So, how do we draw the line between science and pseudoscience?

Against ID For ID0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Number of students for and against Intelligent Design, before and after the debate

BeforeAfter

Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

sSelf confirming belief system?

Happiness research is a great example of why psychology isn't science. How exactly should "happiness" be defined? The meaning of that word differs from person to person and especially between cultures. What makes Americans happy doesn't necessarily make Chinese people happy. How does one measure happiness? Psychologists can't use a ruler or a microscope, so they invent an arbitrary scale. Today, personally, I'm feeling about a 3.7 out of 5. How about you?

To do

• Read Karl Popper’s Conjectures and Refutations on the website. As you read the article, think critically about whether you agree with Popper.

• On your poster: – Develop a criteria for ‘what is science’ and ‘what is

not science.’ Include at least 6 descriptions for each.– Answer the following question: Should there be a

criteria for science/non science? Why or why not?

Science vs. Pseudoscience

Critique

• Critique another group’s criteria for science/pseudoscience. After the critique, develop a new criteria for science/pseudoscience.

• In 10 minutes, you will join with another group. As a new group, develop a new criteria for science/pseudoscience.

• At the end of the discussion, post your main ideas of what makes science on the board.

Karl Popper & The problem of demarcation

• Karl Popper: Austrian-British philosopher and professor at the LSE (1902 – 1994)

• The problem of demarcation: How do you distinguish between science and pseudoscience?

Popper main arguments• Science is often suggested as having

an empirical method, which is inductive, stemming from observation

• Pseudoscience– Marx’s theory of history: society is

driven by material conditions– Freud’s psycho analysis: human

attitude driven by irrational choices– Alfred Adler’s individual psychology:

societal, love-oriented, vocational

• Problem: the theories were always confirmed

Popper main arguments

• It is easy to obtain confirmations if we look for it.• Confirmations should count only if they are the

result of risky predictions.

“Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability.”

Popper main arguments

• Problem of induction: we cannot be sure that a law/theory is true no matter how many confirming observations we make– Law: “All metals expand when heated”

• But if we find one metal that does not expand when heated then we can falsify the law.

• Therefore, confirmation is tentative and refutation is decisive.

“Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability.”

Criticisms of Popper• Falsification is conclusive in theory but not in practice– E.g. Mendeleyev & periodic table: arrangement according

to atomic weights– E.g. Darwin & natural selection

• Scientific theories cannot be conclusively falsified because it is up to you to reject the observation rather the theory.

"Science does not rest upon solid bedrock. The bold structure of its theories rises, as it were, above a swamp. It is like a building erected on piles. The piles are driven down from above into the swamp, but not down to any natural or ‘given’ base; and if we stop driving the piles deeper, it is not because we have reached firm ground. We simply stop when we are satisfied that the piles are firm enough to carry the structure, at least for the time being.“

Karl Popper

Religion versus Science?

“I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.”

Albert Einstein

Through the wormholeIs there a creator?

Questions• What/Who is God? • Do you agree with the various forms of the

creator as discussed in the documentary? Why or why not?

• Are science and religion compatible?