Bonus 5% option. Write up what you learned Due last class. Google Prisoner s Dilemma: The Hobbes Game, Human Diversity and Learning Styles. ME Gerwin Teaching Philosophy 19 (3):247-258 (1996). Prisoner s Dilemma: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisonerdilemma/
Some lessons: Fear vs Aggression (looks the same on the outside). Common Reactions. Groans and moans Shake hands and eye contact. Creates trust. Know your customer -> Karaoke Bar. Still want to play: play online http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/playground/pd.html
Pseudo =df= a prefix indicating that which has the appearance, but not the reality claimed. Works a lot like the tilde. Pseudoscience: Looks like science, but isn t really science. Pseudoscience is pretend science Chapter 14 in text.
Psychics: Zombies: Aliens/UFO s: Crop Circles: Ghosts:
Psychics: 60% (USA 2001) Zombies: 14% (CDN 2012) Aliens/UFO s: (USA 71%) CDN 31% Crop Circles: 4% (CDN 2012) Ghosts: 66% (Cdn 2006)
A Winnipeg group called Ufology Research has compiled and analyzed reported sightings of unidentified flying objects across Canada over the last 25 years. -
It found 14,617 celestial oddities have been spotted since the group started collecting data in 1989. Explanations or probable explanations were found for about half the sightings. Research co-ordinator Chris Rutkowski said the group's work doesn't provide absolute proof about the existence of extraterrestrials. - See more at: http://www.educatinghumanity.com
Most sightings were of lights in the sky, often spotted between 10 p.m. and midnight, and usually in July and August.
Most sightings were of lights in the sky, often spotted between 10 p.m. and midnight, and usually in July and August. Why then? What happens in Canada between 10 and 12:00pm in July and August?
About three per cent, or 467 cases, were close encounters, including alleged alien sightings and abductions. This seems like a lot of evidence
One of the study's "most remarkable" cases was that of a Winnipeg nurse who said that she found two "small human-like creatures" when she got home from work on Nov. 1, 1992. "She found herself taken in a 'hangar' with several spacecraft and was taken inside one for a brief trip around the Earth. She soon found herself back at home, with several hours of time missing from her life," said the study. -
Theory: Aliens abducted nurse and returned her home several hours later? Confirmation? Testability? Coherence/consistency with other theories? Simplicity? Explanatory Power? Fruitfulness / fecundity?
Superstition Hucksterism Conspiracy Theories NOT- Theology and Sincere Religious Belief. These don t pretend to be science (usually). Possible tangent How do you differentiate between theological beliefs? Internal consistency? Plausibility? Adherent Sincerity?
Beliefs reinforced by fallacious reasoning such as False Cause. Beliefs often superseded by newer better theories, but belief persists despite not being current best theory. EG: Groundhog Day: If the groundhog sees its shadow, then you get 6 more weeks of winter. VS. Climate forecasting?
Hucksters often trade on the confidence people have in science. Huckster =df= one who uses aggressive and devious methods in sales technique. This is really a variant of the fallacy of false authority, where the authority is science.
Alternative therapies Often very expensive. Use jargon that most people can t differentiate from actual science. 42% of North Americans use some alternative therapy. Diet pills etc.
Conspiracy theories are often layers of fallacies. Secrecy -> the fallacy of ignorance. Lack of evidence is treated as significant. There is no evidence that X, which is exactly what the conspirators for X would want you to think Coincidence -> false cause. that s can t be a coincidence Cognitive bias -> Biased statistics. We notice positive evidence, not negative. Popularity -> Bandwagon fallacy Evidential Hints -> Texas Sharpshooter.
Geologists and scientists all over the world are discovering strong evidence for a 6000 year-old earth, yet because of the threat of ruining their reputation, they are suppressing the evidence and keeping quiet. What should we think about when we consider this?
Isn t Superstition just-out-of-date science? The human mind operates on different levels in its effort to comprehend reality. Plato understood this when he distinguished between knowledge and mere opinion. What is the difference between science and superstition?
Superstition & science are both theoretical. Superstitious hypotheses can and should be evaluated according to the criteria, developed previously, for evaluating scientific hypotheses. (scientific virtues).
Scientific evidence usually involves measurements of things: such as force, mass, levels of aggression, social affluence, and so on, usually acquired through instrumentation and expressed mathematically. The means of acquisition and expression are one of the key features that distinguishes science from superstition.
Scientific hypotheses are about the natural world, so only observations of the natural world count as evidence. Does this seem question begging? There is no scientific evidence for ghosts because science doesn t accept that type of evidence. Caspar the ghost problem. Does Science has a monopoly on truth? we know enough now to realize
What counts as evidence? Creditable reports of observations and measurements, usually expressed mathematically, can be accepted as conveying evidence, for scientific purposes. Unreliable evidence: Authorities (including religious authorities). Perhaps spiritually and politically these are great authorities, they do not confirm or refute scientific hypotheses. They shouldn t want to. Anecdotal evidence can point to scientifically-confirmable evidence but doing so requires experimentation and observation conducted according to scientific criteria.
Reliable scientific experiments must meet the following criteria: Scientific experiments must be replicable under controlled conditions. This means that the experiment must be repeatable at different times and at different places. (in principle). Scientific experiments must be designed to generate clear results, and the interpretation of those results must be deliniated in advance. In this experiment we expect to observe X, if yes then If no then
Scientific hypotheses are phrased precisely, usually in mathematical language, to provide for extremely accurate confirmations. A genuinely scientific hypothesis must be framed narrowly enough that it forbids ad hoc modifications. (Popper).
Ad hoc modifications can discredit hypotheses. iterated ad hoc modification denies testability. They are often the result of a researcher drawing an excessively broad hypothesis that does not explain reasonably foreseeable problems and anomalies. When complications arise, the theory is tweeked beyond recognition. Ad hoc modifications can also complicate a hypothesis, making the hypothesis difficult to test and confirm or falsify.
Naturalistic explanations, and those based on known realities, are preferred to those based on the superstitious or bizarre. Why?
Science is progressive; superstition is not. This means that a hypothesis supported by evidence will lead to further accurate predictions, and further theories that are confirmed Fruitfulness.
Objective =df= observations / perspective not affected by conditions peculiar to the experiencing subject. Subjective =df= observations / perspective affected by conditions peculiar to the experiencing subject.
We doubt personal testimony about superstitious beliefs because Superstitions exist to satisfy emotional needs, especially to help us cope with fear and anxiety. Superstition helped people cope with the fact that for much of human history, people died very suddenly and there was little, if anything, most people could do to help them.
People are fascinated by the mysterious. It is sometimes more emotionally satisfying to believe a magical explanation than a scientific one. Many people are also mentally lazy. Once we learn to think sloppily, it takes effort to learn to think rigorously. Our observation of the world can be distorted by appeals to our emotion. An example of this is the placebo effect, in which people can be led to believe a medicine or procedure that has no therapeutic value can help them and it does.
We perceive what we expect to perceive. observations of this diagram: subjective or objective?
Considerations of the sort proposed by Quine and Duheme have lead some thinkers to the conclusion: All observation is theory-laden. Total objectivity is impossible. Post-modernism How to manage science in post-modern era? Accept that observers are not objective: Isolate this in experiments.
Integrity requires honesty in gathering and presenting evidence and responding to theoretical problems with honest, logical thinking. Integrity is central to the scientific process and its lack, central to the practice of superstition. Faked evidence is the clearest indication of lack of integrity. This can range from astrology and pretending one can bend metal with one s mind to falsifying studies that vaccines cause autism.
The puzzle-solving character of science differentiates it from pseudoscience. When scientists are confronted with a problem, they tend to work at it until they solve it. Astronomers took 300 years to solve the puzzle of stellar parallax. Astrologers do not figure out what went wrong when their predictions fail to materialize. The scientific method sucks: Video
A hypotheses that is inconsistent with established theories or laws tends to be a sign of superstition. some yoga practitioners that they can levitate. This is inconsistent with the wellestablished law of gravity. Which virtue does that violate?
Distinguishing between science and superstition is the hallmark of civilization. Do you agree with this claim? Scientifically grounded hypotheses are: Coherent / consistent. Precisely defined (falsifiable) Supported by genuine evidence (confirmed). Productive of new insights (fruitful).
What is a miracle? Something really unlikely? Something really good? Defn?
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed, in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation.
The concept of miracle depends on the assumption of causal regularity. (laws of nature). We need both to think that the laws of nature are fixed and regular; AND that some special event violated the laws, to even COUNT as a miracle. In brief, if there were no laws of nature, there could be no miracles.
'No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood be more miraculous, than the fact which it endeavours to establish When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened.
I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates; then, and not until then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion. Humes Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding.(sec X).
It is always more plausible to think the miracle claimant is decieving either you our themselves then to believe in the miracle claimed. Remember miracle =df= an event that contravenes current best scientific theory. AND remember, it wouldn t be described as a miracle without current best scientific theory.
To believe something INCREDIBLE You are usually shown some evidence and asked to believe that there is no other plausible explanation, so the incredible explanation must be the correct one.
To believe something INCREDIBLE You are usually shown some evidence and asked to believe that there is no other plausible explanation, so the incredible explanation must be the correct one. Fallacy of ignorance. We know (seeking counterexamples and proofs) that sometimes the explanation is just beyond our reach (today).
Healthy skepticism vs. Humanity. Be Hard on ideas, Kind to people. Intellectual discipline. Think hard, be honest, especially with yourself. Student skills ARE job skills. Academic writing Research Group Dynamics: be the leader. SHEday2015: I recommend!