The "Science can't explain this" fallacy

Often us "science types" find ourselves talking to supporters of
"alternative medicine", to sellers of all sorts of "tosafei mazon" advertised
on TV and sold in pharmacies; We also talk to supporters of astrology,
to religious people, and all sorts of other "quacks" (as we see them).

When we ask them to justify their beliefs (or the product they have been
selling), and tell them that their claims have never been scientifically
validated, often they give a very short and, they think, conclusive, answer:
"Science doesn't yet understand everything. One day science will know
we're right".

Often, decisions maker (including, for example, journalists, pharmacy owners
and Kupat Cholim owners) accept this reply as valid. Therefore, they feel
they need to cover (sometimes even give "equal coverage") to these quackeries
in their newspapers, shops and clinics.

The logic in this reply is so flimsy, that there are a dozen ways to attack
it and show it to be a fallacy. But recently, I thought of one deep way
in which this reply is false. It simply shows a deep mis-understanding of
what science is.

We, the people who grew in the second half of the twentieth century, are
used to science having a full explanation for most scientific facts we know.
We know how atoms and molecules work, what DNA looks like, which germs cause
disease, how electricity and electronic works, how much of our body's systems
work, and so on. Nowadays, science can explain so much, that it's easy to
forget that most scientific discoveries started with a discovery of a fact,
before any plausable explanation was known.

For example, medicine knew that Scurvy and Beriberi was caused by some
deficiency in the food, long before Vitamin C and Vitamin B1 (respectively)
were discovered. Scientists proved, using the standard scientific testing
process, that certain foods (e.g., rice husks) cured Beriberi, before they
could explain why it cures it.
Similarly, Mendel discovered the rules of heredity before there was any
possible explanation (i.e., a century before genes and DNA were discovered).
Darwin discovered natural selection, also without being able to explain how
it happens (he was also unaware of DNA, of course, and was even unaware of
Mendel's discoveries). Mendeleib discovered the table of elements without
being able to explain it (the internal structure of the atom was discovered
later). Pasteur found a vaccine for rabies before the rabies virus, or any
virus for that matter, was known. Ways of producing various metals (iron,
copper, gold, etc.) were known millenia before chemestry was understood.
Various drugs (e.g., penecilin, quinin, etc.) were discovered before it was
understood why they work.

Even today, there are scientific facts the reason for which is not
understood. Why do the specific sub-atomic particles that we know about
exist? Why did the big bang happen? Why does the universe appear to
consist only of matter, not anti-matter? Why are there three spacial
dimensions? Why are there 4 basic forces in physics, and why are their
relative strenghts the way they are? Why does time run in one direction?
What causes cancer?

So science in no way demands that for something to be considered a "fact"
it needs to be understood. Science offers a rigorous process for validating
"facts", using experiments and looking at evidence. "explanations" are
a way to predict more facts, but are not necessary in order to know facts.

So it's true that "science can't be used to explain XYZ" (where XYZ is
homeopathy, astrology, or whatever). But it doesn't matter. What matters is
that science *can* be used to validate these claims. If we take a newspaper's
astrology section and find with a large survey that its description of Pisces
equally fits people of all birth dates, then this newspaper's astrology
section is crap, and disproved scientifically. It doesn't matter that science
can't explain *why* it's incorrect, or what does control human behavior.
Scince can say that this specific belief is crap.

So yes, science can't explain everything.
But no, don't use this as a defense when trying to sell me crap.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |        Sunday, Jul 2 2006, 7 Tammuz 5766
nyh-TS7m/[email protected]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |In Fortran, God is real unless declared
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |an integer.


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/saFolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hackers-il/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/