Reply to comment

I was, and am struck, by Anne’s comment last week that words have meanings. Note the plural form of the terminal noun in the previous sentence. There is a nuance here that is worth pointing out, one which is relevant to demarcation and ways of knowing, and one which I think leads to misconceptions regarding science and what it is or is not.

During the discussion, Anne specifically called out my use of the term, pseudoscience, as derogatory. This attribution of my intentions is interesting and worth exploring. First, let’s look at a few definitions...

pseudo-, comb. form (from the Oxford English Dictionary): Forming nouns and adjectives with the sense ‘false, pretended, counterfeit, spurious, sham; apparently but not really, falsely or erroneously called or represented, falsely, spuriously’.

So how might this term get used?  Here’s an example from biology:

pseudopodium, n.: (from the Oxford English Dictionary) A protrusion of part of the protoplasm of an amoeboid cell, typically in the form of a blunt lobe, by which it moves, ingests particles, etc.; (from Mike Sears) not really a foot...in the evolutionary sense that it is not a derived character shared by other organisms with ‘real’ feet.

Now, I have to wonder if biologists have been insensitive to the nature of amoeboids given our terminology? I’m guessing we’ve been more sympathetic than most other categorizations of humans. My point is that, as a scientist, the term pseudo didn’t imply any ill feelings toward amoebas (my apologies to amoebas if any feelings were hurt).

Now to the bogeyman...

pseudoscience, n.: (from the Oxford English Dictionary) 1. As a count noun: a spurious or pretended science; a branch of knowledge or a system of beliefs mistakenly regarded as based on scientific method or having the status of scientific truth. 2. As a mass noun: spurious or pretended science; study or research that is claimed as scientific but is not generally accepted as such. Chiefly derogatory.

Interestingly, I attached myself to the first definition, but Anne attached me to the second. I’ll stick to my meaning and avoid the implications of the second, if others will allow. As per the speech by Lakatos, there is a reason for needing to distinguish pseudoscience (i.e., ‘a system of beliefs mistakenly regarded as based on scientific method’) from science ([from the OED] 4. a. In a more restricted sense: A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain). Note, the last part of the definition of science that I’ve used, ‘a branch of study...which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain’. Oddly, I find myself valuing the trustworthiness of science versus what I feel as the untrustworthiness of pseudoscience. (Others might be comforted in knowing that I am pretty agnostic to the trustworthiness of nonscience).

An example that comes to mind is that of Intelligent Design (ID). This is a clear example of an instance of pseudoscience that, in particular, has used an untrustworthy manipulation of terminology and methods to establish (de novo) the authority of a subdiscipline within biology. I won’t dive into all of the documentation to support this statement (I can if pressed), but much can be found with regard to this assertion by study of the documents and evidence pertaining to the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Case (if one is interested). Some would ask, what do I fear from adding to the ‘story of evolution’? First, I or others have no such fear. We do have a regard, though, for the methodology, or should I say story, of science.

This regard is why I raise the example of ID. To add to the story of science, one needs to operate within the existing story. ID purports to do this. One proposition of their story is to suggest that life is complex, so irreducibly complex, that it must have had a designer. Well, scientists can deal with such a statement, and in fact have. Systems purported to be irreducibly complex have been reduced (again you can search the scientific literature for this if interested). So what can be gained is that, despite what seems to be a human need to the contrary, there is no scientific reason that ‘complex’ life can’t arise and evolve by a random, nondirected process. (By the way, this is a very powerful statement that has big implications across disciplines). The problem with ID gets back to the original premise regarding the meaning of words. Proponents of ID have used the multiplicity of meanings that become attached to words as a means to attempt to establish itself as legitimate science. (Fortunately, there has been an extensive paper trail to document this, and the scientific method has not failed us when it comes to invalidating the claims of such a ‘theory’). Such multiplicity has been used not only in establishing an assumed authority for ID, but also by using ingenuous terminology such as ‘teach the controversy' to attempt to sneak into our teaching traditions. This phrase is very loaded to an evolutionary biologist not because we don’t want to teach any controversies in our field (because I do teach controversies, very intentionally), but the controversies can’t be contrived ones that use a play on words as a means to gain legitimacy.

The difference between Anne’s use of words (having built a career on the premise that words have meanings, to paraphrase) and the use of words by science is that science does try to restrict the definitions. To try to frame this in the conversation of formal systems, a consistent system cannot be built if the terms on which the system is constructed have multiple meanings. Seriously, what better way would there be to develop an inconsistent (incoherent) system than to attach multiple meanings to any given statement? Now, that said, exploring the different meanings of words might be very important in other disciplines  (...English, Political SCience, Education, International Studies, etc.) for very practical reasons. For instance, meanings have the potential to reveal the motivations behind the actions of humans. That said, please re-read the definitions that I have laid out with regard to science. They are necessary to understand if one wishes to add to or edit the story of science.

An interesting and relevant path to follow for discussion comes from a paper published in 2001 by Joel Brown entitled, “Ngongas and ecology: on having a worldview”. Here is an excerpt from it’s Abstract:

“Ngongas provide a metaphor for some of the opportunities and challenges facing the
science of ecology and evolution. Ngongas, the traditional healers of the Shona
culture, Zimbabwe, fail in the delivery of quality health by today’s standards. Their
outdated worldview makes most health related issues seem more complicated and
more multi-factorial than when viewed through the worldviews of modern medicine.
With the wrong worldview, one can work very hard, be very bright and dedicated,
and still be ineffective. With the right worldview, one can work much less hard and
still be extremely effective. As ecologists, we should be opinionated and possess
clearly articulated worldviews for filtering and interpreting information. As ecologists,
we are also a bit like ngongas – we often fail to provide answers for society’s
ecological questions and problems, and we excuse ourselves with a belief that
ecological systems are too complex and have too many factors. Unlike ngongas, this
invites us to pay a lot of attention to promoting and assessing competing worldviews.
We should be open-minded to the anomalies in our worldview and the successes of
alternative viewpoints.”