On Science and Pseudoscience.

Is the line between science and pseudoscience set arbitrarily by an often arrogant scientific elite? Henry Bauer, emeritus professor of chemistry and dean emeritus of social studies at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, believes that it is. While he doesn't claim that extrasensory perception, unidentified flying objects, Bigfoot, cold fusion, and any other variety of fringe studies is necessarily legitimate, he does claim that many of them might be. He further claims that science does itself a disservice when it allows a stifling orthodoxy to squelch offbeat ideas. Since many of the best ideas in human history began as heresies, we do well to be careful before passing judgment on anything.

In his latest book, Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, and Other Heterodoxies (2001), Bauer writes: "Comparisons between anomalistics and science as it is actually practiced will show that no sharp division can be established" (anomalistics being a politically correct term for the study of bizarre claims). He is not impressed by the various checklists served up by philosophers for distinguishing science from pseudoscience. He points out, quite correctly, that not one item perfectly distinguishes between the two.

But Bauer is creating a false dichotomy. Science and pseudoscience are opposite ends of a continuum, not rigidly defined categories. Subjects like extrasensory perception are dismissed neither for their inherent absurdity nor for their inability to conform to an arbitrary set of philosophical criteria. They are dismissed because they have never manifested themselves under properly controlled conditions.

Confronted with this obvious fact, Bauer can only reply with cliches: Maybe the presence of skeptics kills the vibes necessary for ESP to manifest itself. The numerous eye-witness accounts of paranormal activity should be considered viable evidence. The experts have been wrong before. The unexplained residue of cases that haven't been debunked strongly suggests the reality of the paranormal.

These are all fine points if your goal is merely to defend the logical viability of various anomalous claims. But as arguments for rethinking the nature of science, they fall flat. Since even the most hardened skeptic wouldn't deny the possible validity of paranormal phenomena, it seems that Bauer is defending the obvious.

Arrayed against his eminently sensible position, Bauer sees a shadowy troika made up of "debunkers," "skeptics," and "science groupies." However, he fails in his book to define these groups and to cite even a single example of unfair activities on their part. Nonetheless, he deluges his readers with such comments as "`Skeptics' suggest that converting others to their own opinion is the same as educating them, or that convincing others to disbelieve is the same as helping others to become skeptical." He further argues that debunkers dismiss claims of dowsing or parapsychology based on a single test, but he provides no example to back this up.

Indeed, debunking is nothing more than asking for evidence of paranormal phenomena under conditions that preclude trickery. If Bauer were serious about raising the respectability of anomalous claims, he would welcome rather than denigrate the activities of people like James Randi and groups like the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).

When Bauer is not slinging mud at his favorite straw men, he is expressing astonishment at the vituperation hurled at people like Immanuel Velikovsky. In Science or Pseudoscience he writes, "[Velikovsky] was wrong in many ways, but he was not a fraud or deliberate charlatan.... He wasn't peddling snake oil or disingenuous tax cuts." When someone bypasses the informed criticism of colleagues and presents his or her own ideas in a popular-level book claiming to be the latest word from science, I call it selling snake oil.

On the other side of the coin, Bauer points out that superconductivity was angrily dismissed when first proposed. True enough. However, superconductivity earned its scientific acceptance by producing results replicable in any laboratory with the proper equipment. ESP and the rest will have to do likewise before becoming mainstream.

People like Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann of cold fusion fame are reviled by most of the scientific community because they refused to perform simple experiments that could have resolved much of the controversy (see, for example, Robert Park's Voodoo Science for a full account). By contrast, Stephen Jay Gould's heterodox theories about evolution didn't keep him from becoming one of the most honored scientists in the world. The difference between the two lies not in philosophical abstractions but in the way the principles conducted themselves. Pons and Fleischmann consistently avoided the legitimate scrutiny of their peers, whereas Gould positively reveled in it.

Bauer is up front about his fondness for Loch Ness monsters. I would suggest that it is this, and not any deep questions about proper scientific methodology, that motivates him. He is sore that mainstream science has dismissed many claims he feels to be legitimate--hence, his latest book. In lieu of original insights and strong arguments, Science or Pseudoscience offers only silly cliches, snide remarks, and simplistic historical analyses.

There is a further irony in Bauer's book. Although he routinely complains that science needs to be more open to new ideas, his analysis is confined to the oldest topics in the annals of fringe science. ESP, UFOs, and Bigfoot have been around for decades and have been the subject of much serious writing. But what about the many contemporary examples of heretical views within the pantheon of science?

It is these far more interesting heresies that form the basis of Michael Shermer's latest book, The Borderlands of Science: Where Sense Meets Nonsense (Oxford University Press, 2001). In his role as president of the Skeptics Society, Shermer has investigated countless extraordinary claims and is one of the best qualified people to assess the difference between science and pseudoscience.

After a detailed introduction in which he recounts his investigation of a remote viewing outfit (and which, incidentally, provides a compelling counter-example to the dogmatic arrogance of skeptics as portrayed by Bauer), Shermer offers assessments of various branches of human knowledge-seeking. On the science end of the continuum, we find such subjects as quantum mechanics and evolution. On the pseudoscience side we find topics like creationism, astrology, and Bible codes. Rejecting a phony dichotomy between science and pseudoscience doesn't preclude us from distinguishing between those investigations that have consistently borne fruit from those which haven't.

But the real action occurs in the center of the continuum. These are the borderlands of which Shermer writes. Here we find things like superstring theory and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project. Shermer begins by analyzing several heterodox theories--such as the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution offered by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, and the relationship between race and athletic achievement. Particularly impressive is Shermer's discussion of human cloning. He offers a compelling alternative to the pompous sermonizing that has surrounded the issue ever since Dolly the sheep became big news in 1997.

From here Shermer turns to the history of science. By comparing the lives and experiences of scientists such as Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace, and Carl Sagan--people whose work straddled the line between orthodoxy and heresy--Shermer offers fascinating insights into the genesis and acceptance of new ideas in science. He makes essential use of the theories proffered by social scientist Frank J. Sulloway in his 1997 book Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives, particularly Sulloway's ideas relating birth order to openness to new ideas. Sulloway's theories are themselves controversial, so Shermer's approach may not be to everyone's liking. But it certainly represents an original and valuable contribution to the study of the history of science.

The final section in Shermer's book moves from specific people to specific events. Here we find discussions of the Piltdown hoax and the potential dispute (actually resolved peacefully) between Darwin and Wallace concerning the credit for the discovery of evolution. While creationists routinely use both incidents as weapons in their ongoing struggle with modernity, Shermer shows that they offer much of which science can be proud. The Piltdown hoax, for example, illustrates the self-correcting nature of science. Piltdown was exposed not because clear-thinking nonscientists exposed the dogmatism of an arrogant elite but because paleontologists, on the basis of accumulated evidence, came to view the Piltdown fossils as a square peg in a round hole.

Much of Shermer's past writing has involved exposing popularly held myths, and Borderlands is no exception. He argues that the vision of scientific progress positing geniuses producing revolutions fully formed in one moment of brilliant insight is one such myth. He backs this up with analyses of perennial favorites such as Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton, as well as less familiar personages such as mathematician Evariste Galois. He also dismisses the idea that primitive human civilizations lived in perfect harmony with their environments, unlike their more modern counterparts. These arguments are defended with impressive erudition, as Shermer discusses the relevant literature from history, anthropology, and evolutionary biology.

Skeptical literature often consists of little more than a compendium of stories lamenting the gullibility of the public. Shermer goes well beyond this tried-and-true formula and has produced in Borderlands a book chock-full of original insights and calm argumentation based on meticulously collected evidence. He is fearless in tackling difficult and subtle issues with relentless common sense.

The Borderlands of Science will reward careful study and will doubtless provide fodder for discussion for a long time to come--in sharp contrast to the perpetuation of heterodoxies by Bauer and others of his ilk.

Jason Rosenhouse received his Ph.D. in mathematics from Dartmouth College in 2000 and is currently an instructor at Kansas State University. He has written articles pertaining to science and pseudoscience for the Skeptic and the Mathematical Intelligencer. He can be reached by e-mail at [e-mail].