The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Containing His Articles, Observations, Thoughts, Meanderings,
and some would say Wisdom (and some would say not).

Intelligent Life, UFOs, and Pseudoscience

1. Introduction
2. Pseudoscience
   1. Pseudoscience
   2. Identification
   3. Anecdotal approach
3. Common Pseudosciences
   1. Is There Intelligent Life Out There?
   2. Unidentified Flying Objects
   3. Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Nessie and other Shadowy Creatures
   4. Spirits
   5. Parapsychology
4. Final Thoughts
5. Further Readings
6. Disclaimer

Introduction

This article is about the beliefs that many people have about scientific curiosities but are not based on actual science. I am a skeptic on such matters, but I am willing to accept scientific evidence and change my opinions. However, the absence of proof does not constitute proof of absence, and no scientific evidence constitutes no science. Until there is scientific evidence I will not believe that anything is scientific. Some of the more obvious of these claims are presented, and dissected, in this article. This is only a limited sample as there are so many that you need, and can obtain, many books that debunk these claims. My only objective with this article is for you to remain skeptical of these claims until scientific proof is obtained.

I should point out that I am NOT an engineer, nor have I received any education or training in the engineering. This paper is the result of my readings on this subject in the past decades. Many academics and engineers would critique what I have written here as not accurate nor through. I freely acknowledge that these critiques are correct. It was not my intentions to be accurate or through, as I am not qualified to give an accurate nor through description. My intention was to be understandable to a layperson so that they can grasp the concepts. Academics and engineers’ entire education and training is based on accuracy and thoroughness, and as such, they strive for this accuracy and thoroughness. When writing for the general public this accuracy and thoroughness can often lead to less understandability. I believe it is essential for all laypersons to grasp the concepts of engineering, so they make more informed decisions on those areas of human endeavors that deal with engineering, and technology. As such, I did not strive for accuracy and thoroughness, only understandability.

Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories. The term pseudoscience is considered pejorative because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Those described as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.

The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications. Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education. Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs, such as those found in astrology, alchemy, medical quackery, occult beliefs, and creation science, is part of science education and scientific literacy.

Pseudoscience can have dangerous effects. For example, pseudoscientific anti-vaccine activism and promotion of homeopathic remedies as alternative disease treatments can result in people forgoing important medical treatments with demonstrable health benefits, leading to deaths and ill-health.[8][9][10] Furthermore, people who refuse legitimate medical treatments for contagious diseases may put others at risk. Pseudoscientific theories about racial and ethnic classifications have led to racism and genocide.

The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative, particularly by purveyors of it, because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Therefore, those practicing or advocating pseudoscience frequently dispute the characterization.

Identification

A topic, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be termed pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.

Karl Popper stated it is insufficient to distinguish science from pseudoscience, or from metaphysics (such as the philosophical question of what existence means), by the criterion of rigorous adherence to the empirical method, which is essentially inductive, based on observation or experimentation. He proposed a method to distinguish between genuine empirical, nonempirical or even pseudoempirical methods. The latter case was exemplified by astrology, which appeals to observation and experimentation. While it had astonishing empirical evidence based on observation, on horoscopes and biographies, it crucially failed to use acceptable scientific standards. Popper proposed falsifiability as an important criterion in distinguishing science from pseudoscience.

To demonstrate this point, Popper gave two cases of human behavior and typical explanations from Sigmund Freud and Alfred Adler's theories: "that of a man who pushes a child into the water with the intention of drowning it; and that of a man who sacrifices his life in an attempt to save the child." From Freud's perspective, the first man would have suffered from psychological repression, probably originating from an Oedipus complex, whereas the second man had attained sublimation. From Adler's perspective, the first and second man suffered from feelings of inferiority and had to prove himself, which drove him to commit the crime or, in the second case, drove him to rescue the child. Popper was not able to find any counterexamples of human behavior in which the behavior could not be explained in the terms of Adler's or Freud's theory. Popper argued it was that the observation always fitted or confirmed the theory which, rather than being its strength, was actually its weakness.

In contrast, Popper gave the example of Einstein's gravitational theory, which predicted "light must be attracted by heavy bodies (such as the Sun), precisely as material bodies were attracted." Following from this, stars closer to the Sun would appear to have moved a small distance away from the Sun, and away from each other. This prediction was particularly striking to Popper because it involved considerable risk. The brightness of the Sun prevented this effect from being observed under normal circumstances, so photographs had to be taken during an eclipse and compared to photographs taken at night. Popper states, "If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted."[34] Popper summed up his criterion for the scientific status of a theory as depending on its falsifiability, refutability, or testability.

Paul R. Thagard used astrology as a case study to distinguish science from pseudoscience and proposed principles and criteria to delineate them. First, astrology has not progressed in that it has not been updated nor added any explanatory power since Ptolemy. Second, it has ignored outstanding problems such as the precession of equinoxes in astronomy. Third, alternative theories of personality and behavior have grown progressively to encompass explanations of phenomena which astrology statically attributes to heavenly forces. Fourth, astrologers have remained uninterested in furthering the theory to deal with outstanding problems or in critically evaluating the theory in relation to other theories. Thagard intended this criterion to be extended to areas other than astrology. He believed it would delineate as pseudoscientific such practices as witchcraft and pyramidology, while leaving physics, chemistry and biology in the realm of science. Biorhythms, which like astrology relied uncritically on birth dates, did not meet the criterion of pseudoscience at the time because there were no alternative explanations for the same observations. The use of this criterion has the consequence that a theory can be scientific at one time and pseudoscientific at a later time.

Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing.[36][37] The most notable disputes concern the evolution of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, and the origin of the universe.[38] Systems of belief that derive from divine or inspired knowledge are not considered pseudoscience if they do not claim either to be scientific or to overturn well-established science. Moreover, some specific religious claims, such as the power of intercessory prayer to heal the sick, although they may be based on untestable beliefs, can be tested by the scientific method.

Some statements and common beliefs of popular science may not meet the criteria of science. "Pop" science may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction. Indeed, pop science is disseminated to, and can also easily emanate from, persons not accountable to scientific methodology and expert peer review.

If the claims of a given field can be tested experimentally and standards are upheld, it is not pseudoscience, however odd, astonishing, or counterintuitive the claims are. If claims made are inconsistent with existing experimental results or established theory, but the method is sound, caution should be used, since science consists of testing hypotheses which may turn out to be false. In such a case, the work may be better described as ideas that are "not yet generally accepted". Protoscience is a term sometimes used to describe a hypothesis that has not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method, but which is otherwise consistent with existing science or which, where inconsistent, offers reasonable account of the inconsistency. It may also describe the transition from a body of practical knowledge into a scientific field.

Pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. Any of various methods, theories, or systems, such as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance, is considered as having no scientific basis.

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.

Pseudoscience is often characterized by the following: contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims; over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts in the field; and absence of systematic practices when rationally developing theories. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative because it suggests something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.

Science is distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing. Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science. "Pop science" may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public and may also involve science fiction. Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among science teachers and newspaper editors.

The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications. Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert (both legal and legislative) testimony, environmental policies, and science education. Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, alchemy, medical quackery, occult beliefs, and creation science combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.

Anecdotal approach

Anecdotes - A short, interesting or amusing account of a (supposedly) real incident (especially a biographical one) is the basis for most, if not all, UFO’s and Pseudoscience claims. But anecdotes are NOT science. Science is based on (controlled) observations and experiments, and theories must have predictability and falsifiability (see my article on The Nature of Scientific Inquiry). Anecdotes have none of these attributes. Anecdotes may cause a scientist to investigate a phenomenon, but that is just a start of the scientific method. When someone claims something is true based on anecdotes they are not being scientific, and they are most likely wrong.

Common Pseudosciences

Is There Intelligent Life Out There?

I was beginning to add additional information to this section when I realized that it needed a separate Science Article to contain all my thoughts. Therefore, I have extracted this section and created a new article on this subject "Intelligent Life in the Universe".

I would encourage you to read this article as this issue is not as simple as it appears at first glance. However, I would remind you what a famous science fiction writer once said about Intelligent Life in the Universe:

“Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the idea is quite staggering.” - Arthur C. Clarke

Unidentified Flying Objects

As to Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO’s) being visitors from outer space, you must remember the first word of UFO’s – unidentified. Many, if not most, UFO’s can be explained if the observer had more scientific knowledge to help in the identification of the object. I myself have experienced two UFO sightings in my life.

The first was while I was in charge of the Franklin Institutes observatory as a young man. At the end of a warm autumn day, I looked across the rooftop in an easterly direction to Camden, NJ. The Sun was low on my back and I notice that over Camden there was a bright light that was moving erratically and very fast. I pointed this out to some visitors to the observatory and they too noticed this effect. As the telescope could not point this low in the sky I and the visitors were only able to observe it visually. One visitor speculated that it may be a UFO. Not believing in UFO’s I discounted this idea. Upon arriving home I turned on the local news and discovered that the Goodyear Blimp was flying over Camden in anticipation of televising the evenings Eagles Monday Night Football game. It was then that I was able to identify this UFO. As the Sun was on my back it was the Goodyear Blimps sunlight reflection was mostly downward which increased its brightness. And as it was a warm autumn day there was considerable air turbulence over Camden and the Delaware River. This turbulence caused the light to refract back and forth as the Goodyear Blimp rotated in the sky. My UFO was the Goodyear Blimp behaving according to the scientific law of optics and atmospherics.

The second of my UFO sighting was a few years ago when I was reading a book on my second-floor deck one nice summer afternoon. I paused from my reading and looked into the sky in the direction of the midafternoon sun. To my surprise, I saw a faraway bright flashing light proceeding from the north to the south at a rapid rate. This was especially curious as the wisps of clouds behind the light were proceeding at a brisk rate from the south to the north. I visually observed this for about two minutes then went inside and grabbed my binoculars for a closer look. Upon observing this object in the binoculars, I was able to determine that it had a dark underside and a bright topside. Upon a more careful observation, I was able to determine that the object was wobbling. It then dawned on me what I was observing. The object was, in fact, a small balloon (the party kind) with a bright side and a dark side. The dark side was downward pointing, as it was probably heavier than the bright side, and the light from the bright side was reflecting from the sun and varying as the balloon wobbled. The balloon was also not very far distance but only appeared so because my mind was framing it against the faraway clouds. I then noticed some trailing clouds behind the balloon that were traveling from north to south at a brisk rate. I realized that there were two air currents, a closer north to south current, and a further south to north current, which also led to my initial misperception. My UFO was a balloon behaving according to the scientific law of optics and atmospherics.

In both of my UFO sightings, because I was an amateur astronomer with knowledge of optics and atmospherics, I was able to make the initial Unidentified Object an Identified Object. A person without this knowledge could have easily decided they had spotted a UFO.

Some UFO sighting has been made by scientifically literate persons and are unexplainable. However, in those cases, you must remember the “The Limits of Human Knowledge”. The first thing to keep in mind when dealing with any scientific or engineering subject is that it is very important to remember three things about the limitations of human knowledge:

1. That we know what we know, and we need to be sure that what we know is correct.
2. That we know what we don't know, and that allowances are made for what we don’t know.
3. That we don't know that we don't know, which cannot be allowed for as it is totally unknown.

The limits of human knowledge are expanding, but there is much more that we don’t know then there is what we do know.  Indeed, even when we know what we know, what we know may be incorrect. What we know that that we don’t know always leads to ambiguity, mistakes and false conclusions. That which we don't know that we don't know is the killer in any scientific or engineering endeavor. Always be cognizant of these three items when dealing with any scientific or engineering subject.

For those UFO sighting that cannot be identified, I believe the most likely explanation is because of The Limits of Human Knowledge. I, therefore, give no countenance to the possibility of UFO’s being visitors from other worlds but more likely Unidentified Objects based on the limited scientific knowledge of the observer(s), or The Limits of Human Knowledge.

You must also keep in mind the immense costs and difficulties in traveling from one star system to another. These costs and difficulties are more fully explained in my article "Science vs. Science-Fiction" and I would encourage you to read this article. For an alien civilization to overcome these costs and difficulties and travel to our planet there must be a good, solid, and economic reason to do so. What possible reason would they have to incur these costs and difficulties and then remain elusive to us. I cannot think of a single reason to do so and I am, therefore, very doubtful that this is happening.

Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Nessie and other Shadowy Creatures

We all thrill to stories of the discovery or sighting of unknown creatures. The excitement, the wonder, and the thrill of these discoveries appeal to our very real human curiosity. While unknown creature discoveries happen in science they come with scientific proof and explanations.  Sightings of unknown creatures, however, usually (if not always) come without scientific proof and explanations. You must approach these sightings with a skeptical mind, and utilize some scientific common sense when analyzing the claims of creature sightings. I, therefore, can scientifically speculate on creature sightings.

Most of the creature sightings are animals distinguished by their larger size (over five feet high or long), and over a long period of time (greater than 50 years). Scientifically we know that animals of larger size have a shorter lifespan, usually 20 to 40 years. If these sightings are over 50 years old we can reasonably say that they cannot be the same individual creature that was sighted over time. Therefore, we are speaking of multiple generations of these creatures. This implies that we have male, female, and children of these creatures. This also implies that there must be at least a small group of these creatures that are breeding. If you have a small group of creatures you will have a greater number of sightings, and a larger amount of physical evidence of the group.

This physical evidence would be in the form of the natural material the creature consumes to sustain its existence. This material would be co-located in the area of the creature sighting. If the creature is a carnivore there should be carcass remains of its food; if the creature is a herbivore there should be evidence of large quantities of vegetation consumed, and if the creature is an omnivore you should be able to detect carcasses and vegetation consumption. As all creatures need to excrement unused consumptive material there should be a large amount of fecal matter and urinary liquids in the area of the sighting.

As the supporters of creature sightings have not shown any of the above, you can reasonably conclude that the creature sighting is something other than an unknown creature.

Spirits

Spirits give us the hope and comfort for an existence beyond the grave. They provide comfort for the grieving loved ones of those recently departed. And they were a factor in the development of religion. Many have claimed to have seen ghosts or experienced ghostly activities. Yet no one has provided any solid evidence to the existence of spirits. Anecdotal stories are not evidence. Even I have a personal anecdotal story about a ghost. My departed mother-in-law had three sisters who she was very close with. One, in particular, Aunt Bitsy, was especially close, as they had both helped raise the other two sisters when they lost both of their parents. Later in life, Aunt Bitsy became very ill and there was concern that she would not recover and pass away. My mother-in-law telephoned her or her husband every day to find out how she was doing. One day my wife and I went to visit my in-laws who, as it turns out, were not at home. My wife used her key to get into the house for us to await their return. While we were waiting the phone rang and my wife answered. It was Aunt Bitsy husband calling to inform us that Aunt Bitsy has passed away the previous night an hour before midnight. My wife and I were dreading telling my mother-in-law this sad news as we knew how terribly upset she would be. Shortly after the phone call, my in-laws arrived home and before we could tell my mother-in-law the bad news she started telling us a story. She informed us that she had a dream in which Aunt Bitsy stood at the bottom of her bed and spoke to her, telling her that everything was alright, and she was just fine. The dream was so vivid that my mother-in-law woke up and noticed that the time was 11:00 PM. My mother-in-law was anxious to call Aunt Bitsy to talk to her about her dream. It was at this point that we informed her of Aunt Bitsy death at about 11:00 PM the previous night. My mother-in-law became convinced that Aunt Bitsy’s spirit had visited her after she died to comfort her. Does this experience prove the existence of spirits? No – it may have been a coincidence or maybe her fears from the previous day's conversation with Aunt Bitsy husband may have alarmed her leading to a restless sleep and vivid dream. There could be other, unknown, reasons why this occurred. We will probably never know why people have seen ghosts or experienced ghostly activities. It may just be one of the mysteries of human life.

Parapsychology

Parapsychology is the study of paranormal and psychic phenomena which include telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, near-death experiences, reincarnation, apparitional experiences, and other paranormal claims. It is identified as pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists.

Mind over matter, the use of willpower to overcome physical limitations, has been a dream throughout the history of humanity. These ideas also invoke a sense of wonder and curiosity amongst us. Who of us doesn't wish that we had the capability of controlling are environment utilizing these methods? Yet there is no scientific evidence for any of these claims, and there probably will never be scientific evidence for these claims. This is because we live in a universe of Fundamental Properties (see my article on this subject). For parapsychology to be real it would have to violate one or more fundamental properties of the universe, which would invalidate all modern science. I, therefore, give no scientific credence to Parapsychology.

Final Thoughts

Paranormal Is Not Normal

For anyone wishing to expose these claims, it must be remembered that a person who is making a claim bears the responsibility of proving their claim. The burden is not upon others to disprove a claim. This proof must also be based on solid evidence and scientifically rigorous methods. Otherwise, you may discount the claim.

We live in a universe of physical properties and physical laws that cannot be violated. Pseudoscience claims would violate these Physical Properties and Physical Laws, and all of science as we know it would have to be overturned if Pseudoscience claims were true (not bloody likely). I would suggest that you leave the Pseudoscience claims to fiction - books, movies, television, games, etc. and enjoy them as flights of fantasy. Pseudoscience has no place in reality or in science!

There are many other Pseudoscience claims that are too numerous for this observation. One of the best books to reference Pseudoscience and its claims is "The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, And Dangerous Delusions" by Robert Todd Carroll.

Further Readings

Below are the books I would recommend that you read for more background information on these subjects. They were chosen as they are a fairly easy read for the general public and have a minimum of mathematics.

• The Skeptics' Dictionary by Robert Todd Carroll
• The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe by Dr. Steven Novella

Some interesting website with general scientific topics are:

• Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist
• Ask the Physicist!
• Physics and Astronomy Ask the Experts
• The Skeptic's Dictionary
• Understanding Science – how science really works

Disclaimer

Please Note - many academics, scientist and engineers would critique what I have written here as not accurate nor through. I freely acknowledge that these critiques are correct. It was not my intentions to be accurate or through, as I am not qualified to give an accurate nor through description. My intention was to be understandable to a layperson so that they can grasp the concepts. Academics, scientists, and engineers entire education and training is based on accuracy and thoroughness, and as such, they strive for this accuracy and thoroughness. I believe it is essential for all laypersons to grasp the concepts of this paper, so they make more informed decisions on those areas of human endeavors that deal with this subject. As such, I did not strive for accuracy and thoroughness, only understandability.

Most academics, scientist, and engineers when speaking or writing for the general public (and many science writers as well) strive to be understandable to the general public. However, they often fall short on the understandability because of their commitment to accuracy and thoroughness, as well as some audience awareness factors. Their two biggest problems are accuracy and the audience knowledge of the topic.

Accuracy is a problem because academics, scientist, engineers and science writers are loath to be inaccurate. This is because they want the audience to obtain the correct information, and the possible negative repercussions amongst their colleagues and the scientific community at large if they are inaccurate. However, because modern science is complex this accuracy can, and often, leads to confusion amongst the audience.

The audience knowledge of the topic is important as most modern science is complex, with its own words, terminology, and basic concepts the audience is unfamiliar with, or they misinterpret. The audience becomes confused (even while smiling and lauding the academics, scientists, engineers or science writer), and the audience does not achieve understandability. Many times, the academics, scientists, engineers or science writer utilizes the scientific disciplines own words, terminology, and basic concepts without realizing the audience misinterpretations, or has no comprehension of these items.

It is for this reason that I place understandability as the highest priority in my writing, and I am willing to sacrifice accuracy and thoroughness to achieve understandability. There are many books, websites, and videos available that are more accurate and through. The subchapter on “Further Readings” also contains books on various subjects that can provide more accurate and thorough information. I leave it to the reader to decide if they want more accurate or through information and to seek out these books, websites, and videos for this information.