indicate that a discipline is pseudoscientific. Nevertheless, the more of these warning signs a discipline exhibits, the more suspect it should become. Second Commandment Thou shalt distinguish skepticism from cynicism. One danger of teaching students to distinguish science from pseudoscience is that we can inadvertently produce students who are reflexively dismissive of any claim that appears implausible.
Skepticism, which is the proper mental set of the scientist, implies two seemingly contradictory attitudes Sagan, : an openness to claims combined with a willingness to subject these claims to incisive scrutiny. As space engineer James Oberg see Sagan, reminded us, we must keep our minds open but not so open that our brains fall out.
In contrast, cynicism implies close-mindedness. I recall being chastised by a prominent skeptic for encouraging researchers to keep an open mind regarding the efficacy of a novel psychotherapy whose rationale struck him as farfetched. However, if we foreclose the possibility that our preexisting beliefs are erroneous, we are behaving unscientifically. Skepticism entails a willingness to entertain novel claims; cynicism does not.
Third Commandment Thou shalt distinguish methodological skepticism from philosophical skepticism. When encouraging students to think critically, we must distinguish between two forms of skepticism: 1 an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims, namely methodological scientific skepticism, and 2 an approach that denies the possibility of knowledge, namely philosophical skepticism.
When explaining to students that scientific knowledge is inherently tentative and open to revision, some students may mistakenly conclude that genuine knowledge is impossible. This view, which is popular in certain postmodernist circles, neglects to distinguish knowledge claims that are more certain from those that are less certain. Still others, such as cognitive dissonance theory, are scientifically controversial. Hence, there is a continuum of confidence in scientific claims; some have acquired virtual factual status whereas others have been resoundingly falsified.
The fact that methodological skepticism does not yield completely certain answers to scientific questions? Nor does it imply that the answers generated by controlled scientific investigation are no better than other answers, such as those generated by intuition see Myers, Fourth Commandment Thou shalt distinguish pseudoscientific claims from claims that are merely false. All scientists, even the best ones, make mistakes. Sir Isaac Newton, for example, flirted with bizarre alchemical hypotheses throughout much of his otherwise distinguished scientific career Gleick, Students need to understand that the key difference between science and pseudoscience lies not in their content i.
Science, at least when it operates properly, seeks out contradictory information and—assuming that this evidence is replicable and of high quality—eventually incorporates such information into its corpus of knowledge. In contrast, pseudoscience tends to avoid contradictory information or manages to find a way to reinterpret this information as consistent with its claims and thereby fails to foster the self-correction that is essential to scientific progress.
For example, astrology has changed remarkably little over the past 2, years despite overwhelmingly negative evidence Hines, Fifth Commandment Thou shalt distinguish science from scientists. Although the scientific method is a prescription for avoiding confirmatory bias Lilienfeld, , this point does not imply that scientists are free of biases.
Nor does it imply that all or even most scientists are open to evidence that challenges their cherished beliefs. Scientists can be just as pigheaded and dogmatic in their beliefs as anyone else.
Instead, this point implies that good scientists strive to become aware of their biases and to counteract them as much as possible by implementing safeguards against error e. Even as an adult, the idea of having such paranormal abilities appeals.
You may try to conceal the delight in a cloud of Other formats. Professional reviews. Kirkus Reviews. Publishers Weekly. Tags psychology science parapsychology paranormal Browse Tags. Book profile Genre. NonFiction ; New age ; Occult ; Science. North Carolina ; South U. Time Period. Browse Profile. Altmetrics data is provided by Altmetric. Altmetric continually monitors a variety of non-traditional sources to provide real-time updates on new mentions and shares of individual research outputs, which are collated and presented to users via the Altmetric details pages and badge visualizations.
See More. Catalog enrichment powered by Syndetics Unbound. Related reading Recommended items that are related to the record. The roots of coincidence.
Suggested by. ESP and psychokinesis : a philosophical examination. The limits of influence : psychokinesis and the philosophy of science. Supernature : a natural history of the supernatural. We know that macroscopic forces only arise from the exchange of bosons, not of fermions; the exclusion principle prohibits fermions from piling up in the same state to create a coherent long-range force field. And, perhaps most importantly, we know what forces can couple to: the properties of the matter fields that constitute an object.
This is where the previous point comes in. Spoons are just a certain arrangement of five kinds of elementary particles — up and down quarks, gluons, electrons, and photons.
Once you tell me how many electrons etc. Of course, we have worked hard to discover different forces in nature, and so far we have identified four: gravitation, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. But the nuclear forces are very short-range, smaller than the diameter of an atom.
Gravitation and electromagnetism are the only detectable forces that propagate over longer distances. Could either gravitation or electromagnetism be responsible for bending spoons? In the case of electromagnetism, it would be laughably easy to detect the kind of fields necessary to exert enough force to influence a spoon. Not to mention that the human brain is not constructed to generate or focus such fields.
But the real point is that, if it were electromagnetic fields doing the spoon-bending, it would be very very noticeable. And the focus would be on influencing magnets and circuits, not on bending spoons.
In the case of gravitation, the fields are just too weak. A bowling ball would be more efficient, and most people would agree that moving a bowling ball past a spoon has a negligible effect.
Could there be a new force, as yet undetected by modern science? Of course! Physicists are by no means closed-minded about such possibilities; they are very excited by them. But they also take seriously the experimental limits. And those limits show unambiguously that any such new force must either be very short-range less than a millimeter , or much weaker than gravity, which is an awfully weak force. The point is that such forces are characterized by three things: their range , their strength , and their source what they couple to.
As discussed above, we know what the possible sources are that are relevant to spoons: quarks, gluons, photons, electrons. Unfortunately for Rhine, other researchers failed to duplicate his findings, and many errors were found in his methods.
In the s, Uri Geller became the world's best-known psychic and made millions traveling the world demonstrating his claimed psychokinetic abilities, including starting broken watches and bending spoons.
Though he denied using magic tricks, many skeptical researchers observed that all of Geller's amazing feats could be — and have been — duplicated by magicians.
Public interest in psychokinesis returned in the s. One person nationally known for claimed psychokinetic ability, James Hydrick, tried to demonstrate his powers on the television show "That's My Line" in , following several successful television appearances. He claimed to move small objects, such as a pencil or the pages of a telephone book, with his mind.
Host Bob Barker consulted with skeptic James Randi, who suspected that Hydrick was merely discreetly blowing on the pages to make them move. To prevent this method of trickery Randi placed styrofoam bits around the open book, as the lightweight pieces would clearly be disturbed if the pages were moving because of Hydrick's breath instead of his mind.
After many awkward minutes in front of Barker, Randi, a panel of judges, and the live studio audience, a flustered Hydrick finally said that his powers weren't cooperating. Hydrick later admitted that his psychokinetic powers had been faked, and marveled at how easy it had been to fool the public.
0コメント