Even Scientists Can Be Unscientific

"I was asked to write an article addressing the question of whether some research in physics has become too speculative. I did as I was asked, and all seemed fine, until someone on the editorial board of the magazine decided that physicists would be too upset about what I wrote."

Sabine does it again: exposes the human frailty of some fellow physicists, Click on the link below for the details:

Can Physics Be Too Speculative? An Honest Opinion.

Intelligent Design And Science

"Intelligent design (ID), according to the Discovery Institute, is defined as follows:

• “Intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

"The primary scientific criticism of ID is that it is not a legitimate scientific theory, but rather a transparent attempt at recasting religious faith (creationism) in scientific-sounding jargon. But ID lacks the minimal criteria to be considered science. ID proponents, of course, reject this argument because the entire purpose of ID is to masquerade creationism as a scientific theory.

"Much of the discussion on this question focuses on the specific point of whether or not ID can be falsified – can it theoretically be proven false by scientific evidence. ID proponents say yes, scientists generally say no."

Click on the link below for an analysis of this topic:

Is Intelligent Design Falsifiable?

Why scientists dismiss "Intelligent Design"

https://www.amazon.com/Not-Very-Intelligent-Design-intelligent-ebook/dp/B07C13NV5M

All Claims By Christian Apologists Have Been Falsified Or Are Unfalsifiable

Falsified: found not true or correct (link).

Unfalsifiable: not able to be proven false, but not necessarily true (link). Unable to be studied by scientific methods, thus, "We don't know" is the appropriate response.

• "We can consider the existence of god to be a scientific hypothesis and look for the empirical evidence that would follow. Many of the attributes associated with the Judaic-Christian-Islamic God have specific consequences that can be tested empirically. Such a God is supposed to play a central role in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans. As a result, evidence for him should be readily detectable by scientific means." ~ Victor Stenger (The God Hypothesis)

Below are examples of claims by Christian apologists that have not been accepted by science, the best method to understand objective reality (link):

• Science shows that there was no "Original Sin" (link),
• Science shows that the mind is very probably only a function of the brain and that there probably is no independent "soul."  It has been falsified several times by several branches of science.  The mind emerged from the brain, a common occurrence in nature (i.e. water from hydrogen and oxygen, an ant colony from individual ants, etc.). 
• Science shows that the common, layperson concept of "free will" is probably an illusion (link, link, link).
• No studies have supported the existence of miracles. Mark 16:18 has been falsified. One prominent apologist offered one source as the "Best" support for miracles but clearly, it is debunked.
• There is no evidence that prayer has any effect on natural occurrences. (link)
• There is no evidence of life after death. 
• There is compelling evidence that sex/gender are not binary (link) (link) (link) (link) and that same-sex parenting is not a negative factor on children (link). Also, homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom (link). Oh, by the way, pornography is not harmful, and "shacking up" before marriage does not seem to be related to marital stability. 
• Science (especially neuroscience and psychology) has studied religious experiences and can explain them through natural mechanisms. And, no, they are not signs of a need requiring satisfaction by something real (link). Oh, and a study of the history of religion points to Christianity's fallacy of special pleading (link)(link). 
• The New Testament lacks primary sources and is untrustworthy as a historical document (link)(link).
• All logical syllogisms offered in support of Christianity have at least one premise for which there is no evidence. (link).

Science VS Pseudoscience

"The early 1900s was an amazing time for Western science, as Albert Einstein was developing his theories of relativity and psychology was born, as Sigmund Freud and psychoanalysis took over the scientific mainstream. Karl Popper observed these developments firsthand and came to draw a distinction between what he referred to as science and pseudoscience, which might best be summarized as science disconfirms, while pseudoscience confirms. While the way we describe these disciplines has changed in the intervening years, Popper’s ideas speak to the heart of how we arrive at knowledge."

• "The traditional understanding of the Scientific Method: To look at the world with a scientific eye is to observe with no preconceived notions."
• "Popper thought that we all have preconceived notions."
• "Methods like Freud's that only served to confirm beliefs were pseudo-science and could be used to prove anything."
• "It's easy to find confirmation of a theory if you are looking for it."
• "Every false belief that we discover is actually good because it gets us that much closer to believing only true things."
• "The only genuine test of a theory is one that's attempting to falsify it."
• "Irrefutable (non-falsifiable) theories are not scientific."
• "Once a theory has been disproven (falsified), time to give it up, let your beliefs go, accept the evidence, and move on."
• "This is the modern scientific thinking that we accept today: testable; refutable; falsifiable. You don't seek to prove theories right, you only seek to prove them wrong."
• "knowledge is about probability and contingency. We always should be ready to revise beliefs in the face of new evidence if superior. Belief should be contingent on the data themselves. Certainty is impossible. Certainty causes you to close your mind."
• "You have to be open to the idea that your beliefs may be false - because that's the only way that holding onto them can really mean anything."
• "You only get to believe things you have reasons for."

Karl Popper, Science, & Pseudoscience

Falsification 101

The term "falsify", or "falsification", is a common term within science. However, in my interaction with magical thinkers (the religious, proponents of alternatives to medicine, and all other pseudoscientists), it is clear to me that they really don't understand it. Below is an attempt to educate on the matter.

Falsification is the act of disproving a proposition, hypothesis, or theory (link). While this has been a bedrock of science since Karl Popper formulated and named the process in the mid-20th century (link), as science has progressed and has hit many barriers to falsification, some controversy has arisen in opposition to strict adherence to it (link).

Unfortunately, many magical thinking promoters have seized on this disagreement to support unfalsifiable claims. The article below does a good job of challenging such obfuscation.

"A theory that is falsifiable in principle seems stronger than one that is unfalsifiable in principle (assuming all other qualities of the theories are equal). This is especially true in science.

"However, some foundational beliefs seem to be true even though they are unfalsifiable, but it is important to remember that they are not justified because they are unfalsifiable. In short, one can use the falsifiability test to evaluate many claims and theories. If it is unfalsifiable, we need to give very strong reasons why the theory is justified."

Click on the link below.

A theory is stronger when it is falsifiable.

A Look At Falsifiability And Verification In Science

"This suggests that while Popper’s idea of falsification is a good one, it is far too difficult for scientists to implement regularly in practice. Science plods along just fine without adhering to Popper’s overly burdensome guidelines."

Falsification: Was Karl Popper Wrong About Science?

Does Science Need Falsifiability?

"If a *theory doesn’t make a testable prediction, it isn’t science."  Is this true?  The debate goes on.

(*Improper use; should be hypothesis)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/