Transcript NATURE OF SCIENCE

Pseudoscience, Hard
Science and Soft
Science: where is
educational research?
Jack Holbrook
University of Tartu
Some Assumptions about
Scientific Knowledge
A. THE WORLD IS REAL. In other words, the physical universe
really does exists, apart from our sensory perception of it.
B. HUMANS CAN PERCEIVE AND UNDERSTAND the physical
universe. In other words, we can learn correctly how the natural
world works and operates.
C. NATURAL PROCESSES are SUFFICIENT to explain, or
account for natural phenomena or events. In other words,
scientists must explain the natural in terms of the natural.
D. SCIENTISTS ASSUME THAT NATURE "OPERATES"
UNIFORMLY in both space and time (unless we have evidence
to the contrary).
Can Pseudoscience be considered
Scientific ?
• Pseudoscience is any body of alleged
knowledge, methodology, belief, or
practice that claims to be scientific, but
does not fit with the nature of science.
• Dr. Coker, Professor of Physics, University of Texas at
Austin, has this to say on the web :
• www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelated
Topics/pseudo.html
Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience;
(or separating Education Research from stories)
• The word "pseudo" means fake. The surest way to spot a fake
is to know as much as possible about the real thing. Knowing
science does not mean simply knowing scientific facts - it
means understanding the nature of science.
• Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.
Pseudoscientists clip newspaper reports, collect hearsay, cite
other pseudoscience books, and pore over ancient religious or
mythological works.
• They rarely or never make an independent investigation to
check their sources.
Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience
Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis
— usually appealing emotionally, and implausible
— and then looks only for items which appear to
support it.
Conflicting evidence is ignored. Generally speaking, the
aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held
beliefs, rather than to investigate, or to test alternative
possibilities.
• Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable
scientific experiments.
• It is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, stories and tall tales,
hearsay, rumor, and dubious anecdotes. Genuine scientific
literature is either ignored or misinterpreted.
• Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
Joe Blow puts jello on his head and his headache goes away.
To pseudoscience, this means jello cures headaches.
• To science this means nothing, since no experiment was done.
• Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a
meaningful test.
Pseudoscientists never carry out careful, methodical
experiments themselves—and they also generally ignore
results of those carried out by scientists.
• Also Pseudoscientists never follow up.
• Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none
exists, by omitting crucial information and important
details.
Anything can be made "mysterious" by omitting what is known
about it or presenting completely imaginary details.
• The "Bermuda Triangle" books are classic examples of this
tactic.
• Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.
Many pseudoscientists base their claims on incompleteness of
information about nature, rather than on what is known at
present.
• But no claim can possibly be supported by lack of
information. [The fact that people don't recognize what they
see in the sky means only that they don't recognize what they
saw. This fact is not evidence that flying saucers are from outer
space !!!]
• Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and has
fantastic theories that contradict that known about nature.
They do not provide evidence that their claims are true.
• They also ignore all findings that contradict their conclusions.
("Flying saucers have to come from somewhere — so the Earth
is hollow, and they come from inside.")
• Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary
Listeners are often forced to interpret the statements according
to their own preconceptions.
What, for example, is "biocosmic energy?" Or a "psychotronic
amplification system?"
Pseudoscientists often attempt to imitate the jargon of scientific
by spouting gibberish that sounds scientific.
Pseudoscience argues from alleged errors, anomalies,
strange events, and suspect claims — rather than from
well-established regularities of nature.
The experience of scientists over the past 400 years is that
claims and reports that describe well-understood objects
behaving in strange ways tend to reduce, upon investigation, to
deliberate frauds, honest mistakes, misinterpretations, outright
fabrications. Pseudoscientists always take such reports as
literally true, without independent verification.
• Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario.
That is, we are told a story, but nothing else; we have no
description of any possible physical process.
• For instance, Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) claimed that
another planet passing near the earth caused the earth's spin
axis to flip upside down. This is all he said. He gave no
mechanisms.
• But the mechanism is all-important, because the laws of
physics rule out the process as impossible. That is, the
approach of another planet cannot cause a planet's spin axis to
flip.
Crossover
• Sadly, a distressing amount of pseudoscience is generated
by scientists who are well trained in one field, but plunge
into another field of which they are ignorant. A physicist who
claims to have found a new principle of biology—or a
biologist who claims to have found a new principle of
physics—is almost invariably doing pseudoscience. And so
are those who forge data, or suppresses data that clash with
their preconceptions, or refuse to let others see their data for
independent evaluation.
• Some pseudoscience is generated by individuals with a
small amount of specialized scientific or technical training
who are not professional scientists and do not comprehend
the nature of the scientific enterprise—yet think of
themselves as "scientists."
Reverse crossover
• One might wonder if there are examples of "crossovers" in
the other direction; that is people who have been thought by
scientists to be doing pseudoscience, who eventually were
accepted as doing valid science, and whose ideas were
ultimately accepted by scientists. The nature of the scientific
process as described would suggest this happen extremely
rarely, if ever. No known case is documented where this has
happened.
• There are many cases in which a scientist has been thought
wrong by colleagues, but later—when new information
comes in—shown to be correct. Like anyone else, scientists
can get hunches that something is possible without having
enough evidence to convince their associates that they are
correct. Such people do not become pseudoscientists,
unless they continue to maintain that their ideas are correct
when contradictory evidence piles up.
ASTROLOGY – Is this science,
pseudoscience, or protoscience ?
• The most popular form of traditional Western
astrology is sun sign astrology, the kind found
in the horoscopes of many daily newspapers. A
horoscope is an astrological forecast.
• “Do personality traits really correspond reliably with
birthdates?”
• According to a 2005 Gallup poll, 25% believe in
astrology, a statistic that has remained steady
for the past 15 years.
AN INVESTIGATION
PROCEDURE: search the following list of traits
and interests until you find the particular
combination of traits and interests which come
closest to how you see yourself.
Then write, on a piece of paper, write
1. the NUMBER of that combination (1-12), and
your birthday (e.g. “July 25”).
2. YES or NO - if you think astrology can give
accurate predictions (YES) or not (NO).
Idea taken from
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/hor.p
df.html
#
1
Key Positive Traits
Main Interests
loyal, possessive, determined,
possessions, comfort, beauty, arts,
practical, enduring
family
2
gentle, compassionate, sensitive, hospitals, pets, thinking, peace,
generous, dreamy, imaginative
helping, arts
3
honest, hopeful, intuitive, friendly, freedom, travel, philosophy,
idealist, easy-going
religion, books
4
neat, ambitious, organized,
hard work, business, being in
conservative, frugal, practical
charge, caution
5
competitive, action, initiative,
self challenges, leading
enthusiasm, leader
starting
6
popular, intelligent, versatile,
variety, travel, talking,
witty, curious
reading
7 helpful, independent, broadminded, helping others, friends, politics,
tireless, generous
being leader
8 cooperative, harmony, fair,
companionship, social life, justice
romantic, gracious, work hard
beauty/arts
9 generous, power, authority,
sports, being in charge, teaching,
romantic, idealistic, self-confident protective
10 methodical, service, high standards routine, details, perfection, travel,
practical, neat, reliable
work alone
11 protective, tenacious, domestic
security, home, family, country
sensitive, emotional, shy, neat
solitude
12 emotional, resourceful, secretive
sex, solving mysteries, working
forceful, loyal, determined
hard, success
Possible Negative Traits
stubborn, jealous, slow, lazy,
greedy
easily influenced, not ambitious,
no self-confidence
not particular, blunt (tactless),
argue
worry, slave-driver, stubborn,
social climber
starting arrogant, quarrelsome,
easily bored, selfish, stubborn
superficial, fickle, impatient,
break rules
dogmatic, rebel, impersonal,
stubborn, blunt, argue
indecisive, extravagant, fickle
egotistical, domineering, blunt,
temperamental
fault-finding, worry, hurtful
combative, moody, vain
vengeful, cynical, argue, jealous,
sarcastic
KEY TO SUN-SIGN DATES
#
DATES
SUN SIGN
1
Apr 20 - May 20
Taurus
2
Feb 19 - Mar 20
Pisces
3
Nov 22 - Dec 21
Sagittarius
4
Dec 22 - Jan 19
Capricorn
5
Mar 21 - Apr 19
Aries
6
May 21 - Jun 21
Gemini
7
Jan 19 - Feb 18
Aquarius
8
Sep 23 - Oct 22
Libra
9
Jul 23 - Aug 22
Leo
10
Aug 23 - Sep 22
Virgo
11
Jun 22 - Jul 22
Cancer
12
Oct 23 - Nov 21
Scorpio
Are the Social Subjectsc ‘Scientific’?
• The social subjects are groups of academic disciplines that
study the human aspects of the world.
• They are sometimes called the humanities, or social studies,
But can they be called social science to emphasize the use of
scientific methods and rigorous standards of evidence in the
study of humanity.
• Can social scientists engage in research and theorize about
both aggregate and individual behaviors using both quantitative
and qualitative methods.
Hard Science – soft science
• ‘Hard’ science is a term which is often used to describe certain
fields of the natural sciences, usually physics, chemistry, and
many fields of biology. The ‘hard’ sciences are said to rely on
experimental, quantifiable data or scientific methods and focus
on accuracy and objectivity.
• The ‘hard’ sciences are often contrasted with the term 'soft‘
sciences, which are by contrast implied to have less rigour.
• Different approaches to the use of scientific methods can be
distinguished by research for ‘hard’ science and an alternative
called ‘soft’ science.
Soft science
• ‘Soft’ science is a term used for research which is purportedly
"scientific" while its adherence to the rigour of scientific
methods is considered to be ‘soft‘ (meaning not based on
reproducible experimental data and/or a mathematical
explanation of that data).
• Laypeople and academicians tend to judge fields such as
sociology, psychology, and political science as ’soft’, because
they are presumed to be easily understandable, devoid of
mathematical rigour, and concerned with everyday concepts
such as interpersonal relationships.
• On the other hand, physics, chemistry and biology are more
‘scientific’, because they are deemed difficult, demand
exactitude, and concern discoveries far removed from routine
human experience, such as atomic forces, or DNA.
Controversial
• The 'hard' v. 'soft' distinction is controversial.
• Although associated with notions of realism, this distinction
is drawn more from commonsense than a deep immersion
in the philosophy of science.
• Thomas Kuhn, has focused on the ways in which the ‘hard’
sciences have functioned in ways which were less "hard"
than previously assumed, emphasizing that decisions over
the veracity of a given theory owed much more to
"subjective" influences than the "hard" label would
emphasize (and began to question whether there are any
real distinctions between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ science).
• The term ‘soft’ science is often employed by
social scientists.
• In its broadest sense, even largely non-quantitative, nonexperimental fields of the humanities like literary criticism
or gender studies are described as ‘soft’ science when
the said topic make reference to empirical (scientific)
matter in a sweeping generalised manner which is akin
to scientific theory.
• Some researchers view their work as empirical (history,
anthropology or archeology), artistic (literature, dramatic
art), interpretative (law), descriptive (language,
accounting), logical (philosophy, mathematics) or even
practical (language, law, accounting), but not
experimental. Can this be said to be scientific?
Considering Quantitative versus Qualitative
Research methods
• Quantitative methods are research methods dealing with
numbers and anything that is measurable. Counting and
measuring are common forms of quantitative methods. The
result of the research is a number, or a series of numbers.
These are often presented in tables, graphs or other forms of
statistics. Important for ‘hard’ science research.
• Qualitative research involves an in-depth understanding of
human behaviour and the reasons that govern human
behaviour. Important for ‘soft’ science research.
• Unlike quantitative research, qualitative research relies on
reasons behind various aspects of behaviour. Simply put, it
investigates the why and how of decision making, as
compared to what, where, and when of quantitative research.
Qualitative Research
Quantitative Research
1
Describes meaning or discovery
Establishes relationship or causation.
2
Develops theory
Develops and tests theory.
3
Researcher is part of the data gathering
Researcher is formally an independent entity
4
Uses communication and observation
Uses instruments
5
Uses unstructured data collection
Uses structured data collection.
6
Uses multiple realities which can only be
understood by the intersecting of sociopsychological constructions.
Has one reality created from dividing and studying
parts of an entity.
7
Approach has interdependency between
the knower and the known.
Belief in true objectivity existing because the
knower can be studied outside of the known.
8
Uses non-numerical values that mediate
and shape what is understood.
Belief that non-numerical values can be ignored or
otherwise rendered unimportant.
9
Involves multidirectional relationships
where events shape each other.
Claims that a preceding event can be said to
cause a following event.
10
Produces only tentative explanations for
one time and one place.
Belief that explanations can be generalized to
other times and places.
11
Seeks to discover or uncover hypotheses. Usually seeks verification or proof of hypotheses.
Three Major Criticisms
1. The social sciences are criticized as being less scientific than
the natural sciences i.e. less rigorous in their methods.
But what if they use of a rich variety of scientific processes,
mathematical, statistics etc. in their professional literature.
The reactions of a chemical substance are always the same
when placed in certain situations, - they are scientific.
Unfortunately humans and society do not have certain rules
(they are much too complext) that always have the same
outcome and they cannot guarantee to react the same way to
certain situations.
How do we make education research scientific? How do we
ensure rigour, validity and reliability in methods used?
2. The language used for explanation of ideas.
In natural sciences, scientific terms are often used in order
to explain things precisely (have a precise meaning),
whereas everyday language can be ambiguous or lengthy.
Social scientists have been accused of compensating for
relatively feeble and easy subject matter by inventing terms
to create an illusion of difficulty and complexity. Examples
of this include the term "post-modernism", which is illdefined and does not appear to aid in an explanation of
concepts or ideas.
In educational research beware of language: e.g. sampling
– is it purposeful, or representative of the population?
3. A third criticism is that social sciences tend to be
compromised more frequently by politics, since results
from social science may threaten certain centers of
power in a society, particularly ones which fund the
research institutions.
(For example, in the US, corporations and the state
are frequently cited as these centers of power).
Furthermore, complexity exacerbates the problems,
since observed social data may be the result of factors
which are hard to evaluate in isolation.
In educational research, how do we handle bias, nonnormal distributions, non-control of variables?
Try the following ACTIVITIES
A 3- holed bottle experiment
• A simple enough experiment, but ….
• What hypotheses did this involve ?
• What observations were relevant ?
• What explanations were offered ?
The 3 holed bottle experiment
• This is sometimes called a discrepant
event as the reality is not as expected.
(if you think about it, the sun ‘moving’ across the sky is a
discrepant event).
• But what scientific question could initiate
the experiment?
• If matter is made of particles, how can
matter be stored in containers?
Observe what does actually
happen.
What explanation do you have for what happened?
You should be able to put forward at least one
explanation. Explanations from the group may not all
be the same.
Select one explanation which you like. Now
based on that possible explanation, predict
what will happen when the second hole is
uncovered.
Observe what actually did
happen.
Did the result match your prediction ?
If so, do you feel your prediction is good?
If NOT, it seems your prediction is not good.
Can you put forward another Prediction?
Now we have one more hole. Let us again
make a prediction about the outcome if we
uncover all 3 holes.
Let us look at some ACTIVITIES
related to ideas of research
question, hypothesis,
observation and deduction
Examining a cube
• Create a group of 2 persons
• Examine (but do not touch/move) the cube
placed on the table.
• Individually, from your inquisitive
observation, frame a question which
you would wish to ask about the cube ?
• Each person records their questions.
Exploring one question further –
what is written on the bottom, i.e.
hidden side ?
• In your group, discuss this question.
• Record your group predictions.
Justify your predictions with appropriate evidence.
(ANOTHER IMPORTANT STEP FOR THE
TEACHING OF SCIENCE)
• If you feel it is useful, your group may give
more than one justification.
• If you have more than one prediction,
identify the dominant hypothesis.
Examining another cube
• In your groups, examine (but do not
touch/move) the new cube placed on the
table.
• Put forward your predicted answer as to
what is on the hidden, bottom face of the
cube.
• Record your prediction(s).
Cube 2 - a further stage
• Carefully raise one corner of the cube so
that, with the use of a mirror, you can see
the number recorded in the top right
corner, OR the bottom left corner (but not
both !!)
• Modify your prediction as to what is written
on the bottom of the cube, if appropriate.
Teaching and Cube 2
Does cube 2 give us any insight into the teaching
of science ?
Does it suggest that we do not necessarily need to
observe everything and that we can make
calculated guesses from other observations ?
We can make inferences.
• If a gas is colourless and lighter than air, can we infer
it is probably hydrogen ?
• Or if a gas is known to be hydrogen, then can we infer
a balloon containing hydrogen will …..