| The Ten Commandments of Pseudo-Science Randy Robertson, c. 2007 Science has four great drawbacks when it comes to the paranormal. Witness testimony can never be considered as evidence, no phenomenon can be considered real until it can be studied under controlled conditions, evidence that does not support a theory can be disregarded anomalous, and science cannot prove nor disprove anything. With these limitations, it precludes the paranormal from ever being proven in the eyes of the scientific community. So all the groups that are trying to prove the existence of hauntings, Bigfoot, psychics, and aliens are doomed to failure. Whether these things really exist or not is irrelevant. This is why almost all paranormal research groups depart from the scientific principle in at least one way. Actually, quite a few depart in many ways, but the best try not to break more than one rule at a time. This is why paranormal research is considered pseudo-science at best. So, in a nut-shell, here are the Ten Commandments of Pseudo-Science * A hypothesis is only as strong as the evidence that supports it. * To challenge a hypothesis is itself a hypothesis, and must also be supported. * A lack of evidence cannot itself ever be used as evidence. * No evidence can be ignored or discarded simply because it does not fit a hypothesis. * Evidence always take precedence over hypothesis. * No single piece of evidence can alone be used to support a hypothesis. * One form of event cannot ever be used as evidence in support of an unrelated event. * Evidence is only as strong as the methods used to gather it. * A single witness can never be held as evidence. * Multiple witnesses may only be used as evidence on matters on which they concur. A hypothesis is only as strong as the evidence that supports it. You would think that this is obvious, but it is not always the case. Plate tectonics is a wonderful theory that has thousands of bits of evidence in support of it. Individually, each piece of evidence is very weak, but the sheer volume is impressive. The opposite is true for dinosaurs. A single dinosaur skeleton, found mostly intact, is enough to prove the existence of a new species despite that only one such skeleton is known to exist. When your evidence is examined, each piece will be weighed individually and as a whole. Science prefers to weigh individually only, since it is easier to discount one piece of evidence a thousand times than it is to discount a thousand pieces all at once. Don't be caught in this trap. Quantity and quality must be judged in equal measure. To challenge a hypothesis is itself a hypothesis, and must also be supported. It is common practice to look at gathered evidence and simply say, "That could be anything." In common usage, this itself is grounds to have the hypothesis dismissed. But this is not true in all sciences. In the social sciences, forensic sciences, and many others, a challenger must then show what that "anything" could be. It is common practice in the social sciences to set up a hypothesis and an opposing null-hypothesis. The hypothesis is not tested, the null is. If the testing does not support the null, then the hypothesis is considered to be supported. However, this is dangerous ground. It is possible that both the hypothesis and the null are wrong. Each one should be tested independently. A lack of evidence cannot itself ever be used as evidence. It is a long-standing fallacy from days when it was harder to travel and many parts of the world were unknown that the absence of proof is itself proof that something does not exist. If this were true, then giraffes would not exist simply because the Eskimos had never seen one, and bamboo would be an illusion because it is not native to Europe. Obviously, this is borders on the crazy. Just because something remains unproven does not means it does not exist. But a good many well-educated people will try to convince you this is the case. Ultimately, this Commandment reminds us that knowledge and wisdom are not the same thing. No evidence can be ignored or discarded simply because it does not fit a hypothesis. Again, this one should be obvious, but it goes against the Scientific Method. If your hypothesis requires Result A in an experiment, but the experiment always gives you Result B, you should review your methods. If your methods are sound, review your measurements. If your measurements are sound, then it's time to change your hypothesis. Evidence always take precedence over hypothesis. Hypothesis is nothing more than an estimate, a best-guess based on what you currently know. As you study, you will learn more. Some of this may contradict what you once knew. When that happens, you have the choice between maintaining your hypothesis in the face of conflicting evidence, or altering your hypothesis to account for the evidence. Logically, the hypothesis has no choice but to change since it is based on your own assumptions and understanding, while evidence is based on observed facts. No single piece of evidence can alone be used to support a hypothesis. No evidence is perfect. No method is flawless. No instrument is without error. The only way to overcome these limits is to gather repeated data and compare the results. Seek the commonalities. Also keep the uncommon results in mind because they may turn out to be far more common once you have additional results to compare. One form of event cannot ever be used as evidence in support of an unrelated event. Assume that a Bigfoot is finally captured and studied to a point that science can say "Yes, Bigfoot really exists." This might also mean that Yeti and Skunk Apes exist because these are believed to be the same creature in different locations. But the existence of Bigfoot does not support or deny the existence of psychics, aliens, or ghosts in any way. Unfortunately, that means that psychic testimony cannot be used to gather evidence of ghosts, a common practice in many research groups. Certainly one might be able to draw a comparison between the results of psychic analysis and results of non-psychic analysis, but this is more of a means of running two studies at once; an investigation into the presence of ghosts and the repeatability of psychic phenomena. Evidence is only a strong as the methods used to gather it. One of the great criticisms of photo and video data is that "it's always out focus and bounces around and is so dark ..." Unfortunately one cannot depend on an event or activity taking place under perfect photographic conditions. If anything, you can count on them happening at the most inconvenient times. Only being on constant alert, prepared to act in an instant, and thorough familiarity with the instruments you are using can combat this. Testimony from a single witness can never be held as evidence. It is a well known fact that human perceptions are fallible. Light and shadow can cause things to be seen that are not there. The mind will react instinctively when surprised. Timid mice can be interpreted as saber-toothed hellhounds. And sometimes hellhounds may appear like really big mice. Stories change as they are told, as details are added or removed. Memory is a fickle thing. But be warned; sometimes a person will see things that others did not because he was in the right place at the right time. An example of this is made below. Testimony from multiple witnesses may only be used as evidence on matters on which they concur. No matter how fallible the human mind can be, it cannot be denied that if twenty people say they saw a plane crash in the desert, then a plane very likely did crash in the desert. They may argue over the color it was, how many engines it had, and what part of the desert it was in, but the fundamental statement that the plane crashed, and that it was in the desert, can be considered valid evidence. Even if the plane's wreckage is never found, their statements cannot be ignored. But keep in mind that people will try to find explanations for events. No matter how sensible or logical their statements of cause might be, they must be irrelevant. Only in the absence of other evidence can these estimates be considered. For Example... In World War Two, the British battlecruiser Hood was believed to have been totally destroyed by a single volley from the German battleship Bismark. This was supported by both British and German witness reports. Logically, only the Bismark had the power to sink the Hood, and witnesses agreed this was what happened. But as it turns out, the German cruiser Prinz Eugen struck the fatal blow with a lucky shot to the Hood's torpedo magazines. Some of the Prinz Eugen's officers said as much, but they were ignored. It was simply not conceivable that the mighty Hood could have been destroyed by a chance hit from a lowly cruiser. All the witnesses could really confirm was the location of the combatants, and that the Hood had exploded after being struck. The conclusion that the Bismark had done the deed was sensible and logical (and wise propaganda for both sides) but was ultimately prove wrong decades later. Witness observations carry great weight and should always be considered, but their conclusions are too subjective to be relied on, and can never be counted as evidence. |