There’s a bit of argument at the moment about the nature of science as presented in the draft Australian curriculum for senior sciences. Professor John Rice, executive director of the Australian Council of Deans of Science, is very critical. In an interview on ABC radio, he makes these points:
They make out that scientific knowledge arises as a consensus amongst scientists and in fact in some formulations of that, it goes so far as to make people think that it’s possibly simply the fantasies of a bunch of scientists.
And it’s certainly not that.What people need to look at is the way in which scientists dispute with each other and what it is that they’re arguing about. They go by empirical evidence, and if there’s any going to be any debates or any discussions, it’s simply about the quality of that empirical evidence and the sorts of inferences that you can draw from it. Read more…
The Sydney Morning Herald has a great editorial today: Science gets a chance to show the way.
Using the confirmation of the existence of the Higgs boson as a hook, it makes some very commendable points: Read more…
 |
The rooster crows and the sun rises: cause and effect, or red flag? |
How to recognise this tactic
This is the natural human tendency to assume that, if two events or phenomena consistently occur at about the same time, then one is the cause of the other. Hence “rooster syndrome”, from the rooster who believed that his crowing caused the sun to rise.
The invalid assumption that correlation implies cause is probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning.
Stephen Jay Gould, American evolutionary biologist and author, 1981
I set up ScienceOrNot to try to make some contribution in the fight against scientific ignorance. I think it’s important that people should be able to detect bogus science in their everyday lives so that they are not misled. So when someone who is wealthy and influential enough to affect all the lives of us falls for the tactics of deniers, it’s particularly worrying.
Gina Rinehart, apparently the world’s richest woman, appeared on the ABC’s Four Corners program this week. Subsequently, the ABC published her answers to questions that were not addressed during the program. Here are the questions on climate change, with answers supplied on Mrs Rinehart’s behalf by Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd: Read more…
Just to ensure there isn’t a complete absence of posts in June – a quick update.
My ‘project’ for the month has been a road trip via outback Queensland to the Northern Territory: the dinosaur stampede footprints at Lark Quarry; Kakadu National Park; several days digging up and retrieving abandoned fishing nets on the beaches of the Cobourg Peninsula (with Conservation Volunteers Australia – highly recommended, especially since the accommodation is at Seven Spirit Bay Resort); a few days as guests of a community in Arnhem Land; drifting along hot springs at Mataranka; hundreds of thousands of water birds (brolgas, jabirus, pelicans, cormorants, grebes, ducks etc) at a waterhole near Elliott.
But tonight, we are camped by the Jordan River at Jericho (would you believe), in the Central Highlands of Queensland. And the remarkable thing about Jericho is that all of its streets are named after scientists. Now Jericho was founded in the mid 1880s, and it’s interesting to reflect on the scientists who must have been regarded as influential at the time. These are the street names, all nine of them:
Darwin (the main street), Pasteur, Tyndall, Davy, Huxley, Edison, Faraday, Bessemer, Lyon
I have to admit that Lyon has me stumped. Does anyone have any clues?
I’ll be taking a short break from blogging for the month of June, while I’m engaged in a time-consuming project. There are likely to be very few posts, or even none at all in that period. But stay tuned, all will be back to normal by early July. I’ll be using the time to reorganize and refresh. If you’re new to the site, may I suggest checking out the Hallmarks of Science and Science Red Flags pages to get the flavour.
|
If someone argues using lots of scientific terms, would it convince you, or is that a red flag? |
How to recognise this tactic
In this tactic, people use invented terms that sound “sciencey” or co-opt real science terms and apply them incorrectly.
 |
James Clerk Maxwell, British physicist, 1871 |
… Des Moore, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald. Would you believe an amazing nine PRATT count in one short article! How much longer can the media continue to print catalogues of untruths like this one.
Here’s his article, with the PRATT marked. Check the table below for links to Skeptical Science, where they can be debunked for a thousand and one-th time. Read more…
 |
If a remedy for your problem has been around for a long time, will it work, or is that a red flag? |
How to recognise this tactic
People who use this tactic try to persuade you that a certain explanation, treatment or model must be correct because it’s been around for a long time.
I don’t go in for ancient wisdom
I don’t believe just ‘cos ideas are tenacious it means they are worthy
Tim Minchin, Australian-British comedian/musician, 2009
Here’s an example of the unscrupulous use of cherry picking to demonise climate scientists.
There’s a program on ABC radio called Counterpoint, run by Michael Duffy and Paul Comrie-Thomson, both climate skeptics. In this afternoon’s program, a short segment near the beginning, unrelated to any of the topics in the rest of the program, was used to belittle climate scientists. You can listen to the program here, or here’s a transcript: Read more…
Science or not? 