The Dogmatic Science cop-out - how best to respond?

[Safe-Keeper]

Safebox | This may be more of a Science thread than a Sceptical/Paranormal thread, if so, please move.

OK, so a cop-out I, and surely all of you, hear all the time from both believers in the paranormal, Creationism, alternative medicine and other dubious phenomenon is that the real reason why no scientific evidence exists for claim x is that scientists are dogmatic and that individual scientists can't field new ideas without getting shot down by their peers.

How do you best reply to this? I like to point out that this is the exact opposite of how science works - that you gain prestige as a scientist by shooting down ideas, not upholding them. There's also the statement from another poster that various (scientific?) organizations spend huge sums of money on researching for example bioengineering and acupuncture.

Another thing I like to point out is (and many thanks to others who use this as an example) that a lot of medicines thought of as [buzzword alert] 'synthetic' are in fact very much natural. Aspirin comes from the bark of some specific sort of tree. Penicillin or antibiotics, or both, are apparently made from a certain type of mould.

Anyone want to contribute?

 

[Twiler]

1. Indicate that you are a proponent of science and that you are considering their suggestion; This, in itself, weakens their position.

2. Ask for specific evidence of this type of dogmatic response occurring.

3. Point out examples of scientific ideas being overturned as the results of evidence being presented. Ask for a response.

4. Point out the differences between the evidence mentioned in 3 and whatever nonsense they're arguing in favour of. Ask for a response.

 

[wackyvorlon]

Because, *of course*, when Einstein proposed relativity he was shot down without thought and died in poverty, considered a complete crackpot by everyone.

 

[geni]

Aspirin comes from the bark of some specific sort of tree.

No. Willow bark contains Salicylic acid. Asprin is acetylsalicylic acid.

 

[ExMinister]

I think you have to take it on a case by case basis. But generally, no matter what claim X might be, the fact is that by now there is probably a scientific study somewhere that has looked at it. Let's say claim X is telepathy. How about, "That is simply not true. In fact, there are studies going back many years looking at telepathy. They've come up empty. It's not that scientists and non-scientists field these ideas and get shot down. It's that scientists field these ideas, they are tested, and they don't show statistically positive results. If they don't, other scientists are then going to be less willing to spend their time, money and energy just to beat a dead horse."

ETA: It also helps to have a few relevant studies to throw out there as examples. It's hard to argue that scientists are close-minded to the paranormal or whatever when you can show that studies have actually been done.

 

[jhunter1163]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston

That Lavoisier.. what did he know anyway?

 

[jhunter1163]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

Here's a more recent example of self-correcting science.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

No. Willow bark contains Salicylic acid. Asprin is acetylsalicylic acid.

Thanks! I learned something today.

 

[fuelair]

But, what you knew before was also good. Here's the missing part: http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/willow-bark-000281.htm

Don't let the altmed fool you - this is University of Maryland.


For the lazy or less interested, Willow bark brewed up tea like has been used for a rather long time to slow/halt inflamation and reduce pain. Amazingly not unlike aspirin - it was also used originally in the production of aspirin.

 

[Aepervius]

Safebox | This may be more of a Science thread than a Sceptical/Paranormal thread, if so, please move.

OK, so a cop-out I, and surely all of you, hear all the time from both believers in the paranormal, Creationism, alternative medicine and other dubious phenomenon is that the real reason why no scientific evidence exists for claim x is that scientists are dogmatic and that individual scientists can't field new ideas without getting shot down by their peers.

How do you best reply to this? I like to point out that this is the exact opposite of how science works - that you gain prestige as a scientist by shooting down ideas, not upholding them. There's also the statement from another poster that various (scientific?) organizations spend huge sums of money on researching for example bioengineering and acupuncture.

Another thing I like to point out is (and many thanks to others who use this as an example) that a lot of medicines thought of as [buzzword alert] 'synthetic' are in fact very much natural. Aspirin comes from the bark of some specific sort of tree. Penicillin or antibiotics, or both, are apparently made from a certain type of mould.

Anyone want to contribute?

"3. Point out examples of scientific ideas being overturned as the results of evidence being presented. Ask for a response."

The example I use, is from physic : newtonian physic => SR/GR ; deterministic physic => Aether => QM ; Biology => Ulcer caused by bacteria ; the various correction of evolution one way or another ; and I pass many others.

Once you have gone thru them, ask them in view of such huge correction in nearly every case which led to an enorm openning of new physic/biology , can one really speak of dogma.

If they still answer yes, you will have to ask them for proper example of what they meant as dogma, when nearly every physic we get now (and biology) was quite clearly a total break of previous knowledge. If they can#t cite a proper example, or an improperly documented example ("feelings") then you can point out that they provided no evidence for their claim, whereas you presented counter example. If they persist, you will never ever convince them, as they are functionning on their own dogmatic train of thought and are closed to any other explanation. maybe convince lurker but that's it.

 

[LightningStrike]

Now how about the Experimenter Effect.

It was coined in the 70's apparently when it was noticed that psychological experimenters got the results that they were expecting to find.

I find this very interesting as I see it correlating with my experience of life summed up in "What I acknowledge I get". How could this possibly work?

Could it be that the experimenters were directly affecting circumstance with their pre-conceived ideas?

 

[Twiler]

Now how about the Examiner Effect.

It was coined in the 70's apparently when it was noticed that psychological experimenters got the results that they were expecting to find.

I find this very interesting as I see it correlating with my experience of life summed up in "What I acknowledge I get". How could this possibly work?

Could it be that the experimenters were directly affecting circumstance with their pre-conceived ideas?

I believe it's the result of weak controls upon experiments.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

 

[technoextreme]

Because, *of course*, when Einstein proposed relativity he was shot down without thought and died in poverty, considered a complete crackpot by everyone.

And remember Einstein only rocketed in popularity when his theories were proven to be true.

 

[KingMerv00]

Now how about the Experimenter Effect.

It was coined in the 70's apparently when it was noticed that psychological experimenters got the results that they were expecting to find.

I find this very interesting as I see it correlating with my experience of life summed up in "What I acknowledge I get". How could this possibly work?

Could it be that the experimenters were directly affecting circumstance with their pre-conceived ideas?

The experimenter effect can be reduced or outright removed with proper blinding.

 

[Kuko 4000]

From my experience it might also be worth everyones time to ask if they want to organize a light hearted scientific experiment. It's a multiple win situation. If they succeed in demonstrating, say telepathy, you can all be rich if you play your cards right. If they fail to prove telepathic powers, they have at least seen how the process can work. Most of the believers in such things just don't have a clear picture of how the process of scientific experiment can work.

They might have a guru or someone who claims special powers, it could be the beginning of an eye-opener when the guru says no to the experiment. This is your chance to press them a bit, why doesn't the guru want to help everyone in the world by sharing his powers with the scientific community, etc..

This forum can help with many questions regarding controls and such if you ever get the chance to organize such a test

 

[Kuko 4000]

"3. Point out examples of scientific ideas being overturned as the results of evidence being presented. Ask for a response."

The example I use, is from physic : newtonian physic => SR/GR ; deterministic physic => Aether => QM ; Biology => Ulcer caused by bacteria ; the various correction of evolution one way or another ; and I pass many others.

Once you have gone thru them, ask them in view of such huge correction in nearly every case which led to an enorm openning of new physic/biology , can one really speak of dogma.

I'd be interested to know what other examples people here have used in this situation. Always good to have multiple examples ready!

 

[jimtron]

Something I like to ask folks is: "what is more effective than the scientific method?" Sure it's less than perfect, but what better way is there to distinguish between what truly works and what only seems to work?

 

[Cuddles]

Ulcer caused by bacteria

What really confuses me is that this example is often used by the people claiming science is dogmatic. The argument goes something along the lines of "Science dogmatically ridiculed the idea that ulcers could be caused by bacteria until someone provided conclusive evidence that they could, therefore scientists are dogmatic and refuse to consider any ideas outside the mainstream.". I've never quite worked out how to respond to that one.

 

[dlorde]

What really confuses me is that this example is often used by the people claiming science is dogmatic. The argument goes something along the lines of "Science dogmatically ridiculed the idea that ulcers could be caused by bacteria until someone provided conclusive evidence that they could, therefore scientists are dogmatic and refuse to consider any ideas outside the mainstream.". I've never quite worked out how to respond to that one.

In this case there were already well-researched mechanisms by which peptic ulceration was thought to occur. There was also the expectation that in such a well-researched area a discovery of this importance would have been made long ago, if there was anything to it. So it took pretty convincing evidence to change the consensus. See Timeline of PUD & H. pylori.

Science builds more than just a knowledgebase of facts. It builds a coherent structure, a model of the world. Each new discovery must either fit into that structure somehow. The more the structure must be modified for this, the stronger the evidence required. Where it is believed that adequate explanations already exist, Occam's Razor is sharpened. Science must inevitably prioritize the claims and hypotheses to be examined according to various criteria, and this means rejecting the majority of submissions. This can make it appear dogmatic, especially as some of the criteria used to judge a submission are poorly defined and somewhat unscientific (plausibility, reputation, cost, popularity, etc). But as the H. Pylori 'incident' shows, if the evidence is strong enough, it will eventually be accepted - and Nobel Prizes awarded.

 

[blutoski]

I think you have to take it on a case by case basis. But generally, no matter what claim X might be, the fact is that by now there is probably a scientific study somewhere that has looked at it. Let's say claim X is telepathy. How about, "That is simply not true. In fact, there are studies going back many years looking at telepathy. They've come up empty. It's not that scientists and non-scientists field these ideas and get shot down. It's that scientists field these ideas, they are tested, and they don't show statistically positive results. If they don't, other scientists are then going to be less willing to spend their time, money and energy just to beat a dead horse."

ETA: It also helps to have a few relevant studies to throw out there as examples. It's hard to argue that scientists are close-minded to the paranormal or whatever when you can show that studies have actually been done.

I agree with this approach.

It's also important to bring to the person's attention that naturalism is the new guy on the block, so it's actually very appropriate to say that paranormalists are the old guard who are not willing to accept new ideas such as materialistic total mortality.



Just as an example, I had a debate with somebody who accused me of being closed minded about homeopathy - that I was unwilling to accept a new idea.

I pointed out that I saw it the other way around: he was defending a medical modality that predates modern medicine (double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized studies) by five or six generations. Modern medicine is younger than I am. It's the new idea that he is unwilling to exchange for dropping his 19th century treatments.

The guy was also making the same argument about GR. He felt that since I accepted GR as the explanation for observations like gravitational lensing, that I was somehow stubbornly unwilling to accept his 'revolutionary new' Newtonian mechanics explanations.