Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
Pseudoscience is a scientific-sounding argument which in fact has no scientific validity whatsoever. This type of argument is based on the fact that the average layperson knows so little about science that he or she is liable to judge a scientific argument solely on its style and presentation (eg- "does it sound scientific?", or "does it incorporate scientific-sounding terms?") for lack of any other method of judging its validity.
Suggested Tactics
This type of creationist argument is difficult for most people to defend against, unless they are fairly knowledgeable about science (that's why it's so popular with creationists- they may not know anything about science, but they're gambling that you don't either). In my case, I simply call upon my knowledge of certain basic scientific principles that I learned in university, but I can't instruct everyone to do this, since not everyone has a technical background.
Therefore, it's difficult for me to recommand tactics for laypeople to counteract this sort of argument, but we should keep in mind that creationist pseudoscience arguments are almost never generated out of the mind of the creationist himself. They all tend to come from the same widely distributed pool of creationist literature, which is one of the reasons that creationists all over the world tend to spout the same pseudoscience arguments. I can offer the following suggestions:
Examples follow:
"Occam's Razor is a scientific principle which says that when faced with two theories, we should always choose the simplest theory. Evolution theory requires billions of years of chemical reactions, environmental effects, and genetic mutations. Creation theory simply says "God did it". Creation theory is obviously simpler, therefore Occam's Razor demands that we must select Creation theory on scientific grounds."
This is perhaps the single most moronic creationist idea I've ever heard (it's also been used to "prove" the existence of God, by arguing that the concept of God is much simpler than the study of science). It's a classic example of creationist pseudoscience. They learn the term "Occam's Razor" and they learn just enough about its definition to abuse it, but they make no effort whatsoever to learn its true meaning.
"Choose the simplest theory" is an oversimplification of the concept of Occam's Razor. The term is named after the 14th century philosopher and theologian William of Occam. It might strike some as strange that a scientific principle might have come from a theologian, but good scientists do not practice appeals to authority or ad hominem attacks. If an idea makes sense, it doesn't matter who it came from, and the universal acceptance of Occam's Razor is a perfect example of that philosophy.
In any case, he argued that we should never "multiply entities unnecessarily". In other words, cut out extraneous terms from an equation. He used that principle (which is really just an argument against redundancy) to show that it was impossible to deduce God's existence through reason alone, so one would have to take it purely on faith. The irony is that a theologian realized that there was no logical basis for God's existence more than 600 years ago but modern fundamentalists still can't figure it out, and actually use his name to "prove" the exact opposite of what he himself argued!
For those who cannot appreciate the simplicity of Occam's Razor in its original form, Isaac Newton restated it thusly: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." In plain English, when faced with two scientific theories which make the same predictions, choose the simpler theory. Or, as Stephen Hawking put it: "Cut out all the features of the theory which cannot be observed." (taken from A Brief History of Time).
Like all scientific principles, Occam's Razor is accepted not because William of Occam said it, but because it makes sense. You don't need to appeal to authority or take its validity on faith. If you are faced with two competing theories between which you have no other method of deciding, is it not obvious that the theory containing extra or unverifiable terms must therefore contain redundancies? The fact that the simpler theory can accomplish the same descriptive and predictive feats while utilizing fewer terms and not relying on unverifiable or unobservable phenomena is evidence of superiority.
Consider the analogy of two mechanical devices for making widgets. Both perform exactly the same function. In repeated, exhaustive tests, both are shown to produce exactly the same quality of widget, at the same rate, with the same raw materials. Both produce the same amount of waste. Both consume the same amount of electrical power. They cost the same. In other words, their performance is identical in every measurable way. The only noticeable difference is that device #1 is much simpler than device #2. It contains fewer components and mechanisms, and its operating principle is therefore simpler. Which one would you choose?
Suppose the salesman for device #2 is quite upset that you are leaning toward device #1, and he promises to do better. The next day, he returns with a new device (we'll call it device #3) which is completely sealed in black plastic (the classic "black box"). He says it's the latest, most advanced widget-making machine in the world. You feed it electricity and raw materials, and it spits out widgets. Its performance is no different from device #1 and device #2, but it is not user servicable. You can't see inside to figure out how it works, and the salesman refuses to let you see diagrams or schematics, ostensibly because the operation of the machine is beyond both your intellectual capacity and his. The salesman argues that device #3 is actually simpler than both device #1 and #2 because it has just one component: the black box. Does this make sense to you? Again, which device would you choose?
Occam's Razor is merely a name given to a logical and intuitively obvious thought process of eliminating redundancies. It cannot be used to choose between competing theories whose predictions are vastly different, any more than the simplicity of a drill press can be used to prove that it's superior to a fighter plane. Now that we are equipped with an understanding of the reasoning behind Occam's Razor, we can list some of the reasons that it cannot be used to support either creationism or the existence of God:
The use of Occam's Razor to "prove" the existence of God or the validity of Biblical literalism is a classic example of creationist pseudoscience, because it is so emblematic of their method: take a real principle and grossly misinterpret it to mean the exact opposite of what it truly means.
"The second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. It states that complexity cannot be spontaneously created, so it is impossible for natural processes to create a complex organism from a simple organism!"
This is one of the oldest, and most popular creationist pseudoscience arguments. It's been kicking around for more than a century, thanks to general public ignorance of thermodynamics. In fact, it's wrong on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start! Perhaps we should start at the beginning, with the definition of the second law of thermodynamics. According to my engineering thermodynamics textbook, the second law of thermodynamics has two basic postulates:
That's a lot different from "complexity cannot be spontaneously created", isn't it? Big surprise- creationists don't know anything about thermodynamics. Now that we've established their bizarre misconception about the second law of thermodynamics, we should try to understand what strange mental contortions were necessary to go from "the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease" to "complexity cannot be spontaneously created."
Upon further questioning, creationists invariably reveal the following beliefs about the second law:
These three beliefs are all completely wrong, and they all indicate a frightening ignorance of scientific principles. Let us examine each belief separately:
This argument has been so thoroughly disproven, so many times in so many ways, that it's almost comical when people keep bringing it up. They might as well just tattoo their foreheads with the words "scientific ignoramus."
"By taking a random mixture of elements and analysing the probability of elements randomly forming into the correct combinations and orientations to make a simple amino acid, I can show that it is probabilistically impossible for the simplest amino acid to form, never mind the first living cell. Therefore, a Creator must have formed the first organisms, if not all of them."
This argument is invalid for the following reasons:
I should also note that this argument is generally coupled with the fallacious reasoning that "anything we don't understand is proof of divine intervention." Poorly understood phenomena are not invalidations of science- they are opportunities for scientific investigation. If we treat every gap in our understanding as proof of divine intervention, we would be no better than the tribal primitives who attributed divine intervention to everything from solar eclipses to rain. Visit the Probability page if you want to know more.
"Some older species fossils can be found on top of newer fossils. This inconsistency in your so-called 'progressionism' proves that creation theory is correct, since it means that all species were created at the same time."
More bad science, since this only occurs with animal remains that are on the surface. What happens is that severe erosion or a geological upheaval can occasionally expose strata bearing fossils, and of course, when Skippy the Dog runs away and dies near these old fossils, the "Young Earth Creationist" crowd immediately interprets this as disproof of the entire fossil record, the entire field of geology, the age of the Earth, etc.
As usual, their argument is based on ignorance of proper scientific method. This evidence would be disproof of the fossil record if it was impossible to rationalize its existence with that record. However, that is simply not the case. Geologists can examine patterns in the rock to determine whether a region is old or new, cross-cut, the result of upheaval, etc. It is the creationists who will look at a region, assume its age without using proper methodology, and then use fossil findings in that region to "disprove" geology and evolution theory.
"Evolution can explain changes in a species, but where does a whole new species come from? Speciation is the downfall of Evolution Theory!"
This is another case of creationists projecting their own pseudoscientific attitudes onto evolution theory. In this case, they are predisposed to believe that the creation of a species is a sudden, dramatic event at some fixed moment in time. One moment there's species A, and then the next moment there's species B. Much as God created Man from dust, and Eve from Adam's rib, they imagine that "evolutionists" describe evolution creating a man directly from an ape. But evolution theory does not work that way.
Speciation is not a sudden, miraculous transformation from one species to another. The way creationists envision evolution theory, a pregnant female ape went into labour one day and a human being popped out! It is a gross understatement to say that this is a misrepresentation of the truth. In reality, evolution theory merely proposes that a great many small changes eventually caused an animal population to become intersterile with its ancestors.
Of course, this would mean that there should be fossil evidence of various intermediate stages between successful species, and there is. Naturally, creationists explain all of the evidence away by pointing the finger at their favourite whipping boy: the global conspiracy of evil scientists, who work tirelessly to cover up the truth and fabricate false evidence. These people watch "X-Files" too damned much.
"I know we've observed micro-evolution, but what about macro-evolution? There is no evidence for macro-evolution!"
The creationist invention of the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is a good example of how they try to mutilate the terms of science to their own advantage. Biologists do not differentiate between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, any more than mathematicians differentiate between micro-addition and macro-addition.
Their argument that there is no evidence for "macroevolution" is ridiculous because "macroevolution" is simply the result of adding a lot of "microevolution" together, and "microevolution" is, by their own admission, completely supported by various forms of evidence.
The other problem for this argument is that there actually is evidence to directly support what they describe as "macroevolution", and it's called "the fossil record". It's evidence because it is consistent with prediction. Of course, that's not enough for the creationists- they demand direct observation of massive evolutionary change in living animals, even though they know that we would have to observe living animals for millions of years in order to obtain the evidence they seek. Can you see the problem with this demand? It's pretty obvious- they are deliberately asking for a form of evidence which is impossible to obtain (millions of years of direct observation), and ignoring a form of evidence (the fossil record) which is relatively easy to obtain.
The universe operates on tiny processes, affecting tiny particles, which add up in tremendous numbers to cause large changes. If someone is going to claim that a slow, steady process cannot create large-scale changes given sufficient time, he had better provide some evidence and reasoning, rather than simply stating it as a fact and demanding impossible forms of evidence to disprove it. Are we to assume that all gradual processes eventually hit "brick walls" and stop, for mysterious and unknown reasons?
Do we question tectonic plate theory on the basis that we've observed small-scale tectonic plate movement but not large-scale tectonic plate movement? Do we insist that no one should believe in tectonic plate theory until we've been able to observe it for millions of years, so we can see long-distance movements firsthand? Do we deny the possibility of large-scale rock erosion because we've only seen small scale rock erosion? Why would a gradual process like tectonic plate movement, rock erosion, or evolution suddenly stop after an arbitrary length of time? What would make it stop? Why make this ridiculous distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution?" Where is the line drawn between the two? What causes the barrier? These are questions that the creationists don't attempt to ask or answer, because like O.J. Simpson's defense lawyers, they're not serious about uncovering the truth. They just want to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of a gullible audience.
The "microevolution vs macroevolution" argument is an example of creationists projecting their own mentality onto evolution, and then attacking the resulting strawman, ironically, for the very aspects that come from creationism. Creationism describes separate and distinct species: "each according to its kind". Creationists therefore make the same assumption: species are separate, indivisible, and disconnected. When they project this mentality onto evolution, they run into an obvious problem: there is no way for the process of evolution to "jump" over the invisible "barrier" between species. The problem is that they are assuming that this barrier exists! The terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are not found in biology; they are creationist inventions. Gradual changes eventually add up, and can turn one species into two, or they can cause a species to change so much that it becomes a distinct species from its predecessors.
As a thought experiment, consider human beings. It is generally assumed that any male/female pair of healthy human beings can produce children. But biological reproduction is a complex process, and it requires great genetic commonality. We know that two modern human beings can produce children, but what about a modern woman and a man from ten thousand years ago? What about a modern woman and a man from fifty thousand years ago? Is there still enough genetic commonality? Species are not delineated by distinct, clear boundaries. Rather, they are defined by intersterility and overt physical characteristics, and there is no "barrier" between species for the process of evolution to hurdle. |
Because you might actually learn something.
Babbelings...that's funny...
Is this the first time anyone ever explained punctuated equilibria to you? Of course it's "differentiation by small mutation." All scientific theories of evolution involve "differentiation by small mutation"; punk-eek is not all that different from classical darwinism in that respect.
My post 203 involved both albedo and the infrared flux meters which were carried to Venus' surface by probes, all measurements basically telling the same story as noted. Your claim, two or three posts later was to have destroyed that entire line of argument a year prior and anybody would interpret that as meaning the claims that albedo and ir flux measurements supported Velikovsky. Your claiming that you were arguing against anything else amounts to speaking in weasel language.Let's just examine the logic you offer here. You refer to a rather fantastical narrative by Velikovsky in which Venus moves from outside earth's orbit to inside, causing all manner of destruction on earth. You have discarded a few Velikovskian points along the way: 1) Venus ejected from Jupiter, although you seem to have urged it in your T.O. days, and 2) insects came from to Earth from Venus.
You offer (continuously in your recurring spam message) rather indirect evidence: items which you feel will show that Venus is emitting primordial heat and thus is young. Thus, apparently, everything Velikovsky and you say is true, although you've already had to discard some amount of Velikovsky.
You're now saying that I can't claim to answer you unless I address those very albedo/IR flux data. That any claim to have answered you amounts to deliberate, shameful, blatant fraud.
Naah!
Your catastrophic version of events can't have happened. I answered you with links that address all your points and raise other issues, like Venus's thick crust. I never said I would bite on your micro-proof. That would amount to taking a distraction, lunging at the matador's cape.
I have specifically stated that I have never bought that little piece of the theory, and I do not know of anybody who does. Velikovsky claimed that insects MIGHT exist on Venus and the point is so miniscule that only a nitpicker's nitpicker would even mention it.
There is no specific evidence that Venus has a thick crust at all. Seismic readings would be needed to make such a claim and be honest about it. The claim is only made because some assume that a thick crust would be necessary to support the observed topography, while others have theorized that topography may simply be being thrown up faster than it can settle back in, due to the heat and subsurface energetics of the planet.
That's just ridiculous. You're saying the mountains are on thin crust but they're replenished by what amounts to vulcanism. They're basically riding on convection and bubbles?
The Russians put a lander on Venus. We have pictures. It's a rock and a hard place. And we know it isn't all that volcanic. You need something that makes Io look like the moon. Read over that link.
Then again, you don't have to read it. It's the stuff they hammered at you to no avail for a decade or so at TalkOrigins before you decided to come spam preach to us instead.
From: medved@access1.digex.net (Ted Holden)
Subject: Venus: Another piece of the big picture
Date: 6 Aug 1994 22:52:47 -0400[ ... ]
I claim that empirical evidence involving Venus is being doctored and falsified at every turn because it does not fit with scientists' pre-conceived ideas involving the age of our solar system, and because it does not match any of the logical requirements of Carl Sagan's "super-greenhouse" theory.
[ ... ]
Which is astonishing on the face of it, even aside from the clear statement by Taylor that the Pioneer Venus data is significantly more accurate than any prior measurement, and the clear implication that any and all past readings should simply be tossed.
Mr Holden's opinion is entirely based on these two critical points. The first point, that the data are being faked in order to avoid any possible agreement with Mr. Holden's own pre-conceived notions, is nothing more than a bald assertion. To ignore facts simply by claiming that the opposition are deliberate liars is really the last refuge of a scoundrel anyway, and I have no intention of addressing the matter, other than to assert with equal conviction that this claim is blatantly false.
The second, and far sneakier point, almost seems to make sense, and could easily trap the unwary. I will only mention in passing that if Taylor [F.W. Taylor, in chap. 20, Hunten, et al. (1983)] really had meant to imply that all data prior to PV should be "tossed out", then he could easily have said so more directly, or in fact, since he was the lead author of the paper in question, he could have simply done it. But he didn't do it, nor did he say it, nor did he imply it. We don't need Mr. Holden to tell us what Taylor "really" meant.
Obviously, this has been discussed many times before ...
This already creates a new problem, for, as Taylor himself pointed out all the way back in Hunten et al. (1983), so much heat transported through the crust should cause slumping in large topographic features. PV, and prior Earth based radar measurements, were not consistent with such an internal heat source. He also realized that to provide such heat through volcanism was inconsistent with our knowledge of volcanism on the Earth. This lead Taylor to openly reject the idea, long before Mr. Holden had come up with it (Hunten et al. (1983), P. 658).
[...]
Another constant claim is that the Magellan images show a "fresh, young" surface on Venus, and this supports the claim of "awesome" volcanism. This claim, however, also does not stand up to examination. Here, see for instance, Schaber et al. (1992). They mapped a database of 874 craters over 89% of the surface of Venus. The craters ranged from 1.5 to 280 kilometers in diameter, and are randomly distributed over the surface. Of these, 62% are pristine, and only 4% are embayed by lava flows. If Venus were subject to current "awesome" volcanism, or if it was even in the fairly recent past, it is hard to explain why only 4% of its surface craters would be embayed. See also Strom et al. (1994), and Bullock et al. (1993).
Mr. Holden derisively complains about scientists and their "resurfacing fairy", and insists that the obvious real explanation is a Velikovskian young Venus. However, this is seen to be just another bald assertion, once again unsupported by facts, or the reasonable interpretation of facts. The studies cited here clearly explain the logic and methods behind their determination of the age of the resurfaced areas, through cratering statistics. Anyone in doubt can read and judge for themselves.
In short, the surface features of Venus are all consistent with what one would expect to see on an old Venus. The tell-tale signs of a young Venus are not there. No help for the Velikovskian so far, but the worst is yet to come.
Now, you may not agree with what's been presented, but don't say your points haven't been addressed.
Gads! All those craters on a planet so young. And so little vulcanism to wipe them out!
Funny, the earth, moon, and Mars took their most massive hits 4 billion years ago when there was still a lot of loose debris from the formation of the solar system. You'd almost think Venus is an old, stony-crust planet with exactly the same kind of history.
Suppose Venus really were "young". Suppose it were molten only a few thousand years ago. What would it look like now? Probably about the same, molten. However, we know that Venus is not molten now, because our landers, and Soviet landers, have landed on a solid surface. Furthermore, we know from the extensive topographic relief long since verified by Earth- and spacecraft-based radar, that the crust of Venus is thick. It must be, anywhere from 30 to 70 km thick (Baisukov et al. (1992)), in order to support visible relief. Is it possible for Venus to cool so much, so rapidly, between then and now?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.