Real knowledge is good knowledge

           “Curiosity – the rover and the concept – is what science is all about: the quest to reveal the unknown” (Zewail, 2013). Since the beginning of time, humanity has always been on a quest for discoveries and explanations. The shadow the earth casts on the moon during lunar eclipses resembled a section of a sphere, and so ancient Egyptians discovered that the earth is round; An apple fell, and so Newton discovered gravity; some star constellations were observed to appear repeatedly at specific times during the year, and so these constellations were believed to affect the lives of people born during the time of each constellation (Astrology came into existence). All these discoveries and interpretations are sorts of knowledge. However, not all knowledge is equal. Isaac Newton, for example, is widely regarded as the greatest scientist of all time; he contributed to optics, thermodynamics, discrete mathematics, algebra, co-invented calculus, discovered the properties of various elements, and the list goes on. However, most of Newton’s time was occupied with “alchemy”: The study of and search for methods of transforming natural ores from one pure element to another (it was mainly concerned with how to make gold out of other natural ores). Nevertheless, the purpose of alchemy was later found to be illogical and impossible to achieve. It appears that all the alchemy-related knowledge that Newton developed is not a reflection of how the natural world behaves; this kind of knowledge, which does not reflect the actual reality, is what we call pseudoscience; and the other valid knowledge, which reflects reality, is what we call science. While both coexisted throughout history, science, and pseudoscience must be distinguished and separated.

           To establish what is valid knowledge, we must build up some definitions. To be precise, science is defined as “the knowledge obtained through the scientific method”. The scientific method is “a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses” (Oxford Dictionary). Pseudoscience, on the other hand, is “a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on the scientific method”. So, the scientific method appears to be the key distinction between science and pseudoscience. It seems very logical that real knowledge is the one obtained through observation, testing, and all the other aspects of the scientific method. Consequently, pseudoscience, as it is not based on the scientific method, may seem easily identifiable as a nonlogical approach to nature. However, this is not the case. While science embraces generality and falsifiability (falsifiability is the ability to be proven wrong), pseudoscience is based on theories that are not falsifiable. Astrology, for example, is based on the belief that star constellations, billions of kilometers away, affect people’s lives and behaviors; if someone’s trait does not follow the agenda of astrology, the proponents will always have some explanation: the stars of the constellation aligned with another constellation, so their assigned traits have merged into other traits, for example. This does not seem to be falsifiable, does it? By saying that the Pyramids were built by aliens, for instance, I am stating something that cannot be verified. Science is distinct from pseudoscience because the former embraces a logical, objective ideology of cause and effect (causality) while the other does not: science is based on falsifiable causality, while pseudoscience is not. While it may seem illogical if I were to say that the earth is being held by a giant turtle, it is a falsifiable, yet ridiculous statement: we can view the earth using a satellite to see whether there are any turtles out there (although it may require a more elaborate approach to consider the case of invisible giant turtles). Pseudoscience may appear a mere philosophical fallacy, but it has some major implications.

           In Egypt, during the 19th century, barbers were believed to possess supreme medical knowledge. It was not that it was obligatory to obtain a medical degree to be a barber, not at all; however, the great ability of barbers to communicate and tell stories (which is a way of getting rid of boredom from their job) built trust in their clients, and these barbers were believed to know how to cure illness (and barbers found it as a side-job to get extra money). Many Egyptian stories and movies embraced the disastrous consequences of people believing that barbers can cure them; the story and movie “Qandel Om Hashim”, translated as “The Lamp of Hashim’s Mother”, tells the story of a little girl that has a vision problem; her parents, of course, use the help of the local barber to cure their daughter’s sight; the barber, without a second thought, extracts the oil from a lamp of the many lamps hanging on the cemetery of Om Hashim (Hashim’s mother, or Lady Zainab, is a prominent historical Islamic figure); he then pours the oil directly into the little girl’s eyes. The girl had to suffer because of the belief of the barber that lamp oil has magical powers, and the unreasonable trust of her parents in the pseudoscientific belief of the barber. The story has a happy ending, but it still shows the dangerous effects of the spread of pseudoscience.

           Pseudoscientific beliefs, of course, are not restricted to a given location or time. A modern concern is set by Carl Sagan: “I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time . . . when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness” (Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark). Sagan’s concern is real: almost a quarter of the United States population believes in astrology, and millions believe in UFOs, alien abductions, magnet therapy, and the power of crystals; this spread of pseudoscientific beliefs demands urgent changes: People must start to question their beliefs and ideas; they must distinguish between the real and the unreal (Buskirk, Science, Pseudoscience, and Religious Belief).

           At multiple points throughout history, however, pseudoscience was of significant importance. In the case of alchemy, pseudoscientists were concerned with finding a way to transform elements into gold. Along the way, many new elements were discovered, and various elemental properties were recorded. Alchemy, a pseudoscience, somehow contributed to chemistry, a real science. Maybe Newton’s pseudoscientific beliefs provided him with insights that sparked his scientific revolution. Additionally, pseudoscience is important to teach science. Students must learn about pseudoscience to understand what scientific thinking really is. After all, we must experience darkness to know light.

           In conclusion, it is clear that science and pseudoscience are distinguishable. To prevent intellectual (and possibly physiological) issues, it is important for various societies to start embracing the distinction between the two kinds of knowledge. However, I would like to indicate that the distinction between science and pseudoscience exceeds the explicit falsifiable nature of the scientific method. Science offers more than an unbiased approach to the truth. If you were to contemplate the nature of the scientific method, you may realize that the steps of searching for the truth have an open end; that is, the scientific method defines a constantly changing process: All the conclusions we can reach through science are disputable in their nature. The truth, offered by science, is constantly changing yet most logical (a characteristic that is never attainable through pseudoscience); not as if science is not looking for the ultimate truth, but rather that the truth, from a scientific perspective, is subjectable to change. In this way, science allows us, humans, to experience freedom through methodological intellectuality: just as Carl Sagan says: “I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true” (Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark).