Pseudoscience Is Not Science: A Basic Primer

[seven77]

"Pseudoscience is RELIGION. Requires an unquestioning belief in claims with absolutely no evidence to back them up." -- Why everyone (both ex-c and non) should seek to educate themselves so that they don't become fodder for pseudoscience "arguments".

 

I thought that I would post a collection of YouTube videos that I have watched on these topics since leaving the faith. These videos have helped to clarify some things for me. I hope that others who are questioning and perhaps struggling will get some use from these resources as well.

 

The bulk of these resources pertain to pseudoscience. I used to be a big talk radio fan and went to a church that was very much into alternative medicine, herbalism, vitalism, and other forms of naturalism and quackery. I was pretty deep into a lot of this stuff and sometimes I have to remind myself that 99.999999% of the claims made by the faithful in regards to science are complete and total bullshit.

 

SCIENCE AND DEBUNKING PSEUDOSCIENCE

 

The Legacy of Science

-A highly visual magazine-like informational packet that teaches us why the study and application of science is important in our modern times.

Bill Nye: The Science Guy -- Pseudoscience

Key Points:

• Exordinary claims require exordinary evidence.
• Magic is trickery.
• Anecdote is not evidence.
• Results of scientific tests must be verifiable and repeatable. If they are neither, then they are not scientifically valid.

Summary:
Challenges and debunks several supernatural claims, including horoscopes, common magic tricks, and alien sightings and abductions. Also talks about how ancient man had flawed theories ie lightning being controlled by a sky-god that are simply untrue. Features James Randi.

 

TED-ED: Not All Scientific Studies Are Created Equal by David H. Schwartz
-Explains how scientific studies are structured and how they are used by scientists. Discusses the differences between well-structured studies and shoddy ones. Focuses on health and medicine studies.

TED-ED: Battling Bad Science by Ben Goldacre
-What is bad science? How can evidence by distorted? Examples of evidence distortion and common logical fallacies often found in psuedoscience arguments and articles.

 

--------
LOGIC

Kevin deLaplante: Introduction to Fallacies Playlist
-Learn about logic from the ground up. Learn to spot the most common fallacies in the arguments of others and learn how to avoid them when making your own arguments.

 

-------
SPACE & TIME

Bill Nye: The Science Guy -- Space

Bill Nye: The Science Guy -- Time

Bill Nye: The Science Guy -- The Moon

Bill Nye: The Science Guy -- The Sun

Bill Nye: The Science Guy -- Planets

Bill Nye: The Science Guy -- Comets and Meteors

 

TED-ED: The Beginning of the Universe for Beginners by Tom Whyntie
-Breaks down the Big Bang Theory and the origins of the universe.

 

Veritasium: Misconceptions About the Universe
-Covers the very basics of inflationary theory, the expansion of space, the possibility of infinite space, and the big bang. A nice and relaxed explanation of space, time and other such things.

Veritasium: How Far Away is the Moon? (The Scale of the Universe)

Veritasium: How Old is The Earth?

Veritasium: Where Did The Earth Come From?

Khan Academy: Cosmology and Astronomy Playlist
-80+ videos that start from square one and attempt to break down complex concepts.

 

Scale of Universe By Cary Huang

-A nifty web tool that helps you visualize the scale of the universe in an easy, user-friendly way. Fun to play with and would probably be great to share with kids too.

 

 

--------
MATHS AND MIRACLES

 

Bill Nye: The Science Guy -- Probability
Key Points:

• Statistics (and other forms of mathematics) can be used to determine risks, make predictions and analyze events.
• There is no such thing as luck.
• Some events are highly unlikely. These events may be called impossible (miracles), but they aren't actually anything other than highly unlikely or highly improbable events.

Summary:
Teaches and shows why a clear understanding of probability helps us to understand the world around us. Also talks about how people can misled or fooled by incomplete or inaccurate accounts of events that are possible, but improbable. Demonstrates the differences between possibility and probability.

Christopher Hitchens Ridicules Biblical Miracles
-Why spreading lies and mythology involving miracles is dangerous and why it is more likely that people are mistaken and/or deluded in regards to biblical miracles

 

Kevin deLaplante: Probability Fallacies Playlist

-Learn how to think critically about probability, coincidences, and learn how to minimize the damage caused by probability blindness in everyday thinking and in logical arguments

 

Veritasium: What is NOT Random?
-Is everything predictable? Is the universe all knowing? An introduction to information theory. Information = Entropy...or does it? Just how reliable is the second law of thermodynamics? Questions of quantum mechanics and other assorted theories. The supposed origins of free will from a scientific point of view.

Shane Killian: Herd Immunity Explained -- How Vaccines Work and Why Society Benefits From Immunization
 

--------
BIOLOGY: BREAKING DOWN BULLSHIT ARGUMENTS

 

Bill Nye: The Science Guy -- Evolution
Key Points:

• All living things are the same inside ie they contain DNA.
• Evolution is a continual process of many small changes over generations. Major changes take thousands, if not MILLIONS of years.
• Natural selection (extinct species, survival of the fittest) and artificial selection (dog breeding, plant breeding) are similar processes, but are NOT the same thing.

Summary:
A basic yet very solid introduction to the topic of evolution. Doesn't introduce arguments against evolution, nor does it attempt to refute them.

Evolution: It's a Thing - Crash Course Biology
-Evolution is a valid explanation for how life works. Deal with it. See also: Creationism is dead. Seriously, freaking dead.

Evolutionary Development: Chicken Teeth - Crash Course Biology
-More in-depth information on how exactly evolution works via genes.

Crash Course Biology Playlist
-40 videos that explain common biology concepts ranging from cells to evolution to the human body and many other topics.

 

Khan Academy: Biology Playlist
-60+ videos that make a nice complement to the Crash Course list above.

25 Things That Don't Disprove Evolution by The Friendly Atheist
-A quick rundown of some of the most common arguments against evolutionary theory with some asides by Mr. Mehta.

Top Ten Creationist Arguments by TheThinkingAtheist
-Poking fun and holes in common creationist arguments that some of us have heard at church, in Christian classrooms, on Facebook, on the internet, and pretty much everywhere else.

 

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Intelligent Design Is Stupid
-NdGT points out the painfully obvious in an entertaining and informative way.

Irreducible Complexity Cut Down to Size
-Debunking a common argument taught in some churches in the Intelligent Design camp

Irreducible Complexity Rebuttals
-Some arguments against the original video, thoroughly debunked.

 

 

OTHER:

 

A handy chart to help discern science from pseudoscience:

 

---------------

 

I will add some more links to this later. If anyone else has any other links that they think would be useful or pertinent, please share below.

 

[miekko]

I'd say the last difference given in the table above is misleading: lots of really good science has to rely on inaccurate measurements. This is one reason why various statistical methods have been developed, and also the reason why scientists often are somewhat likely to put limits as to the precision of their claims.

[bornagainathiest]

http://www.aptheory.info/

 

This 'scientist' has disproved gravity.

 

According to Pettolino, outer space is filled with gas and it's this gas (not gravity), pressing down on our atmosphere, that keeps our air from flying off into space. 

.

.

.

[seven77]

I added more links this morning.

 

Perhaps this will become an ongoing project.

[★ Citsonga ★]

This is a great idea. Thanks for all the links. I'll have to check out some of the videos.

 

Perhaps this thread should be pinned.

[RogueScholar]

Anytime anybody says they have "proved" something outside of the mathematical concept of proof, it's generally somebody who doesn't understand science.

 

A good review of what it means to have evidence support a hypothesis and the concept of falsifiability:

 

[Orbit]

I'd say the last difference given in the table above is misleading: lots of really good science has to rely on inaccurate measurements. This is one reason why various statistical methods have been developed, and also the reason why scientists often are somewhat likely to put limits as to the precision of their claims.

I'll be a stats wonk for a second here. Statistical ranges are precise---as ranges, and mapped to a certain level of error (alpha-level). I would say that this is precise, as precise was we can get given the problems where stats are used. The error is also measured precisely (alpha = .05 for example, or as a range + or - 3, for example.

[Sophrosyne]

Thanks for sharing all these videos, 7 =) It's very helpful!

[ExCBooster]

Phrenology! Phrenology! It's my favourite pseudoscience, and a real classic. The idea was that you could tell a person's personality and talents from the nubbly bumps on their head... Turns out that this is not actually the case. (Shocking, I know.) They had a systematic framework, though, and they were determined to squee-eeeze reality into it, no matter what the actual results of tests were. Pseudoscience is inherently dishonest, for this reason: instead of using a system to figure out what reality is, it uses a system, and tries to make reality conform to it. It's perverse. Pseudoscience, because it doesn't care what reality actually is, or about making honest tests, isn't about building knowledge. It ends up obscuring knowledge. It's beliefs dressed up in the trappings of science to borrow the authority.

 

Ironically, when this happens, when a belief system has to masquerade as reason or science, it might as well be a concession that the belief is false - it's not strong enough to stand on its own, and it concedes that logic is the way to knowledge, rather than belief or revelation.

[seven77]

I added two new links to my big list above. Yay. I hope to build a giant resource for future ex-c's.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Thanks 7, you rock.

[gall]

http://www.aptheory.info/

 

This 'scientist' has disproved gravity.

 

According to Pettolino, outer space is filled with gas and it's this gas (not gravity), pressing down on our atmosphere, that keeps our air from flying off into space. 

.

.

.

 

Didn't read the webpage. Got one look at the title header and closed it.

 

LOL gas...

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

For more like this see the I Fucking Hate Pseudoscience Facebook page here:

 

https://www.facebook.com/hatepseudoscience

[Neverlandrut]

Phrenology! Phrenology! It's my favourite pseudoscience, and a real classic. The idea was that you could tell a person's personality and talents from the nubbly bumps on their head... Turns out that this is not actually the case. (Shocking, I know.) They had a systematic framework, though, and they were determined to squee-eeeze reality into it, no matter what the actual results of tests were. Pseudoscience is inherently dishonest, for this reason: instead of using a system to figure out what reality is, it uses a system, and tries to make reality conform to it. It's perverse. Pseudoscience, because it doesn't care what reality actually is, or about making honest tests, isn't about building knowledge. It ends up obscuring knowledge. It's beliefs dressed up in the trappings of science to borrow the authority.

 

Ironically, when this happens, when a belief system has to masquerade as reason or science, it might as well be a concession that the belief is false - it's not strong enough to stand on its own, and it concedes that logic is the way to knowledge, rather than belief or revelation.

Very true! Of course, the same can be said about religious evidentialism. In science, the way knowledge is advanced is that we first make an observation. Then we measure and describe what properties we can. Next, we ask questions about the phenomenon. Then we formulate hypotheses as potential answers to those questions. We objectively test those hypotheses. If the results are consistent with the hypothesis, then we continue testing it. Pseudoscience and religious evidentialism goes about obtaining knowledge backwards. It starts with a conclusion. Then formulates hypotheses to support the conclusion. Then, it looks for "evidence" to support the conclusion and hypothesis simultaneously which it already assumes true. The end result is confirmation bias with a bit of circular reasoning thrown in there. No actual observation of the proposed phenomenon is ever made.

[Sexton Blake]

Typically, on this thread we have pseudoscience masquerading as science and the culprit is the characters who are railing against such things.

 

The Big Bang is an unproven idea which does not remotely make sense. Worse, it can easily be proved wrong. I have explained why to such people and there is a deafening silence from them. They look at the text books and they are of no help and most being unable to think for themselves but just parroting what others have told them just pretend that it's all OK. Not one can back up what they claim to be true, just quoting dogma like a cornered creationist.

 

I have given some explanation on "The Big Picture thread" on this forum.

 

There is a documentary which can be downloaded and watched: "Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?" I think it was made by the BBC's Horizon. It agrees with what I said and among other things shows teachers teaching what they admit they know to be wrong about expansion, etc.

[Bhim]

Typically, on this thread we have pseudoscience masquerading as science and the culprit is the characters who are railing against such things.

 

The Big Bang is an unproven idea which does not remotely make sense. Worse, it can easily be proved wrong. I have explained why to such people and there is a deafening silence from them. They look at the text books and they are of no help and most being unable to think for themselves but just parroting what others have told them just pretend that it's all OK. Not one can back up what they claim to be true, just quoting dogma like a cornered creationist.

 

I have given some explanation on "The Big Picture thread" on this forum.

 

There is a documentary which can be downloaded and watched: "Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?" I think it was made by the BBC's Horizon. It agrees with what I said and among other things shows teachers teaching what they admit they know to be wrong about expansion, etc.

 

Hello Blake.  I think you are propagating a good deal of misinformation about modern astrophysics and cosmology, and I hope you'll discuss your views with me.

 

The Big Bang is "provable" in the sense that such a concept exists in science.  Like many scientific theories it is a work in progress, and will likely be subject to second-order revisions in the near future.  However the basic idea is pretty much unassailable: the universe began some 13.7 billion years ago, after which space-time expanded.  Are you issues with the Big Bang in regards to topics such as baryogenesis/leptogenesis, dark energy, or the many-worlds hypothesis?  Or are you in conflict with the very framework of the theory as I have outlined it?  While there is plenty of room for debate and speculation in cosmology, some facts have been verified with great scrupulosity.  A good many underpaid graduate students and postdocs have spent years - sometimes decades - making painstaking observations and conducting rigorous, independent data analyses to come to the same conclusion.  When you blithely dismiss the Big Bang theory as "an unproven idea which does not remotely make sense," please note that you are dismissing lifetimes of careful research.  Not that this freedom of thought should be forbidden in science, but bold assertions require strong grounding.  What research have you done which justifies your position?

 

If you'd like, please demonstrate to me that the Big Bang theory is easily disproven.  As time allows, I will not respond with mere silence.  All I would ask is that your posts contain more of your own original writing than quotes from other websites, and that we not ask each other to watch lengthy videos (as this leaves more time for us to discuss with one another).  Thanks, and I look forward to your response.

[Bhim]

...yeah, that's what I thought. The silence, as you say, is deafening.

 

We all have jobs and stuff to do. But after six days I'm going to go ahead and assume that you aren't interested in a discussion about the veracity of the Big Bang model.

[bornagainathiest]

Sexton Blake sez...

 

[VahnBlue]

...yeah, that's what I thought. The silence, as you say, is deafening.

 

We all have jobs and stuff to do. But after six days I'm going to go ahead and assume that you aren't interested in a discussion about the veracity of the Big Bang model.

Don't count him out, entirely, just yet. It's still a possibility that he hasn't checked the site yet. Only because his account shows last active as October 31st. There's still a chance.

[midniterider]

Typically, on this thread we have pseudoscience masquerading as science and the culprit is the characters who are railing against such things.

 

The Big Bang is an unproven idea which does not remotely make sense. Worse, it can easily be proved wrong. I have explained why to such people and there is a deafening silence from them. They look at the text books and they are of no help and most being unable to think for themselves but just parroting what others have told them just pretend that it's all OK. Not one can back up what they claim to be true, just quoting dogma like a cornered creationist.

 

I have given some explanation on "The Big Picture thread" on this forum.

 

There is a documentary which can be downloaded and watched: "Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?" I think it was made by the BBC's Horizon. It agrees with what I said and among other things shows teachers teaching what they admit they know to be wrong about expansion, etc.

 

I am getting a deafening silence from him. :-)

[seven77]

It's December 5 and still no response? Multiple people willing to engage and the silence is deafening.

 

Oh well. This thread wasn't intended for pomposity over scientific matters anyway. It is meant to be a resource collection for those who need a refresher or perhaps a crash course on various sciences. Somehow that skipped over Sexton Blake's head.

[duderonomy]

"Bill Nye: The Science Guy -- Probability
Key Points:

• Statistics (and other forms of mathematics) can be used to determine risks, make predictions and analyze events.
• There is no such thing as luck.
• Some events are highly unlikely. These events may be called impossible (miracles), but they aren't actually anything other than highly unlikely or highly improbable events."

Dang it! I wanted to know how risks can be determined, yet there is no such thing as luck.  It seems that the video is unavailable.

[seven77]

Original link has been taken down, it seems. Will post new one when I have access to a real computer.