Robert Todd Carroll
Internet Bunk features WWW sites that provide false, misleading or deceptive information regarding scientific matters or alleged paranormal or supernatural events. Because there are millions of such sites, we try to present only the most egregious and offensive. Readers are encouraged to send Internet Bunk material to: btcarrol@skepdic.com
The Alternative Science Pages of Richard Milton
Richard Milton's defense of "alternative" science is a textbook case of Why Intelligent People Believe Dumb Things. Nearly every logical fallacy and psychological foible that hinders us from being fair and accurate in our assessment of claims and arguments regarding science and the paranormal is exemplified by Milton.
selective thinking
Let's begin with his version of the "they laughed at Galileo, so I must be right" fallacy, a non sequitur variation of selective thinking.
In his book Alternative Science, and on his website under what he calls Skeptics who declared discoveries and inventions impossible, Milton lists a number of inventors and scientists who struggled to get their ideas accepted. Many were ridiculed along the way. But, like many others who commit this fallacy, Milton omits some important, relevant data. He does not mention that there are also a great number of inventors, scientists and thinkers who were laughed at and whose ideas have never been accepted. Many people accused of being crackpots turned out to be crackpots. Some did not. Thus, being ridiculed and rejected for one's ideas is not a sign that one is correct. It is not a sign of anything important about the idea which is being rejected. Thus, finding large numbers of skeptics who reject ideas as being "crackpot ideas" does not strengthen the likelihood of those ideas being correct. The number of skeptics who reject an idea is completely irrelevant to the truth of the idea. Ideas such as alien abduction, homeopathy, psychokinesis, orgone energy, ESP, free energy, spontaneous human combustion, and the rejection of evolution--all favored by Milton--are not supported in the least by the fact that these ideas are trashed by thousands of skeptics.
anomalies and coincidences
Like many believers in the paranormal, Milton is quite impressed with the statistical data of people defending claims that they have scientific evidence for such things as telepathy or psychokinesis.
Humans have an innate tendency to attribute significance to anomalies and coincidences. ---John Allen Paulos
He cites Dean Radin who defends the ganzfeld experiments and The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research. In both cases, impressive statistics are used to support the belief in paranormal phenomena. It does not seem to occur to Milton that there might be alternative explanations for the statistics. Nor does it seem to occur to him that the defenders of these claims have not done a very good job of providing compelling evidence of anything significant. Milton seems to think that the parapsychologists are rejected because they pose some sort of threat to mainstream science. There is no threat. If a reasonable explanation of paranormal phenomena is ever made and compelling evidence is produced to support belief in ESP, etc., mainstream scientists will jump on the bandwagon as they have in the past (see below, the examples of continental drift and pre-Clovis Americans).
ad hominen
Another common fallacy committed by Milton is to attack the motives of those who criticize and reject "crackpot ideas." Milton claims
Some areas of scientific research are so sensitive and so jealously guarded by conventional science that anyone who dares to dabble in them -- or even to debate them in public -- is likely to bring down condemnation from the scientific establishment on their head, and risk being derided, ridiculed or even called insane.*
These allegations may be true, but they are also irrelevant to whether the "sensitive" ideas are true or not. The charges are not true in at least two areas where Milton claims it is forbidden to do research: cold fusion and Darwinism. Research continues at several labs into cold fusion, although it is apparently the case that the Department of Energy considers cold fusion to be forbidden territory. Darwinism (natural selection), on the other hadn, has been attacked from within the ranks of scientists almost from its inception. Even Darwin didn't think natural selection could completely explain evolution (See The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex). Like many critics of evolution, Milton does not understand Darwinism. But that is another fallacy.
the straw man
Milton's attack on Darwinism is an attack on a position quite distinct from the theory of natural selection. Milton attacks an idea few, if any, hold today. He attacks an ideology he characterizes as a godless philosophy of materialism, embracing the meaningless of life in a dog-eat-dog world of brute aggression. Darwinism implies nothing about the existence of God or a spiritual realm. It implies nothing about a Creator who does or does not meddle in evolution. It implies nothing about the kind of social world we have or should have. An evolutionary biologist is certainly free to believe that God designed evolution.
more selective thinking
Milton ignores the fact that scientists have nothing to gain by believing what is false. Unlike Milton, who sees scientific beliefs as essentially ideological, scientists have nothing at stake should the facts of nature turn out to be otherwise than currently believed. He attacks scientists for not accepting the criticisms of thinkers and writers who criticize Darwinism. But he does not see that these ideas are rejected either because their authors are barking up the wrong tree (attacking straw men) or they have not made their case convincingly. Milton should review the Alfred Wegner case for an example of how science really works, because it is quite different from his notion of conspirators guarding the gates of error and rejecting such things as homeopathy or iridology "because they threaten to violate the accepted canons of scientific rationalism."* Milton seems to have little appreciation for the fact that it is easy to find confirmation for just about any hypothesis and that one must constantly be on guard against confirmation bias, self-deception, wishful thinking, and other psychological hindrances that can lead to pathological science. Examples abound in his pages, but one of the weakest arguments he has is given in favor of a Russian astrophysicist, Mark Zilberman, who has found a correlation between the 11-year cycle of solar activity and winners of the lottery in Russia and France. Milton seems to think this is an amazing feat and indicative of ESP "modulated by external geophysical factors." He can't understand why scientists are not beating a path to Zilberman's door.
Alfred Wegener and continental drift
In The Origin of Continents and Oceans Wegener proposed the theory of continental drift against the prevailing theory that the earth was formed by cooling from a molten state and contractions. "Wegner's mode of reasoning lent itself to criticisms and counter-arguments. Wegener made assertions that could be checked and refuted as further evidence came in. He left room for his speculations to be superseded" (Radner & Radner, 92). Wegener did not have disciples, but sympathizers who "acted like scientists." Yet, Wegner's idea that continents move was rejected by most scientists when it was first proposed.
Stephen Jay Gould notes that when the only American paleontologist defending the new theory spoke at Antioch college (where Gould was an undergraduate at the time), most of the audience dismissed the speaker's views as "just this side of sane" (Gould, 1979, 160). A few years later, all the early critics of the new theory would accept it as true. Why? Was it simply a matter of Wegener and a few others jumping the gun by accepting a new theory before the evidence was sufficient to warrant assent? Were the latecomers 'good' scientists, waiting for more facts to confirm the theory? Gould's view is that dogmatic adherence to the view that the ocean floor is solid and unchanging was the main stumbling block to acceptance of the new theory. Most scientists rejected continental drift because it did not fit with their preconceived ideas about the nature of the earth's crust. They assumed that if continents did drift they would leave gaping holes in the earth. Since there were no gaping holes in the earth, it seemed unreasonable to believe that continents move. The theory of continental drift, says Gould, "was dismissed because no one had devised a physical mechanism that would permit continents to plow through an apparently solid oceanic floor." Yet, "during the period of nearly universal rejection, direct evidence for continental drift--that is, the data gathered from rocks exposed on our continents--was every bit as good as it is today." Continental drift was considered theoretically impossible by some, even if it were physically possible for continents to move. The new theory could not be made to fit the theoretical model of the earth then universally accepted.
The theory of plate tectonics was then proposed--the idea that the continents ride on plates which are bounded by areas where new crust is being created from within the planet and old crust is falling into trenches. This provided a mechanism which explains how continents drift. Continental drift, according to Gould, came to be accepted not because more facts had been piled up, but because it was a necessary consequence of the new theory of plate tectonics. More facts were piled up, though--facts for the new theory of plate tectonics, of which the theory of continental drift is an essential element. Today, it is taken as a fact that continents move. Yet, the exact mechanism by which plates move is still incompletely understood. This area of science will no doubt generate much debate and theorizing, testing of hypotheses, rejection and/or refinement of ideas.
The continental drift episode is a good example of how science works. To someone who does not understand the nature of science, the early rejection of the idea of continental drift might appear to show how dogmatic scientists are about their pet theories. If scientists had not been so devoted to their belief that the earth's crust is solid and immovable, they would have seen that continents can move. That is true. However, the fact that Wegener's theory turned out to be correct does not mean that he and his few early followers were more reasonable than the rest of the scientific community. After all, Wegener did not know about plate tectonics and he did not provide an acceptable explanation as to how continents might move. Wegener argued that gravity alone could move the continents. Gould notes: "Physicists responded with derision and showed mathematically that gravitational forces are far too weak to power such monumental peregrination." Alexis du Toit, a defender of Wegener's theory, argued for radioactive melting of the ocean floor at continental borders as the mechanism by which continents might move. "This ad hoc hypothesis added no increment of plausibility to Wegener's speculation," according to Gould (1979, 163).
It is true that the idea that the earth's crust is solid and immovable has been proved wrong, but Wegener didn't prove that. What his theory could explain (about rocks and fossils, etc.) other theories could explain equally well. However, in the end, the idea of continental drift prevails. It prevails because the dogmatism of science--the tendency to interpret facts in light of theories--is not absolute but relative. Gould notes with obvious admiration that a distinguished stratigraphy professor at Columbia University (where Gould did graduate work), who had initially ridiculed the theory of drifting continents, "spent his last years joyously redoing his life's work" (Gould, 1979, 160). It is hard to imagine a comparable scene involving any of the scientists admired by Milton.
ad hoc hypotheses
One characteristic of Milton's "alternative" sciences that distinguishes them from real science is their reliance on ad hoc hypotheses to explain the mysterious mechanisms behind homeopathy, psychokinesis, ESP, perpetual motion machines, spontaneous human combustion, etc. How homeopathy is explained will serve to demonstrate this point.
Homeopathy is a system of medical treatment based on the use of minute quantities of remedies that in massive doses produce effects similar to those of the disease being treated. Advocates of homeopathy think that concoctions with as little as one molecule per million can stimulate the "body's healing mechanism." They even believe that the potency of a remedy increases as the drug becomes more and more dilute. Some drugs are diluted so many times that they don't contain any molecules of the substance that was initially diluted, yet homeopaths claim that these are their most potent medications! Critics maintain that such minute doses are unlikely to have any significant effect on the body. The critics base their belief on what they know about the body and how it works. Homeopaths base their belief on anecdotes and the metaphysical notion that like heals like. They have resorted to various ad hoc hypotheses to explain how a negligible or non-existent amount of a substance could have any effect on the body. They have appealed to various healing "energies" of "vital forces" bringing this, that, or the other into "harmony." The explanation that seems to have the most favor among "alternative" scientists is, however, the theory of water memory, the notion that "that during serial dilution the complex interactions between the solvent (water) molecules are permanently altered to retain a "memory" of the original solute material."*
Not only is there no evidence that such memory occurs, there is no explanation as to how such an event could occur. Current chemical knowledge cannot explain how water could "remember" a molecule that is no longer present. Thus, the expected and reasonable response of the scientific community when presented with homeopathic studies that support the notion that a homeopathic potion is effective is to assume that something else besides efficacy of the potion explains the results. Usually, that something else is the placebo effect, bias in experimental design, methodological or calculative errors, or even fraud. Until homeopaths can provide a reasonable explanation for how such diluted potions can affect anything, it would be unreasonable for the scientific community to respond otherwise. Do "alternative" scientists really think that it would be reasonable to abandon hundreds of years of knowledge and experience, to give up all the established principles of chemistry, on the chance that someday someone might find a mechanism which explains how nothing affects something?
If and when the "alternative" scientist finds a plausible explanation for how actual or virtual non-existent molecules have an effect on the human body, the scientific community will have to alter its basic beliefs about chemistry. Until then, however, given the accomplishments of chemistry, it would be egregiously unreasonable to throw it all away in the hopes that there really is a mysterious force in the universe by which homeopathy and all chemical processes work.
the conspiracy theory and the
bias of science
red herrings
Because scientists almost instinctively reject studies, no matter how well-designed they seem to be, that provide supportive evidence for "alternative" scientific notions, people like Milton argue that there is a conspiracy in the scientific community to stifle the truth. They also argue that the scientific community is so blind and biased that they refuse to consider evidence that upsets their pet beliefs. These two approaches seem to me contradictory rather than complementary. Either scientists know the "alternative" scientists are on to something, so they conspire to stifle them, or the scientists are just biased and bigoted. In any case, Milton reverts to attempts at "censorship" by defenders of science as the evidence for both claims.
Much of what Milton considers to be attempts at censorship have nothing to do with censorship at all. He raises issues that are red herrings, e.g., legitimate criticism of the media for promoting junk science in programs such as the Mysterious Origins of Man and cases of scientists who are paranoid about their research or who have been ostracized by colleagues for their weird ideas.
Milton seems to have a naive view of open-mindedness. He calls CSICOP the Paradigm Police and takes a dim view of anyone who criticizes, boycotts, protests, etc. the promotion of junk science. He seems to think that what is true in politics ought to be true in science. We should have laissez faire science and let the most popular view win out. Milton seems to think that we should determine scientific truth by public vote. He sees no harm in letting pass egregious abuses of science (such as Mysterious Origins of Man) and monstrous falsehoods (such as, there is no proof for evolution, which is just a theory) in the name of "free speech." To rebel against the bunk promulgated by the mass media, school boards, etc., is, in Milton's view, a type of oppression.
Even if some scientists call for banning a network from the airwaves for promoting pseudoscience, there is no systematic attempt to censor weird ideas by any scientific organization. There is no persecution of pseudoscientists, no burning at the stake, no secret cabal blackballing those with new notions about the nature of reality. There is a requirement that ideas that challenge fundamental ideas in any science prove their worth. When they do, they will bump out the old ideas. Witness what has happened recently in American archaeology with regard to Clovis and pre-Clovis human settlements. Scientists who were on the outside, ridiculed by their peers, ostracized, etc., for their ideas about pre-Clovis inhabitants are gradually getting a strong hearing. Why? Because they are delivering the goods, i.e., piling up the evidence. The scientists Milton weeps for are not delivering the goods. If and when they do, like Wegener, like Albert Goodyear, they will prevail.
arguments from ignorance
Another common error Milton makes is to argue that something is true (such as clairvoyance) because a bad argument was given to show that it is false. The argumentum ad ignorantiam can be found at several places on Milton's pages, but I will focus on just one. Milton defends the significance of unrelated coincidences such as dreaming of an airplane crash in a foreign country and waking to find that the news is reporting that there was an airplane crash in a foreign country. His defense is built on showing that a parapsychologist, Dr. Richard Wiseman, gave a false but persuasive explanation of such coincidences as being expected by the laws of probability.
First, Wiseman's argument is not very persuasive and I wonder if Milton is being disingenuous here. Second, no matter how many bad arguments against clairvoyance Milton can produce, they are irrelevant to whether there is any good positive evidence for such a thing. Wiseman's argument, as presented by Milton, claims that there are so many air crashes every day that dreaming of one would be very likely to coincide with an actual air disaster. A better explanation would be that fear of airplane crashes is widespread and the number of people who dream of such things every night is probably very great, so on any given night it is highly probable that there is at least one person of the six billion on the planet who dreams of an air disaster in a foreign country.
false labeling
Another common error Milton makes is to mislabel things. For example, he labels as pseudoscience Richard Dawkins analogy of the 'evolution' of biomorphs with the 'evolution' of living creatures. This misclassification exposes Milton's malevolence (if it is intentional and he knows this example has nothing to do with pseudoscience but he thinks it will help his anti-evolution cause) or his ignorance regarding pseudoscience. Milton may truly believe that Dawkin's analogy is a false analogy, but you might as well call nuclear physics a pseudoscience for having made an analogy between planets revolving around the sun and electrons revolving around the nucleus of an atom. A pseudoscience claims it is science when it is not. The distinguishing characteristic of pseudoscience is not logical error, nor is it empirical error. What distinguishes pseudoscience from science is that the former proposes theories which cannot be tested in any meaningful way, or if the theory can be tested, its adherents refuse to accept refuting evidence as valid. The pseudoscientist would rather reject hundreds of years of investigation, argument, theorizing, testing, revising, etc., than ever give up his or her belief, regardless of the evidence. So-called creation science is the paradigm of a pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is static and leads nowhere. It generates no fruitful discussion about the nature of things and produces nothing but dogmatists who will retain their views until the end of time. Science is dynamic and leads to all kinds of interesting discussions about the nature of things and produces a seemingly endless array of ideas and techniques, many of which supercede and supplant earlier ideas and techniques.
false dilemmas
Milton seems driven by a need to propose false dilemmas. The basic form of his argument goes like this:
Either we believe my side or we believe these liars, cheats, deceivers, frauds, pseudoscientists, false historians, conspirators, and dogmatists. Clearly, the second choice is unacceptable. Therefore, we should believe my side.
Milton's approach reminds me of Arlen Specter's proposal to his colleagues during the Clarence Thomas hearings: Who do you believe? The distinguished gentleman or the slut? (Apologies to Dave Barry, whose created this caricature question that captures the essence of Specter's line of questioning.)
There are always third or fourth alternatives to Milton's proposals because he is so selective in his presentation of evidence and because he mixes legitimate criticism (e.g. of CSICOP and the Gauquelin affair, even though CSICOP turned out in the long run to be right about Gauquelin's data) with misunderstanding. He doesn't seem to have a clue as to what Carl Sagan meant by the following
We've arranged a global civilization in which the most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. (from The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark)
Sagan was lamenting, as he had done many times before, the lack of communication between scientists and the public; the poor use of the mass media to convey what science is, does and has yet to do; and the inadequate job we are doing in educating our young people about the beauty and wonder of science. Milton thinks Sagan was claiming that science is an elitist affair, a claim Milton uses as a springboard to launch into his defense of eccentrics, crackpots and loners as the real heroes of science, the point of which is difficult to ascertain. It seems that he thinks that since some great scientists were crackpots, all crackpots are great scientists. Or, perhaps he means to argue that since some crackpots did good science, we should never close the door on any crackpot. However, if science opened the door and took seriously every crackpot idea that is proposed, nothing of worth would ever get done. The burden of proof is always on the crackpot, the new kid on the block, the one who wants to knock off hundreds of years of research, argument, theorizing, testing, etc., with a single dream. "I have a dream" might be a wonderful line in politics, but it has no intrinsic value in science.
It has been said that "Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground." That's one way to look at it.
If you smash a nut with a hammer, nobody will give it any attention tomorrow. That's another way to look at it.
further reading
-
Richard Milton responds (A piece of disingenuous word juggling, distortion and evasiveness with so little substance it is not worth responding to in detail. Either the man can't read or he has intentionally twisted nearly every criticism I've made of his work, save one (he's right about the DOE's stifling of research on cold fusion). He doesn't seem to see the difference between "exemplifies" or "seems to believe" with "says." He says he doesn't "favor ideas" and that "I present empirical evidence for consideration by my readers. (As I make abundantly clear, I am a reporter)." Since he does not say "I believe" this or that, his website should not be treated as if he were an advocate of the ideas he presents. When he labels something "Scientists and inventors who were ridiculed by science" we are supposed to read this as just a report by a reporter, noting a fact. We are not supposed to think that he might have some reason for the label or the selection of scientists he makes. Another label: "Taboo subjects. Investigate these and you're a crackpot." This label and these subjects are selected for no reason? What Milton does might be called "alternative" journalism.)
Gould, Stephen Jay. Ever Since Darwin (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1979).
Robert Todd Carroll
The Skeptic's Refugemore Internet Bunk
Last updated 09/26/00