Go back to previous sectionMust science assume some ideas dogmatically? Must we assume that the scientific method, a synthesis of reason and experience, is the only avenue to truth? The mystics claim that some simple acts of knowing cannot be described by an objective language. Consider the experience of seeing a death on the highway. Does a cold scientific description, ``the cause of the cessation of bodily function was due to a rapid deceleration,'' accurately convey the truth? What about our own deaths? There seems to be much more to the truth that we will die someday than can be described in the statement ``I am mortal.'' Are there subjective truths that cannot be described in an objective language?
Defenders of science often argue that even if some assumptions are necessary in the application of scientific method, these assumptions are validated by the record of success. However, there is a major logical problem with this justification. It simply raises the problem of induction again. It is circular reasoning to attempt to vindicate inductive reasoning by asserting that so far inductive reasoning has worked, because this vindication itself is an inductive argument. It is logically possible for the scientific method to completely fail tomorrow even though it has been successful for centuries. Is it reasonable to continue to believe in the scientific method as helpful for our future? Can science be self-corrective? Philosophers believe these abstract questions are important because they are intimately related to our more personal concerns about who we are, where we have come from, and what may be in store for us in terms of the survival of our species on this fragile fragment of the universe.
It is possible to arrive at various interpretations of the same data or facts and to develop various explanations of the underlying causes at work. Our culture, egos, and personal beliefs provide a filter through which we interpret the data and develop explanations. Because scientists have a "realism" perspective and because culture and egos can affect the interpretations of the data, scientists are willing to have their ideas and explanations closely examined and tested by others, particularly by their peers, in a process called "peer review". "[Science] values testability and critical evaluation, because thus far it appears that the more we think critically about our beliefs, the more likely we are to know the truth" (Pine, ch 2). Peer review works best if the ones who critically analyze an explanation have an alternate explanation and try to poke holes in the other person’s explanation. (Sometimes that "poking" is pretty brutal!) This peer review happens at science conferences and in the pages of science journals. A scientist will not try to have his/her opinion advanced by political means or legislated by politicians.
Just because something is published in a peer-reviewed journal does not make it be the final word, the absolute whole truth. There are plenty of times when something published in a peer-reviewed journal is found to be incorrect. Before a paper is published, the peer reviewer(s) (also called "referee") will examine the analytical methods and logical reasoning of the author(s) to catch any errors and maybe suggest an alternative interpretation of the data. After the paper is published, other research teams will examine the claims, trying to reproduce the data or collecting new data that refutes the original conclusions or finding errors of logic missed by the first peer reviewers. The peer review process involves checking and re-checking, validating any claims and preventing the psychological traps of confirmation biases (the tendency to interpret or "cherry-pick" new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories).
Even the "science greats" such as Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Michael Faraday, etc. struggled to uncover the rules of nature and it took years of dogged persistence for many of the science greats to get their experiments to work or their theory developed to the point where they could be published. Often, what determines the success of a great scientist is the sheer grit to overcome personal or intellectual barriers in order to achieve the revolutionary insights of how nature operates. (It might help science students to know that even famous scientists are human: see "Even Einstein Struggled" PDF or that the brilliant people sending spacecraft to the planets had plenty of failures along the way: see JPL's "How Failure Helps Us Succeed" video on YouTube.)
Science is a human endeavor done by people who can make unintentional or intentional mistakes. True science takes human fallibility into account by peer review to avoid fooling ourselves. If the claim is valid then it will hold up under examination by other scientists who have training and experience in that area of discovery. Because of the reach of the internet and the speed that information can be transmitted around the world along with the fracturing and segregating of information sources by political ideology in social media, the bypassing of the scientific method is becoming an increasing problem with misinformation and disinformation being believed more than objectively factual, truthful information.
Misinformation is the false or inaccurate information that is spread, regardless of whether or not there is intent to deceive. Disinformation is false information which is intended to mislead, especially propaganda issued by a government organization to a rival power or the media. As we gain understanding in psychology and in using the tools of psychology to understand how communicate ideas and feeling more effectively, some groups, organizations, and state actors are using those psychology tools to create disinformation that will willingly spread by others unwittingly. Being able to spot misinformation and disinformation (sometimes called "fake news") is now a critical, essential skill.
One helpful article that shows how to distinguish good scientific information from bogus or fake pseudoscience is Robert Park's "Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science". The first two signs involve bypassing the peer review process: the discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media and the discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work (i.e., a conspiracy theory). Focusing on the second sign (conspiracy theory): true science lets the idea or discovery be judged on its own merits rather than "blaming the messenger" or trying to discredit the messenger. A true scientist will let others test the new idea or discovery because all scientists assume there is an objective reality independent of us or our viewpoint and desires. Careful observations of the physical realm are the sole judge of scientific truth which means that nature has the final veto power on an idea or claimed discovery. Reality kicks back.
The problem with conspiracy theories of the bogus (fake) scientists is that anyone who disagrees with the bogus scientist is then just lumped into the conspiracy and therefore, there is no way to prove to the bogus scientists that there is no actual conspiracy. A true scientist will not claim conspiracies if their idea or discovery is not verified. One way to avoid misinformation/disinformation is to to solely use reliable credible sources from: research colleges and universities; peer reviewed journals; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; professional research organizations such as the American Astronomical Society and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific; and most government science organizations such as the National Science Foundation, NASA, ESA, JAXA, and the National Institutes of Health. However, as noted above, some claims in reputable sources may be later found to be incorrect with further research. Reputable information sources use a rigorous fact-checking process before publishing something and will publish corrections and critiques of claims. Sometimes (fortunately rare) an intentionally biased study with fraudulent data slips through the initial peer review filter and gets published in a journal. A reputable journal will then issue a retraction of the article. One notorious example of such a retracted article is the one cited most often by those who believe in a link between vaccination and autism (Wakefield's article in Lancet). Unfortunately, even though the article was retracted back in 2010, it still is found on sites filled with misinformation.
In non-science areas, misinformation and disinformation can be harder to detect but you can find factual truthful information from sources in the top center green rectangle of Ad Fontes Media's "Media Bias Chart" and cross-check claims from multiple sources in that green rectangle. Another thing to do is to apply the DAPPR test (Date, Author, Publisher, Purpose, Relevance) to what you read and view. The Bakersfield College Library has a "Fake News" LibGuide that describes the DAPPR test and fact-checking resources you can use to avoid being tricked or conned.
last updated: March 4, 2021