swamidass
June 26, 2018, 11:14pm
5
Article’s title:
The impossibility—and the necessity—of distinguishing science from nonscience.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/daniel-sarewitz/all-ye-need-to-know
Yes, we often talk about the demarcation problem here. There is sometimes a blurry line. Blur in the line, however, is not a valid argument against a line. Have you head of Sorites paradox?
The sorites paradox (/soʊˈraɪtiːz/; sometimes known as the paradox of the heap) is a paradox that results from vague predicates. A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are removed individually. With the assumption that removing a single grain does not cause a heap to become a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times that only one grain remains: is it still a heap? If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-hea The w...
Just because we can’t provide a firm indisputable line between a heap of sand and single grain, that does not mean “heaps” do not exist. Likewise, just because we can’t provide an ethical rule that cleanly separates all good actions from evil actions, does not prove that good and evil are myths. In the same way, difficulty in providing a line between science and non-science does not mean the distinction is not meaningful.
Also, in regards to methodological naturalism, I’ve already put forward that The Creator-Creation Distinction - #2 by swamidass provides a good rule.
All the same, Scott Lilienfields advice is helpful too:
In a foreword, Scott Lilienfeld summarizes the valuable lessons in this book:
We are all subject to cognitive biases.
We are largely unaware of our biases.
Science is a systematic set of safeguards against biases.
Scientific thinking doesn’t come naturally to humans. Scientific thinking is exasperatingly domain-specific. Even Nobel Prize winners can fall prey to pseudoscience in fields outside their area of expertise.
Pseudoscience and science lie on a spectrum. Pseudoscience is characterized by a set of fallible, but useful, warning signs such as an absence of self-correction, overuse of ad hoc maneuvers to immunize claims from refutation, use of scientific-sounding but vacuous language, extraordinary claims in the absence of compelling evidence, over-reliance on anecdotal and testimonial assertions, avoidance of peer review, etc.
Scientific claims can be wrong. Pseudoscientific claims differ from erroneous claims in that they are deceptive: they appear to be scientific, but they are not.
Scientific and pseudoscientific thinking are cut from the same basic psychological cloth . Heuristics (mental shortcuts or rules of thumb) are invaluable in everyday life, but when misapplied they can lead to mistaken conclusions.Skepticism differs from cynicism. Skeptics must guard against dismissing implausible claims out of disconfirmation bias.
These concerns are going to come up soon with Clinton Ohler, when we explore Clinton Ohlers: Two Parables on Divine Action . This will be fun.
1 Like