The Appearance of Legitimacy

Japan have suffered a setback in putting whale meat on the table with their "scientific program" being labelled a ruse by an international court. Of course, the Japanese knew it was a ruse too (their disappointment was expressed in the denial of tradition, not of what they could have learnt from slaughtering whales), yet it was a ruse they needed to keep up for international obligations.

This same kind of legitimacy is presumably what Russia sought with the referendum in Crimea, or any dictator does with a "poll". It's the kind of ruse that fools nobody, yet it's enough to fend off simple criticism. Russia doesn't care about having a fair election any more than a dictator does, yet the burden is now on those who say it's unfair - a burden that really can't be met beyond suspicion.

The example I want to highlight, though, is scientific creationism. What should be said about all creationism is this - any starting point other than the science will exclude it from being science. It's that simple. The goal of science isn't to vindicate any doctrine, religious or otherwise, but to use observation to develop and test theories. Creationists fall afoul of this because they already have the answer.

Yet creationists want scientific legitimacy. While many will affirm that the bible is their starting point, they are also quick to criticise any scientific claim that seemingly contradicts that. They also crave people with qualifications - real qualifications if possible, but degree mills in the absence of those. They even have their own "scientific" journals where people submit "real" research.

What is interesting is exploring what the response to that should be. Science, of course, needs to be an open enterprise and people need to be able to explore avenues wherever they lead. At the same time, scientists need to guard against pseudoscientists who are looking to use the scientific process to serve their own ends.

What we end up with, sad to say, is Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The complaint was that Intelligent Design isn't being given a fair go by the scientific community, and proponents are finding that their support of Intelligent Design is meaning losing academic credibility. It sounds appalling, which it would be if it were the case.

There is a perceived circularity with scientific orthodoxy. Intelligent Design, to be a legitimate view, needs to have academic support. But since the evolutionists are the ones in charge of what gets called science, Intelligent Design cannot get the academic support it needs. In other words, the orthodoxy rigs the game by excluding any person or paper that might be sympathetic to ID as simply being anti-science.

Of course if this were really circular, then it would be utterly astounding that science progresses at all. Yet science does, and the ideas accepted by the biological community now are not the same as 50, 100, or 150 years ago when Darwin first published. The big deal is made of the orthodoxy because it's a convenient scape goat standing in the way of perceived scientific legitimacy.

What Expelled did was tie cases of ID proponents being fired or denied tenure to the fact that they were ID proponents. That in turn was tied into the wider narrative of academia trying to exclude God from the picture. What this does is gives a reason for the lack of legitimacy. They are serious scientists doing serious research promoting a serious view, but the atheistic evolutionists stand in their way. (One of the most baffling things about Expelled is how much of the film is about Richard Dawkins' atheism, from theologians discussing it to Ben Stein drilling Dawkins on what gods he doesn't believe in.)

The argument so far has been made without context. If we were to put ID into a cultural and historical context, ID an incarnation of creationism in an attempt to give it scientific legitimacy at least as far as what gets taught to students. ID is aimed at school boards, politicians, and at the wider public. It craves scientific legitimacy not because God should be vindicated in science, but because scientific legitimacy is what counts as far as what is taught in science class. If ID were to limit itself to being an expression of natural theology, there'd be no issue. But as the wedge document confirms, the motives of ID proponents is to ultimately bring people to Jesus.

Thus scientists are put in an awkward position. If people want to use the appearance of scientific legitimacy for their nonscientific ideas, then scientists have to guard against it. But if they do guard against it, they are accused of guarding the orthodoxy against proper scrutiny. Proper science is brought down to the level of pseudoscience by virtue of pseudoscience being able to better posture itself as legitimate science persecuted by the orthodoxy.

The value of real science is that what is the mainstream now had to be earned through the scientific process. Just as a real democracy requires an open political process. The pale imitation of dictatorships fools no-one even though it's an attempt of dictators to appease their critics. The same goes for creationists pretending to do science. They aren't doing so because they want to find the truth - they know their truth already - but because it's what's expected of them.

The problem is that their pale imitation isn't the same thing as doing real science, and real scientists call them out on it. The irony of it all is that scientists standing up for science has become to be seen an expression of ideology, while ideologues craving the appearance of scientific legitimacy as the persecuted minority standing up for Truth.

QFT

"Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and the superstitious who say they are being oppressed by science. So 1984." - Marc Crislip

Morning Scepticism: Pseudoreligion

When science is done wrong, it's called pseudoscience. It's pseudoscience because it's theoretically or empirically unfounded and making scientific claims that don't sit within the body of knowledge that is collectively referred to as scientific knowledge. Now it's often said that like bad science, there is bad religion. That is religion done right is a good thing while religion gone wrong is the problem. That sounds reasonable, except by what standard does religion become a pseudoreligion? With science, there's the strength of the claim proportional to the evidence and the commitment to methodology. I really don't see a parallel when it comes to religion going wrong.

The only way it makes sense to me is that religion gone wrong is akin to describing the atomic bomb as science gone wrong. The science is just fine, it's just the negative consequences that came from its use.

Morning Scepticism: Quantum

The surest way of knowing that a product is crap is that they are advertised with science-sounding words. A computer uses quantum mechanics to work, yet its selling point isn't its harnessing of quantum mechanics. It works and to the consumer it doesn't matter how it works. So it should be a pretty good indicator that a product is bunk is if it is advertised with science-sounding words. Products with good science behind them just work, products that don't try to sound scientific to compensate.

Doomsday Collider

Tomorrow is the big day, the Large Hadron Collider becomes operational. It could be validation of some proposed theoretical physics, lead us to a fundamental rethink of the nature of the basic building blocks, or if you believe the soothsayers it will destroy the earth. Though to be fair to the people claiming Armageddon, out of all the different ways it's claimed end times will come this one probably has the most grounding in reality. It's a shame that the media has played up the potential for devastation, there's no justifiable grounds to even mention it. Short of going on a rant about media sensationalism (I'll save that for later), it's a good chance to look at why people come to buy stories like these as plausible alternatives.


The end is nigh...
Stories of Armageddon, end times, and doomsday scenarios are part and parcel of human culture. It's in this modern times where thanks to a free press and an imaginative species that the number of different narratives we are subjected to has grown considerably. Consider 100 years ago, the only thing to worry about was the rapture. Then on came the science fiction revolution, and suddenly aliens were a threat too. Then it was nuclear annihilation, then global warming, and that mysterious Planet X. Remember the SARS outbreak? Next will be bird flu if we aren't careful. It's not to say that some of these aren't a problem. We will need to do our best to contain the bird flu and hope it doesn't mutate for human-to-human transmission, we will need to work towards limiting the ecological impact we have on the environment around us, and working towards nuclear disarmament. But as triggers in our mind of impending doom, the immediate threat to our safety is on the line.

So with the LHC, there is no real difference in the way of thinking. It sounds scary because the ramifications are immense. It's not only our non-existence but the non-existence of everything we know. It signals the end to everything we find beautiful, everything that gives us meaning, it's confronting our own mortality on a grand scale. If there was the real chance of something going wrong at CERN, then surely it's irresponsible for scientists to risk everything on the back of the pursuit for knowledge. It seems the cliche mad scientist stereotype is still present in many people's minds. The experts are saying it's safe, there really is no reason to believe it is not.

The LHC, like other particle accelerators, recreates the natural phenomena of cosmic rays under controlled laboratory conditions, enabling them to be studied in more detail. Cosmic rays are particles produced in outer space, some of which are accelerated to energies far exceeding those of the LHC. The energy and the rate at which they reach the Earth’s atmosphere have been measured in experiments for some 70 years. Over the past billions of years, Nature has already generated on Earth as many collisions as about a million LHC experiments – and the planet still exists. Astronomers observe an enormous number of larger astronomical bodies throughout the Universe, all of which are also struck by cosmic rays. The Universe as a whole conducts more than 10 million million LHC-like experiments per second. The possibility of any dangerous consequences contradicts what astronomers see - stars and galaxies still exist.

There really is no reason to be afraid of the consequences. If there was going to be a problem from such an experiment, then the universe would have died long before earth came to be. It's an appeal to the base instinct of our nature: survival. These catastrophic events will threaten the immortality of our genes. Yet one day, there will be an end time. In about 5 billion years, the sun run out of hydrogen then expand to beyond earth's orbit. Given humans have been on earth for around 200,000 years, it would seem unlikely that we'll survive to that point in the first place. But that is the very essence of why experiments like that at the LHC are so important. The better understanding we have of nature, the better chance we have of being able to survive for longer as a species. In that respect, it's ironic that people are afraid of the very tool that could lead us away from a real doomsday scenario.


The need for the experiment

The LHC has cost about $10 billion to make, and there is no guarantee that it will find anything. Many people with a non-scientific background surely have to wonder why it's so important. With the money it costs to fund it, it's important to put it into perspective. In 2007, the US spent $626 billion on military related expenditure; $439 billion of that on direct military expenditure. And that's just one country, in total the world spends $1.2 trillion each year on military expenditure. A $10 billion dollar investment in furthering the knowledge of humanity seems but a small amount that's dedicated to killing each other.

Like every area of science, there is so much to learn about particle physics. There are 4 fundamental forces, yet no theory to unify them. There is a relationship between mass and energy, but no means for mass in particles. There is both matter and anti-matter that should be in equal amounts in the universe, yet all that we know is made of matter. Gravity is so much weaker than the other 3 fundamental forces, but without reason. Then there is the nature of both dark matter and dark energy, theoretical concepts that exist to explain where observation doesn't match the standard model. Not to mention there are many different theories born out of theoretical physics to explain the unknown with no observed data.

Being able to answer any question above is just cause to do such an experiment. Some concepts could be validated or falsified, some current laws and theories may have to be rewritten if the data doesn't match any prediction. There won't be an immediate answer to this. Tomorrow marks the first attempt to send a particle right around the LHC, it will be 6 weeks until the first high energy collision takes place. Tests will be done on the LHC for the next decade or so, all the while data is being collected. That data has to be analysed & scrutinised, so it won't be for a while yet until some precise feedback is presented to the public. Even so, tomorrow is still a very exciting achievement: the most advanced scientific tool in the world is coming into operation. In that 27km of machinery under the French / Swiss border could lie the answers to the secrets of the universe. It's all very exciting stuff, too bad that some are too focused on the doomsday scenario to appreciate what it's going to do for physics.

A sceptical outlook

I've recently began to watch The X-Files from the beginning again. To me, it poses a unique challenge to a sceptical mind. It is a work of fiction, but it pushes the realm of implausibility is not only a tangible explanation but pushed as the explanation. Of course it's just a show and has no bearing on reality. But the methodology used by the show is exactly the problem I see in those who believe in the paranormal: a willingness to reach for an implausible explanation despite no mechanism for which it to act. And while that is perfectly fine in fiction, in reality it has some very negative consequences.

The truth is out there
In the absence of a natural explanation, there are those who jump quite readily towards a supernatural one. Most of the time there is already a natural explanation, which more often than not gets wilfully ignored. Maybe for some, it's not an adequate enough explanation. It seems almost paradoxical that for explanations people deem paranormal, a higher burden of proof is required to show that it is indeed a natural occurrence. It's not enough to just demonstrate that there is a natural explanation, all the finest details must also be established all the paranormal explanation is favoured. Just look at the psychics. Now psychics work under two natural mechanisms: cold reading and hot reading. Cold reading is by saying something vague enough and universal enough, eventually there will be some hits. And the "psychic" uses the hits to draw the story out of the wilful participant without them being aware that they are the ones who are actually filling in the blanks. It's a hard technique to master, but it can be done. Hot reading on the other hand is having information in advance, and this becomes an exercise in telling the participant what they want to hear. Because it's such an overwhelming and powerful experience, few are going to question the validity of the paranormal as the experience seems to far from reality it must have credibility.

This is what is identified as a false positive. The willingness to believe in the paranormal is essence is confirmed by the evidence the believer is looking for. So it doesn't matter about whether psychic powers are even in the realm of plausibility, the evidence seems to match the description of the phenomena so it's taken over a sceptic's objections. It's the equivalent of looking at the mountains and concluding goddidit, then ignoring all empirical data on plate tectonics and erosion to maintain that position. It's an answer without a reason, and so often a reason is not needed because the answer is coupled with meaning. When it's a personal issue like communicating with the dead, the emotive connection is never going to be pursuaded by empirical evidence. Much like when someone believes the world was created by God in 6 days as it is now, when God is tied to their meaning of existence, how are they meant to understand that the empirical observation suggests otherwise?

Appealing to a paranormal explanation is to take that explanation on face value. It's to stop evaluation of the claims and just feed the delusions of those making them. Two things need to be understood when assessing claims of this nature: a naturalistic explanation should always be sought in favour of a supernatural explanation, and in the absence of a natural explanation, it doesn't automatically make a supernatural explanation any more plausible. There are two important elements in testing a phenomena: predictions and the mechanism. Firstly if a phenomena is real, then it should be testable under a blind study. If it passes that first hurdle, then the mechanism behind it should be tested. Science is no enemy of the paranormal, it's indiscriminate towards all ideas. If an idea has credulity, then it will stand up to the rigours of the method. Any belief that can withstand objective scrutiny has some credulity. Getting objective scrutiny on ideas that are intrinsically tied to emotion can be nigh on impossible.


Little green men
Consider the belief in extra-terrestrial life. Now if intelligent life did exist elsewhere in the universe, let us consider the lengths they would have to go to get to earth and observe us. It would have to be able to travel light-years across the galaxy at the very minimum; and that's just if the life-form is on a nearby solar system. But more likely, there are no local stars that harbour intelligent life (if life exists at all), and the distances would be in the 100s to 1000s of light years away. For a life-form to do this, they would have to have a ship that can either:
a) travel faster than the speed of light
b) bend space and time or
c) harbour many many generations on the same ship
Now consider the extreme intelligence required for such an endeavour. It's almost entirely implausible, so when someone says they were abducted by aliens, surely there would be some real evidence to back it up. Instead we get stories that wouldn't look out of place in the fantasy section of the library, comparable to the tripe L. Ron Hubbard wrote. Yet the willingness to believe transcends the implausibility, because to those who truly believe they were abducted the experience was as real as anything reality has to offer.

As evidence, people look to phenomena like crop circles. There's a couple of problems with this. Firstly crop circles have a naturalistic mechanism, human involvement. And even if some can't be explained by human behaviour, why would an intergalactic being travel 1000s of light years and the only clue it leaves as proof of it's existence is patterns in our crops? That sounds just as crazy as an all-powerful, all-knowing deity revealing himself through the miracle of etching women on toast or making statues bleed. Personally, I'd expect highly advanced beings to do a little better than make primitive yet cryptic messages for people to learn of their existence. What does the Virgin Mary on toast symbolise anyway? Maybe it was a sign from the lord for the woman who found it to give up her cholesterol-laden diet and get some damn exercise. A weeping statue could mean that Jesus is crying at what Christians have done with his message of peace. Of course an all-powerful being could just make the message a bit less cryptic and spell it out. Maybe it'll stop some of the wars and intolerance between religions. Or maybe we are just looking at the most asinine occurrences as sign of the miraculous as there is no real evidence to back it up.

Now I'm not saying conclusively that crop circles aren't the products of alien life, nor am I saying that God has better things to do with his time than putting images onto baked goods. I'm saying to think about the properties that we attribute to both phenomena. Highly intelligent, incredibly powerful beings that can manipulate time and space. It just seems very unlikely that if such beings actually wanted to contact us, there would be much more direct and evidential ways. It's clutching at straws, and by no means evident of anything other than the mind's ability to link beliefs with causality plus an overactive imagination. Evidence should fit the nature of the claim, thus extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is what the sceptic requires, as what is required of any idea; paranormal or not.


I want to believe
Being sceptical is not being outright dismissive. It's a tool on which to assess the quality of evidence and veracity of claims. Someone who takes a sceptical point of view towards evidence is not a bad thing by any means, on the contrary having ideas challenged is the only way to continually test their worth. Personally I have no problems of believing in ghosts or psychic powers, I just want them subjected to the same rigorous process as other ideas go through before openly supporting the idea. This is scepticism at it's heart, it's not believing because of wants, rather believing because there is simply too much evidence to suggest the phenomena is real.

It's sad that being sceptical is looked down on so much in our society. Born out of religious tolerance, to try and debunk the paranormal is met with the greatest of resistance. To question the validity of psychic powers becomes a personal insult, it's killing the hopes and dreams of those who want to believe. This poses an ethical dilemma: on the one hand we don't want to cause undue harm to another being, and on the other by allowing that belief to go unchecked that person is being exploited by charlatans. The bottom line is we can't protect people from themselves, they are always going to be suckered in by the promises of the miraculous, listen to anecdotal evidence, and believe in obvious falsehoods. The mind is geared that way. To apply some objectivity to those beliefs and maybe question why it should be a social taboo, otherwise who knows what kind of crazy ideas will be propagated with no evidence at all?