24
Relevance of demarcation Evolution v. Intelligent design Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience Christian Wüthrich http://philosophy.ucsd.edu/faculty/wuthrich/ 145 Philosophy of Science Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

(Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Christian Wüthrich

http://philosophy.ucsd.edu/faculty/wuthrich/

145 Philosophy of Science

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 2: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

The demarcation issue...

...attempts to define what distinguishes science fromnon-science and pseudoscience.

But why would this be an important issue (outside, say, ofphilosophy lectures)?

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 3: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

Demarcation criteria...

Martin Curd and J A Cover (eds.), Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, New York: W W Norton (1998).

...are necessary conditions which any discipline must satisfy inorder to qualify as science, and can thus be used to“differentiate science from its counterfeit: if a discipline fails tomeet one of these conditions, then it is judged to benonscientific.” (Curd and Cover, p. 2)

Challenge: define such a set of conditions which is neither toonarrow in that is excludes valuable science, nor too wide in thatit includes activities generally not considered scientific.

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 4: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

The case of parapsychology

Characterization (Parapsychology)

Study of extrasensory perception and paranormal powers suchas telekinesis (‘distant movement’), telepathy, clairvoyance, andprecognition.

In 1969, the American Association for the Advancement ofScience (AAAS) admitted the Parapsychological Association asaffiliate member.

⇒ ‘official recognition’ as science

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 5: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

John A Wheeler’s reaction:

“We have enough charlatanism in this country today withoutneeding a scientific organization to prostitute itself to it. TheAAAS has to make up its mind whether it is seeking popularityor whether it is strictly a scientific organization.”

(to the President of the AAAS in 1979)

The Parapsychological Association is still an affiliate member ofthe AAAS.

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 6: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

The case of alternative and complementary medicine

Characterization (Alternative medicine)“A catch-all phrase for a long list of treatments or medicinalsystems including traditional systems such as Chinese orAyurvedic medicine, homeopathy, various herbals and othermiscellaneous treatments that have not been accepted by themainstream, or Western, medical establishment.” Online Medical

Dictionary, published at the Dept. of Medical Oncology, University of Newcastle upon

Tyne, 3 January 2007

Characterization (Complementary medicine)Alternative medicine used in conjunction with conventionalmedical treatments.

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 7: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

Other famous and notorious cases

AstrologySigmund Freud’s psychoanalysisErich von Däniken’s (Chariots of the Gods?) theory ofextraterrestrial influence on human culture sinceprehistoric times (‘paleocontact’)Immanuel Velikovsky’s (Worlds in Collision) claimsaccording to which Earth has suffered catastrophicclose-encounters with other planets, even during recordedhistory

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 8: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

Relevance of demarcation issue

Distinguishing science from non- or pseudoscience matters invery tangible ways:

allocation of (public and private) resources such asresearch grants, positions in universities, access tofacilities of learning(science) curriculum in public schools

In philosophy of science, we don’t want to know so muchwhether particular traditions are considered scientific orpseudscientific, but rather why they are so considered.

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 9: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

Theory of evolution

Characterization (Theory of Evolution–roughly)

The basic mechanisms of the evolution of species are theindividual variation with respect to certain traits among themembers of a population, the heritability of these individualvariations from a member to its offspring, and the differentialselection of individuals based on the fitness of their individualtraits.

The fact that this is a theory (= set of hypotheses, usuallyabout natural phenomena) does not say anything about its truthor falsity. This issue is entirely separate.

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 10: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

Intelligent design

Characterization (Intelligent Design)

“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of theuniverse and of living things are best explained by an intelligentcause, not by an undirected process such as natural selection.”(Discovery Institute, http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php)

Essentially, intelligent design is a edited version of creationism with allreferences to the Book of Genesis, the Christian religion, God, etcremoved.

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 11: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

The Scopes trial (1925)

[Criminal Court of Tennessee]

13 March 1925: Butler Act passed in TN (prohibitsteaching of evolution in public schools in TN)prohibited to teach in public schools “any theory thatdenies the story in the Divine Creation of man as taught inthe Bible, and to teach instead that man has descendedfrom a lower order of animals”21 July 1925: high school teacher John T Scopes foundguilty of teaching evolution and finedcase later dismissed on technicality

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 12: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)

[Supreme Court of the United States]

in 1928, AR adopted law which prohibited any publicschool to teach evolutionno one ever prosecutedAR law was challenged in 1960sSupreme Court rules that AR law unconstitutional becauseit violated the Establishment Clause of the FirstAmendmentmajority of court held that a state is prohibited fromrequiring “that teaching and learning must be tailored to theprinciples of prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma”

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 13: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that:“Congress shall make no law respecting anestablishment of religion”

Together with the Free Exercise Clause, (“or prohibiting the freeexercise thereof”), these two clauses make up what arecommonly known as the ‘religion clauses’.

‘Separationist’ or ‘no aid’ interpretation: prohibition of establishmentof national religion

‘Non-preferentialist’ or ‘accommodationist’ interpretation: prohibitionof preference of one religion over others or of religionover non-religious philosophies in general

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 14: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

Daniel v. Waters (1975)

[US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals]

TN law requiring that evolution and creationism be given“equal time” in teaching in public schoolsCourt struck this law down as violation of EstablishmentClausesimilar verdict in McLean v. Arkansas (1982)

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 15: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

Hendren v. Campbell (1977)

[IN State Superior Court]

ruling that a particular creationist textbook could not beused in IN public schools“The question is whether a text obviously designed topresent only the view of Biblical Creationism in a favorablelight is constitutionally acceptable in the public schools ofIndiana. Two hundred years of constitutional governmentdemand that the answer be no.”

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 16: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)

[Supreme Court of the United States]

at stake: LA law requiring that creation science [sic] betaught in public schools whenever evolution was taught(‘Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science andEvolution-Science in Public Schools Instructional Act’)ruling: teaching creationism in public schools isunconstitutional because it attempts to advance aparticular religionhowever, the ruling also stated that “teaching a variety ofscientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intentof enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.”

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 17: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)

[US District Court for the Middle District of PA]

first direct challenge in federal courts against a publicschool district that required the presentation of ‘intelligentdesign’ as an alternative to evolution as an “explanation ofthe origin of life”plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is aform of creationism, and that the school board policy thusviolates the Establishment Clause

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 18: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982)

[US District Court for the Eastern District of AR]

Arkansas Act 590: requires teachers in public schools togive a “balanced treatment” to both evolutionary theoryand creationism in biology classesin fact, it stipulated that if evolution is taught, thencreationism is to be given equal timeruling: Act is unconstitutionaldefendants did not appeal decision

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 19: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

Judge William Overton’s Opinion I

US Supreme Court’s interpretation of Establishment Clausehas evolved into three-part test of which each condition mustbe satisfied for the constitutionality of any legislation involvingreligion, applied by Overton:

“statute must have a secular purpose”“its principal or primary effect must be one that neitheradvances nor inhibits religion”“statute must not foster ‘an excessive governmententanglement with religion’ ”

William R Overton, “Opinion in McLean v. Arkansas,” Science, Technology, and Human Values 7(1982): 29.

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 20: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

Ruse: ‘Creation-Science Is Not Science’

Characterization of science:

you know it when you see it [?]“empirical enterprise about the real world of sensation”“involves a search for order... for unbroken, blind, naturalregularities (laws)”“involves the use of law to effect explanation”predictiontestability (confirmation v. refutation/falsification)science is tentative, revisableother features include: simplicity, unificationoften presupposes attitude of professional integrity

Verdict: creation-science has none of these features

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 21: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

Sir Karl Popper (1902-1994)

falsifiability as criterion ofdemarcationtoo weak: would allow any numberof claims that are testable inprincipletoo strong: rules out many goodscientific theories in history ofscienceKuhn, Lakatos et al: historical andsocial dimension to judgmentsconcerning scientific status

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 22: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

Judge William Overton’s Opinion II

Characterization of science:

is guided by natural lawhas to be explanatory by reference to natural lawis testable against the empirical worldits conclusions are tentativeis falsifiable

Verdict: creation-science has none of these features

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 23: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

Laudan: ‘Commentary’

Creationism does make testifiable and falsifiable (andfalsified) assertionsCreationism has revised its assertions, e.g. regarding thevariability of speciesattitude of advocates irrelevantlawfulness of observed criteria not necessary condition[but I oppose his argument]“If we set very weak standards for scientific status [such astestability, revisability etc] then it will be quite simple forCreationism to qualify as ‘scientific’.”“the real question is whether the existing evidenceprovides stronger arguments for evolutionary theory thanfor Creationism.”

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2

Page 24: (Lect02) - Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience

Relevance of demarcationEvolution v. Intelligent design

Ruse: ‘Response to the Commentary’

Constitution does not bar teaching of weak science, butonly of religionrobust core beliefs of creationism are not the testifiable andrevisable assertions discussed by Laudanlawfulness and explanatory strength important, althoughtrue that not all of science always follows this preceptscience, insofar as it is science, must seek lawfulregularities in natural phenomena

Christian Wüthrich Topic 2