May 11, 2022
On the Fringe: When Science Meets Pseudo-Science
Michael Gordin
Rosengarten Professor of Modern and Contemporary History, Princeton University
Jock McFarlane, Introducer, and Michael Gordin
Minutes of the 32nd Meeting of the 80th Year
President Stephen Schreiber called the meeting to order at 10:15 AM. There were 126 unique viewers, with the following guests: Benjamin Gross was the guest of Jock McFarlane; Maureen Strazdon was the guest of Ferris Olin; and Bob Johnson was the guest of Lynn Johnston. After a vote, the following became members of the Old Guard: James C. Amon, Rainer K. M. Muser, Constantin Papastephanou, Ann Schmidt, and Jonathan Weiner.
Stephen T. Schreiber presented the Old Guard of Princeton Exemplary Service Awards to members who have furthered the purposes through exemplary service. His statement was as follows:
"Needless to say, our Old Guard Zoom meetings did not just happen over the past two years. The first Exemplary Service Award goes to Greg Dobbs. When I first asked Greg if we could do a Zoom meeting, he stepped right in and made it happen and has continued to make it happen week after week for two years. And for that, the Old Guard and I owe Greg a debt of thanks.
"It is also safe to say, and no surprise, that if Greg and I had organized the meetings by ourselves, they would have been a whole lot different from what they turned out to be. The perfection of the meetings, the language used, the details attended to, and the advice given by Sandy Shapiro made sure that the Zoom meetings met the highest standards of the Old Guard. For her efforts to control Greg and me, Sandy Shapiro also receives an Old Guard Exemplary Service Award."
Michael Gordin, Professor of Modern and Contemporary History at Princeton University,
spoke about the nature and source of pseudoscience and the boundary between it and the natural sciences, the subject of his recent book, On the Fringe. Pseudoscience is, by dictionary definition, not science at all, and scientists have mostly avoided paying attention to it. However, Professor Gordin believes that, for many reasons, it is important to understand the source of pseudoscience and relationship between the two.
Historically, pseudoscience closely followed the origin of the term “science” almost two centuries ago. But establishing the boundary between them has been elusive. Professor Gordin believes it preferable to address the issue historically. He began, however, with the efforts to draw a bright line of separation. He proceeded with three topics: (1) the demarcation problem; (2) the usefulness of a partial taxonomy; and (3) the adversarial conditions within which science functions. A fourth topic, mentioned but not discussed, was the stacking of fringe theories through logical connections.
The philosopher Karl Popper, Professor Gordin noted, offered a solution to the “boundary problem” that has become widely accepted and can now be found in high school science books. Popper proposed that a “scientific theory” is one that is “falsifiable or refutable or testable.” A court decision in 1982, relying on these criteria, found “creation science” to be religion.
Professor Gordin questions the Popper criteria, in that testing is often imperfect, making it difficult to know when you have refuted a theory. In addition, some theories and disciplines labeled “science” do not meet the criteria, while some in fields labeled “pseudoscience” do. Finally, the criteria imply that there is no such thing as “truth,” only theories not yet proven false.
Another approach that recognizes such difficulties has been to distribute theories within a plane formed by right-angle coordinates, with “theoretical understanding” increasing along the horizontal (x-axis) and empirical knowledge increasing along the vertical (y-axis). “Particle physics,” for example, is placed at a high value on both axes, while astrology and other “pseudo” ideas are confined to a corner close to the origin, where the value of both theory and empirical knowledge are low. This approach makes clear a need for gradations among the disciplines and theories under discussion.
In offering his own “partial taxonomy,” Professor Gordin recognizes that “fringe doctrines” are not all the same. His classification of pseudoscience includes: (1) “vestigal sciences,” i.e., those once accepted as science but are no longer (astrology, alchemy, eugenics); (2) hyperpoliticized sciences (Aryan physics in Nazi Germany; Lysenko genetics in Stalin’s Russia; and racial science in the 19th century in the U. S. and elsewhere); (3) counter-establishment sciences (creationism, ufology, cryptozoology, and cosmic catastrophe); and (4) “mind over matter” disciplines (mesmerism, ESP, parapsychology in general). He provided extended definitions for each and details on the doctrines within them.
Professor Gordin provided an overview in a picture of an “orthodox core” that includes the variety of disciplines and theories generally accepted as “science.” Ideas continually flow into and out of the core, while uncertainty remains at the edges. Some distance from the core and circling it are a variety of fringe doctrines that differ significantly from one another. Some may lie between the circling fringes and the core, such as string theory, which moved to the core in the 1990s.
He concluded that pseudoscience is not a product of inadequate scientific literacy, but an outgrowth of “science” itself, a consequence of the adversarial world in which science functions. With winners and losers, there is interaction and controversy between orthodox theories and those on the fringe. Like a shadow, fringe doctrines take the same form as science, without the substance. The higher the status of science, the more enviable it is to the fringe. In their heterogeneity, some fringe doctrines are far more harmful to the public welfare that others. Debunking should focus on those pseudo beliefs that are destructive to public welfare, such as denial of climate change and the toxic effects of radiation in the environment.
Respectfully submitted,
Bernie Shull
Stephen T. Schreiber presented the Old Guard of Princeton Exemplary Service Awards to members who have furthered the purposes through exemplary service. His statement was as follows:
"Needless to say, our Old Guard Zoom meetings did not just happen over the past two years. The first Exemplary Service Award goes to Greg Dobbs. When I first asked Greg if we could do a Zoom meeting, he stepped right in and made it happen and has continued to make it happen week after week for two years. And for that, the Old Guard and I owe Greg a debt of thanks.
"It is also safe to say, and no surprise, that if Greg and I had organized the meetings by ourselves, they would have been a whole lot different from what they turned out to be. The perfection of the meetings, the language used, the details attended to, and the advice given by Sandy Shapiro made sure that the Zoom meetings met the highest standards of the Old Guard. For her efforts to control Greg and me, Sandy Shapiro also receives an Old Guard Exemplary Service Award."
Michael Gordin, Professor of Modern and Contemporary History at Princeton University,
spoke about the nature and source of pseudoscience and the boundary between it and the natural sciences, the subject of his recent book, On the Fringe. Pseudoscience is, by dictionary definition, not science at all, and scientists have mostly avoided paying attention to it. However, Professor Gordin believes that, for many reasons, it is important to understand the source of pseudoscience and relationship between the two.
Historically, pseudoscience closely followed the origin of the term “science” almost two centuries ago. But establishing the boundary between them has been elusive. Professor Gordin believes it preferable to address the issue historically. He began, however, with the efforts to draw a bright line of separation. He proceeded with three topics: (1) the demarcation problem; (2) the usefulness of a partial taxonomy; and (3) the adversarial conditions within which science functions. A fourth topic, mentioned but not discussed, was the stacking of fringe theories through logical connections.
The philosopher Karl Popper, Professor Gordin noted, offered a solution to the “boundary problem” that has become widely accepted and can now be found in high school science books. Popper proposed that a “scientific theory” is one that is “falsifiable or refutable or testable.” A court decision in 1982, relying on these criteria, found “creation science” to be religion.
Professor Gordin questions the Popper criteria, in that testing is often imperfect, making it difficult to know when you have refuted a theory. In addition, some theories and disciplines labeled “science” do not meet the criteria, while some in fields labeled “pseudoscience” do. Finally, the criteria imply that there is no such thing as “truth,” only theories not yet proven false.
Another approach that recognizes such difficulties has been to distribute theories within a plane formed by right-angle coordinates, with “theoretical understanding” increasing along the horizontal (x-axis) and empirical knowledge increasing along the vertical (y-axis). “Particle physics,” for example, is placed at a high value on both axes, while astrology and other “pseudo” ideas are confined to a corner close to the origin, where the value of both theory and empirical knowledge are low. This approach makes clear a need for gradations among the disciplines and theories under discussion.
In offering his own “partial taxonomy,” Professor Gordin recognizes that “fringe doctrines” are not all the same. His classification of pseudoscience includes: (1) “vestigal sciences,” i.e., those once accepted as science but are no longer (astrology, alchemy, eugenics); (2) hyperpoliticized sciences (Aryan physics in Nazi Germany; Lysenko genetics in Stalin’s Russia; and racial science in the 19th century in the U. S. and elsewhere); (3) counter-establishment sciences (creationism, ufology, cryptozoology, and cosmic catastrophe); and (4) “mind over matter” disciplines (mesmerism, ESP, parapsychology in general). He provided extended definitions for each and details on the doctrines within them.
Professor Gordin provided an overview in a picture of an “orthodox core” that includes the variety of disciplines and theories generally accepted as “science.” Ideas continually flow into and out of the core, while uncertainty remains at the edges. Some distance from the core and circling it are a variety of fringe doctrines that differ significantly from one another. Some may lie between the circling fringes and the core, such as string theory, which moved to the core in the 1990s.
He concluded that pseudoscience is not a product of inadequate scientific literacy, but an outgrowth of “science” itself, a consequence of the adversarial world in which science functions. With winners and losers, there is interaction and controversy between orthodox theories and those on the fringe. Like a shadow, fringe doctrines take the same form as science, without the substance. The higher the status of science, the more enviable it is to the fringe. In their heterogeneity, some fringe doctrines are far more harmful to the public welfare that others. Debunking should focus on those pseudo beliefs that are destructive to public welfare, such as denial of climate change and the toxic effects of radiation in the environment.
Respectfully submitted,
Bernie Shull