"Junk" Science LO21485

John Gunkler (jgunkler@sprintmail.com)
Tue, 4 May 1999 12:58:25 -0500

I sometimes get quite upset at scientific errors perpetrated on the
readers of this list, but I don't always respond because (1) I don't
always have time, (2) it might seem like "tyranny of the experts" (to
quote one of the most frequent error perpetrators), and (3) I worry that
you may tune me out when I write other contributions because you perceive
me to be too "picky" or "prickly." But I am concerned when we don't
check out what others claim as truth (or as science); I am concerned when
being "skeptical" (which I was taught was the very foundation of the
scientific method) is considered ill-mannered; and I am concerned when I
read something that sounds plausible but which I don't have the background
to check out for myself ... am I being led down a primrose path? is the
author building a case on shifting sand?

I learned, in studying logic at the university, that one can prove any
(that's ANY) proposition if one starts from false premises. Yet we
continue to allow people, in the news media, in entertainment, even in
scientific journals, and certainly on this list to build the appearance of
logical inference on untested assumptions and sometimes outright false
premises. Yet people seem unable or unwilling to reason any more. One
example:

A freshman at Eagle Rock High School won first place in the Greater Idaho
Falls Science Fair for demonstrating part of this inability-to-reason
problem (he called it "gullibility.") He asked 50 people to sign a
petition demanding strict control or total elimination of the chemical
"dihydrogen monoxide." The student provided many reasons for the ban:

1. It can cause excessive sweating and vomiting.
2. It is a major component of acid rain.
3. It can cause severe burns in its gaseous state.
4. Accidental inhalation can kill you.
5. It contributes to erosion.
6. It decreases the effectiveness of automobile brakes.
7. It has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Of the 50 people asked, 43 supported banning the chemical, 6 were
undecided ... only one knew that the chemical was water. [Source: The
Coos County Democrat (a New Hampshire newspaper), quoting Terry Downs of
Twin Falls, Idaho.]

I once heard a speaker/consultant tell an audience, "I am in the business
of stamping out stupidity. But I spent all of last week in California and
discovered, much to my horror, that it was gaining on me!"

I fear it is gaining on all of us. How can we help create learning
organizations when individuals have lost the ability to reason? Isn't
reasoning (testing assumptions, detecting logical fallacies, following an
inference) a prerequisite skill for sophisticated, non-tacit learning?
It's no wonder, when people simply accept whatever is told them, that soon
they find they can't think clearly about anything -- so they decide, and
I've heard many people say this, that they can believe whatever they
choose to believe (and, by the way, don't ask them to justify anything,
because they don't have to.)

I plead with everyone here, please look skeptically at everything being
presented on this list as a "fact" or logical conclusion or "empirical
evidence" or scientific truth. And please, please help me protect my
backside from the onslaught of my own ignorance by having the courage to
point out errors or inconsistencies -- including, especially, my own. Do
so in your usual polite, helping fashion -- but please do so. All I ask
is that your comments be relevant to the topic being discussed.

Thanks very much.

-- 

"John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>