More on Black and Grey Areas
by machtI recently wrote a post about black and grey areas of science, arguing that if the success of a theory is measured after the fact and not before it, then we cannot tell the difference between black areas of science and grey areas of science.
A similar argument that is often seen is that while there are no hard and fast rules that demarcate science from "pseudoscience," we can, never the less, tell the difference between the two in most instances. The analogy that is often used (and mentioned at the end of John Wilkins' post) is that while we can't precisely tell when day turns into night, we can confidently say that at 1:00 pm it is daytime. So, even though at 7:00 pm the sun may be down but light may still be visible, we can with all certainty say that at midnight it is pitch black.
In order for this analogy to work, ideas must be placed on a continuum - perhaps with well-established theories like quantum mechanics and general relativity positioned far to the left and pseudoscience and other forms of quackery, like Intelligent Design (creationism) and homeopathic medicine positioned at the far right. A whole host of other ideas will find themselves somewhere in between.  And while can't say precisely where on the continuum good science ends and bad science begins, we can be quite sure about the stuff found on either end.
This is a pretty plausible analogy. One thing it leads us to conclude, though, (which I mentioned in the previous post) is that, because this is a continuum, those ideas on the far right could shift their way over to the left if they are worked on and developed by some dedicated (tenacious) people. And, likewise, those ideas on the far left could move to the right if scientists no longer feel they are supported by the evidence or if scientists just don't find them useful any more. (Remember, the place on the continuum isn't supposed to be determined by the content of the theory, but by the method it's followers are using. This is another strange thing (according to conventional wisdom) about methodological naturalism, BTW - it's demarcation criterion is based on the content of the theory and not the way in which the theory was formed. But that's a topic for another post.) So that is one problem with the daytime-nighttime analogy - 2:00 am will still be nighttime and noon will still be daytime in 20 years, while theories may move around on our idea continuum.
June 23rd, 2006 at 8:08 pm
macht: "So, even though at 7:00 pm the sun may be down but light may still be visible, we can with all certainty say that at midnight it is pitch black."
Unless you're in the North Pole, I guess… I think it is 6 months of light and 6 of dark.
So the way they tell the day from the night there would be different from someone in New Jersey..
Anyway, I don't think the analogy works at all… with dark and light we have two ends that are well defined - in science things aren't that way at all. Testing and procedures vary within every field of study and usually between theories (in the same fields) themselves. That's why scientists need to be creative in there judgments and approach to new things. There is no set goal like with dark and light. It seems to me this analogy just assumes there is a set method (and a set environment and a set goal) that can be applied when placing things on the continuum. What is that method ( and goal)? Aren't we just back at the hard and fast rules that demarcate science from pseudoscience?
Comment by de_nacisse — June 23, 2006 @ 8:08 pm
June 23rd, 2006 at 8:22 pm
Well, to tell good science from bad science, we need not have hard and fast rules. We could have a list of things that we think good scientific theories have (e.g., testable predictions, elegance, falsifiability, usefulness, etc.) and if our theory has a number of these features, we could call it good science. You could liken this to trying to determine if somebody is a good soccer player. A good soccer player has good ball handling skills, is fast, knows how to move when he doesn't have the ball, communicates with teammates, etc. If he is missing one of these things - let's say he isn't very fast - then he still might be a good soccer player (for example, he might have incredibly good ball handling skills that make up for the fact that he is slower than others). Also, with some hard work and determination, a bad soccer player may some day become a good soccer player. And if a good soccer player slacks off and doesn't practice very often he could become a bad soccer player.
So, no, I don't think that this analogy assumes a set method or hard and fast rules. But I do think there are some problems with the analogy (one of which I mentioned in my post).
Comment by macht — June 23, 2006 @ 8:22 pm
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Dealing exclusively with soccer players we could somewhat rank them on a continuum from good to bad given certain criteria without the need for rules . Although other things like teammates skills (how well they mesh together and such) are very important and really determine the worth of any single player (I think). a good player on one team my be a bad player on another team.
If someone admits we're just dealing with varying degrees of skill in playing a game that is one thing and doesn't "“ as you say "“ really require any hard rules. But if one wanted to tell soccer players from pseudo-soccer players I think you would need those rules.
I guess a pseudo-soccer player would be someone with a baseball bat or a hockey stick "“
So, I'd just disagree with the idea (it might not be yours) that we can see the difference between soccer and pseudosoccer without "˜hard and fast rules' (rule 1: no one with skates or sticks is playing soccer). We can still rate good and bad without those tightly held rules "“ Although I think the ratings on the continuum will be largely subjective (what's better speed or ball handling after all).
Comment by de_nacisse — June 23, 2006 @ 10:07 pm
June 23rd, 2006 at 11:51 pm
This is true of theories, too. One common criterion of good scientific theories is that it is consistent with other well-established theories. If it doesn't mesh well, it may not be viewed as a very good theory.
I would say that a soccer player who uses a baseball bat is probably a bad soccer player. It's not a hard and fast rule, though, since I'm sure somebody could use a bat as, say, part of his warm up routine (don't ask me how).
Comment by macht — June 23, 2006 @ 11:51 pm