Science and Pseudoscience

Our civilization arose from technology driven by science. The nature of science is to make and test hypothesis in an attempt to build a coherent picture of the world. This means that the conclusions of science are always tentative, since they are subject to test. The hypotheses will be discarded if they do not predict the observed result. This is not to say that scientists hold no expectations of the outcome of most of their experiments and observations. It is to say, if a surprising result is verified by others, the structure of scientific knowledge must be modified.

Most sciences use some form of the scientific method, which involves hypothesis followed by controlled experiment, and then further hypotheses based upon the outcome of the experiment. Astronomy is unique in as much as, for the most part, we can look but not touch. We cannot build stars to test our theories or make many universes with different initial conditions to see what effect each condition produces. Astronomers can only, for the most part, observe and construct theories to explain what we observe. The great growth in modern astronomy is in building new ways to observe.

A science is a body of hypothesis based upon observation and experiment. “Scientific facts” are not science; they are only the results of these observations and experiments. The hypotheses of science are subject to revision based upon what is observed in the world. A scientist makes observations using the current hypotheses trying to disprove (or falsify) one or more of these hypotheses. These hypotheses will, in the end, be revised or discarded if they fail to match reality. As such, science should be ultimately self-correcting. If repeated observations fail to disprove a hypothesis, it is considered increasingly reliable as a guide and is referred to as a “theory” or as a “law.”

Since science has been so influential in molding our society, many non-scientific ideas have been given the trappings of science to increase their attractiveness to the public. Such imitation or sham attempts to copy science are termed pseudosciences. A pseudoscience is a body of hypotheses treated at true, but without a consistent body of supporting experimental evidence. These hypotheses are not subject to revision. A pseudoscientist makes observations or experiments designed to prove their original hypotheses. This attempt to prove rather than disprove is the major distinguishing feature between science and pseudoscience.

It is not the subject matter that determines rather a topic is science or pseudoscience, but the attitude taken towards the subject matter. Most pseudoscience books may appear to be scientific but they are poorly researched and often based upon hearsay or previous books published by the same group. That is not to say that all materials written by scientists are good science. A formerly reputable scientist may produce works that are pseudoscientific. Even a book that has all the latest Hubble pictures may be poorly researched. You will have to distinguish between science, pseudoscience by asking, “how is the evidence treated”, and “is this author willing to revise his/her ideas.” Table SG 44-1 summarizes some of the differences between science and pseudoscience.

Table SG 44-1. Some of the Differences between Science and Pseudoscience

Science	Pseudoscience
Tentative	Absolute knowledge
Looks for disproof	Looks for proof
Observation determines proof	Truth determines observation
Belief structure modified by observation	Belief structure unchanging
Self modifying —attempts to correct errors	No changes — repeats errors

There are two dangers of pseudoscience. First, by misrepresenting real scientific discovery, it misleads its followers and often contributes to anti-intellectual attitudes that exchange mysticism and magic for exploration and discovery. Second, the pseudoscientists often bilk consumers of their money (and even their health) by falsely promising new discoveries or mystic knowledge.

The world is not a dichotomy between science and pseudoscience. There is a third division, which we will call non-science. Any hypothesis that makes statements, which, in principle, cannot be disproved, would be non-scientific. A statement being scientific or non-scientific may have no bearing on its correctness. Many religious ideas fall into the non-science category. For example, the belief in the existence of the universe by a willful act of a creator is, in and of itself, a non-science statement. On the other hand, the belief that a particular religious story which explains the existence of fossils is subject to verification. As such, it may be treated as a science or a pseudoscience.

There are many organized pseudosciences. In the remainder of this essay, we will consider only some of those that directly impact upon astronomy. These are astrology, UFO’s, ancient astronauts, astrocastrophes, and “scientific” creationism”

Astrology

The roots of astrology can be traced back to ancient superstitions about the sky that were held at the same time that observational astronomy developed. Each civilization had its own sets of beliefs that are usually incompatible with others. The idea was to provide security by predicting events using patterns found in nature, the patterns in the sky being only one of those used.

There are many conflicting systems of astrology used in the world today. One such system popular in western society uses what is called a natal horoscope. A natal horoscope is a horoscope prepared for the birth time of the subject. A natal horoscope can be properly prepared if the time of birth is known to within one-minute and the longitude and latitude of the birth to within 14'.

In Unit 2, you studied coordinates and time. The laboratory involved rectification of the globe to represent the sky at a specific location and a specific time. The only additional astronomical information needed to cast a horoscope is the location of the Moon and planets. Astronomical books, such as The Astronomical Almanac, provide the right Ascension and declination of the planets, Sun, and Moon for any date; so, in principle you have the placement. Astrologers often use books that give the location of the astronomical objects in terms of houses (although some astrologers do not use houses). The earliest house divisions were equal divisions of the ecliptic into 12 parts (then corresponding to the constellations). Other base circles than the ecliptic are often chosen leading to unequal divisions of the houses. Most American astrologers currently use the Placidean division system that dates from 1688 AD. However, a few use the Koch house system that was devised in this century (so much for the ancient records justifying astrology). Neither of these systems can generate a viable horoscope above 66°.5 north latitude. Hence, 0.4% (12 million people) of the world’s population have no sidereal destiny in these systems. Some astrologers fix the houses to the old places of the constellations while others account for precession of the equinoxes (sidereal astrology).

Whatever method is chosen, this course should have given you the background to follow the rules and cast a horoscope, if you so choose. Many books exist giving in interpretation; however, each assumes a particular house division. A few comparisons show that the different systems fail to agree in predictions. Likewise, when astrologers get together, they fail to agree on a method. If there is any science here there should be clear evidence that one group of astrologers is correct.

Astrology as practiced in the US today often has become psychological counseling with the horoscope used as a starting point of discussion. With this approach, the truth of astrology is irrelevant, since the original horoscope is often quickly ignored as the counseling proceeds. A real danger is that the astrologer, although well intended, is often untrained in psychology and counseling.

Precession has now moved the ecliptic so the Sun passes through the constellation of Ophiuchus during the period late November to early December. Thus during this period, the Sun is not in any sign of the zodiac. In effect, there is a thirteenth sign of the zodiac, of which astrologers seem completely unaware. Sidereal astrology attempts to correct for precession, but then it cannot claim ancient studies for support.

Astrologers frequently claim an observational basis in the experience of forgotten generations far back in antiquity, but pure superstition can claim as sound a basis. In the cases of planets discovered in our time (Uranus, Neptune, Pluto), the evidence is conclusive that their influences on people were ascribed by the astrologers before preliminary observational tests of the influences could have been made. Astrological effects were predicted even before accurate orbits could be assigned to the planets. Astrologers did not predict the existence of these planets.

It is possible to test for certain broad influences assigned by astrologers to specific planets and signs of the zodiac. A study of the zodiacal birth signs of some 2,000 musicians and painters showed that the correlation predicted by astrology was absent (For example; Libra is supposedly the aesthetic sign). Likewise, some similar tests for birth dates of scientists listed in American Men of Science shows that the frequency distribution of birth dates of scientists resembles very closely a random distribution similar to those found for the entire population.

The seasonal variations in birth dates are highly significant for such tests. About 15 percent, more people are born in January-February and September than in May-June and November. These seasonal variations are reflected in the separate frequencies for all professions: engineers, industrialists, clergymen, bankers, physicians, chemists, and authors. If, instead of months, zodiacal sun signs are considered, the general trend does not change. For astrological influences, we should expect widely different correlations for the different professions. Table SG 44-2 contains dates compiled by H. J. White, CAO Times 3 46 (1978) shows a random distribution of subjects with special skills into houses while astrology predicts a correlation.

Table SG 44-2: Number of Times a Given Planet (Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, etc.) Fell in a
House Traditionally Expected for a given Occupation Compared with that
Expected Purely by Chance.

Subjects	House in which Planet is Expected	Average Number Observed	Number Expected by Chance
906 painters	5 (artistic work)	75	76
410 sculptors	5 (artistic work)	32	34
623 criminals	12 (prisons)	55	52
1084 doctors	6 (health service)	85	90

Michel Gauquelin (former director of the Laboratories d’Etude des Relations centre Rythmes Cosmiques et Psychophysiologiques) in a series of statistical studies was unable to find any of the correlations predicted by astrology; although, he did find a “Mars effect” for outstanding athletes. See the following: Gauquelin, M & F 1970 ”Birth & Planetary Data of 15,560 Successful Professionals“ 6 Vols, LERRCP; Gauquelin, M&F 1973-7 Psychological Monographs, 4 Vols, LERRCP; Gauquelin, M&F 1978 ”Statistical Tests on Zodiacal Influences, Part I Profession and Heredity“, LERRCP; summarized in The Skeptical Inquirer VI, 57-65 (1982) plus several later articles.

UFO’s

Any apparently moving object seen in the sky could be termed an UFO; however, this term is usually understood to refer to a device (spaceship) constructed by aliens from elsewhere in space or time. So far, scientists have not been given an UFO or any artifact to study. We only have the reports of persons who say they have seen or been taken aboard a UFO and some ambiguous radar signals. Occasionally marks are found on the ground, but the source cannot be proven to be from an UFO. Before we can discuss reports, we need to understand the events that lead up to a report and understand that there is a difference between the UFO and the UFO report.

Several steps occur in producing any report. First, there is the event — something occurs. Then an eyewitness must observe it. This first step in generating a report is called perception, which is the process of intake of sensory stimuli. The second step is to convert this perception into a conception in the memory of the observer. This involves converting the perception into something that fits concepts in the prevailing culture. If the event is relatively rare, the observer may easily misinterpret it. There is no way that any single observer can reliably estimate the distance to an unfamiliar object above the visible horizon. The third and final step is reporting.

Each of these steps can introduce misleading information into the final report. Even the report can be worded so that it is misleading. For example, if you report seeing an orange object on the ground with flashing red lights, a row of windows, and small people inside, are you reporting a landing of a UFO or just a school bus? The quality of the final report is very important. Maintain a healthy skepticism. Many news and entertainment media thrive of sensational stories, often with a minimal decimation.

Many books on UFOs are printed because they will sell, not because they are correct. A title listed as non-fiction may be fantasy. Most popular UFO books contain many exaggerated claims and distortions. Many of the classic UFO photographs used on the covers of and inside UFO books are known fakes or photos of natural phenomena (poor research). Successive books still contain these photos. Other claims are that hypnotism or lie detectors prove the UFO was real. It is well known that hypnotism to recover memories can plant memories in the mind where none existed before and that lie detector can be beaten. Even if a lie detector worked it would only tell us what the witness believed, not what really happened.

Waves of UFO reports follow astronomical events and major events in the space program. In 1968, a satellite reentered the atmosphere and broke apart. Of 30 extensive reports investigated by the Air Force, 57% said the debris were flying in formation, implying intelligent control. Another 17% assumed that the debris were connected together by a nearly unseen black cigar shape.

The most recent type of reported event is abduction followed by sexual abuse onboard the UFO. The number of such reports has lead believers to suggest that 10% of the world’s population has been abducted and abused. As with other types of UFO reports, there is no reliable hard evidence. No abductees have given any information of a technical or astronomical nature that was not previously known in our society. The existence or non-existence of “flying saucers” is nearly impossible to establish with the evidence provided by the available reports. The problem is further complicated by the existence of fraudulent reports of UFOs.

Philip Klauss, in his book UFO’s Explained, gives principles that seem to govern UFO reports. The list below is a somewhat simplified summary of these ideas.

1. Anyone given a sudden brief exposure to an unfamiliar object may give an inaccurate description of what they have seen.

2. Some aspect of a UFO report is probably correct - the problem is what part - there may be no solution.

3. If you believe an unfamiliar object is a spaceship from another planet, then its behavior will seem to be rational even if there is no cause and effect relation.

4. The UFO report makes the front page of a newspaper, but its explanation often buried inside the paper.

5. No observer can accurately estimate the distance and or size of an unfamiliar object unless it is close to them.

6. Once people start to look for UFO’s, many will be seen leading to a UFO “flap”.

7. To determine if a UFO report is a hoax - rely on physical evidence not the character of the observer.

8. Just because a UFO cannot be explained does not mean it is a spaceship from another world.

9. If a radar operator is told to look for a UFO because a light in the sky is seen - he will find something on the screen. In addition, if a radar operator finds something on the screen an observer told to look for it will find something.

10. Many UFO cases seem puzzling because no investigator has spent the time to carefully study the case.

Ancient Astronauts

Among the pseudosciences that are currently not popular is the idea that the Earth has been visited in the past by beings from another planet. The pyramids in Egypt and Central America and other constructs such as the ancient lines in Peru are claimed to be too complicated for the contemporary civilizations of the time to build. Each of these claims has been shown to be false.

Other claims have drawings in North Africa showing men in spacesuits and that Maya stones showing travelers in space suits. These claims are justified by lifting the items out of context. Viewing the entire sets of drawings makes the poor research clear. The authors and publishers of these books made money before the popularity of the books faded.

Astrocatastrophes

Immanuel Velikovsky, a naturalist and psychiatrist, studied ancient myths and concluded that all of them should be taken literally. He concluded that two astronomical catastrophes occurred, one around 1500 BC and another about 750 BC. According to him, Venus was ejected from Jupiter, passed near Mars and the Earth and then settled into its orbit only after 750 BC. To fit all this together he had to juggle commonly accepted dates for some records and adjust the geological time frame of others. Events such as the parting of the Red Sea, the manna falling in the Sinai desert, and the falling of the walls of Jerico were all explained as natural phenomena occurring exactly as described. One of his predictions was that Venus would have a hot surface (correct) and many hydrocarbons (incorrect). We also have records of Venus’ motions that are usually dated around 1600 BC and old eclipse records that agree with projections made using current planetary data.

The volumes he published appeared to be well-researched sine they had lots of footnotes and references. Geologists reading his books said that the geology was bad but that the astronomy sounded good. Astronomers reading his books said that the astronomy was bad but that the geology seemed reasonable. When Velikovsky first published his claims, the astronomical community, to its shame, often reacted with strong criticism without determining the details of what Velikovsky was saying. An attempt was even made to prevent publication of his book. The historical context of the times might enable us to understand this, but not to justify it. This has helped keep Velikovskyism alive in spite of its shortcomings. Scientists are more willing now to admit that catastrophes have occurred; however, the particular catastrophes of Velikovsky are not accepted by most of the scientific community.

“Scientific” Creationism

Science reaches conclusions that conflict with many of the ancient religious writings or many religions. Those groups that take a strict interpretation of the ancient texts may take the willingness of science to revise its hypotheses as an attack on their beliefs. The most obvious scientific theory is the theory of evolution. Modern astronomy, since it relegates the Earth to an insignificant part of the universe, is also subject to these attacks. In the US a creationist objection of some parents that the scientific evidence for evolution, which is sometimes taught in biology classes, is in disagreement with the family’s religious faith. This may only be the idea that humans did not evolve with other animals, but were placed on Earth later. It may also involve the idea that the creation of the Earth occurred only a few thousand years ago and that no evolution occurs among animals.

A number of fundamentalist or charismatic groups propose that the methods of science can be used to prove their beliefs. This movement is called “scientific” creationism. This movement strikes at the heart of science since it claims to be scientific but knows the correct hypothesis in advance. Knowing the correct result, evidence must be found that supports their beliefs. Fossils are explained in terms of the Biblical flood, humans coexisted with the dinosaurs, radioactive decay dates are wrong, and stars quickly evolve. This moves their activities from religious into pseudoscience.

The “scientific” creationism movement in this country is split into at least 10 groups who, although they disagree on many details, believe in a somewhat literal interpretation of the Bible (usually the King James version). The groups range from the extreme Flat Earthers and Geocentrists through Young-Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism to Intelligent Design Creationism and, at the liberal end, Theistic Evolution and non-religious Materialist Evolutionism. Common beliefs of the largest of these groups usually include the literal 7 days of creation, the recent occurrence of creation (usually only a few thousand years ago), the occurrence of a recent worldwide flood, and the existence of the universe solely for the use of mankind. Details and further references are in an article by Eugenie Scott, "The Creation-Evolution Continuum", Skeptic, Volume 10, Number 4, 2004 pages 48-54.

The groups claim to be “scientific” in as much as they appear to use objective evidence to support their conclusions. We must classify these groups as a pseudoscientific movement since their basic approach is not scientific, in as much as they are attempting to prove by observation what they already believe to be true without question. Science, on the other hand, must always be tentative trying to prove the current scientific beliefs incorrect. That is, scientific progress can only be made by finding new ideas, not by only verifying what is currently accepted.

“Scientific” creationism, by starting with absolute knowledge and then looking for supporting evidence, violates this basic aspect of science. To equate the “scientific” creationism approach with science is extremely misleading. It is the scientific approach that has given us our modern society and technology while pseudoscience has not. The classification of “scientific” creationism as a pseudoscience is made independently of any question of the ultimate truth of its beliefs verses those of modern science (whose beliefs will probably be revised).

Summary

Science is a community and scientific research is defined by that community. Science deals with the material world. Predictions must be testable. Based upon observation the scientific community builds a collection of observations and interactions. This background is used to construct theories, which can be used to make predictions about the system(s) under observation. When scientists use the word theory, they mean more than a suggestion. A scientific theory must be based upon previously made observations, and it must provide a basis for experiments (or observations) that test the theory. As previously stated, if the theory fails it must be abandoned for the area in which it failed. Note that the scientific definition of theory is not what the usual use is in the general community where any unsupported idea is termed a theory.

That does not mean that the theory cannot still be used in the domain that it previously worked. For example, we still use Newtonian mechanics for our every day experiences. However, the global positioning system of satellites can only work if special and general relativity are used.

Science deals with the material world. Apparently at some fundamental level, there is a random effect. For example, evolution of life seems to be based on random changes interacting with the environment. Thus, in spite of Einstein’s plea that God does not play dice, current scientific theory finds randomness at the atomic and molecular level. Perhaps the dice are loaded. If so, that assumption can be scientifically checked.

What to Do?

The human mind is capable of constructing intricate systems of thought that seem to provide a self-consistent explanation of the world. The human mind is also capable of holding on to these ideas even when presented with conflicting evidence. Many pre-scientific beliefs that students hold when they enter a science class seem to remain even after they have successfully completed their studies.

For example, many students who successful complete an introductory astronomy course still believe that for the planets to move about the Sun a force must be applied in the direction of motion rather than along the line between the Sun and the planet. Some even hold onto the idea that the Earth is at rest in t he center of the universe.

All we can ask is that people be skeptical about claims and that they demand evidence that the proposed body of thought is consistent and that its proponents are willing to revise their ideas when observation disagrees with those ideas.