Science, non-science and pseudoscience

Creationism but not necessarily the Christian God. Example: Cola can and banana

The real deal. A scientists’ main capital is their credibility - Authorities hold no special role - Experiments should be replicable by all - Theory should apply generally to examples - The theory should stick its neck out - Should change in the face of refuting information - The theory is specific enough that it can be refuted - New explanations only accepted if they explain more than or at least as much as before

Not science and does not try to look like it

• Belief in authority • Unrepeatable experiments • Hand-picked examples • Unwillingness/impossibility to test • Disregard of refuting information ○ They find new solutions ○ It happens in the real world as well but if it piles up you need to change • Built-in subterfuge ○ Theory can always explain what is out there - it just gets more complex • Explanation are abandoned without replacement

• About natural world • Used to explain how the world works • Are at least in principle testable

• Tries to look like science • The explanation given supports some other agenda • Are not testable, or do not recognize refuting statements

Foreknowledge of an event, especially as a form of extrasensory perception.

Anomalous processes of information that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms

In no case is an animal activity to be interpreted in terms of higher psychological processes if it can be fairly interpreted in terms of processes which stand lower in the scale of psychological evolution and development.

The belief that God made the world. Can be divided into 3 categories: 1. Old earth creationism 2. Young earth creationism 3. Intelligent design

Hold that various aspects of living things were created by special supernatural intervention, but they accept the scientific evidence for the age of the earth and the universe.

Hold that various aspects of living things were created by special supernatural intervention, but they do not accept the scientific evidence for the age of the earth and the universe.

O strongly favors H1 over H2 if and only if P(O|H1)»_space; P(O|H2). The likelihood of the observation given the hypothesis: P(O|H)

Gremlins bowling in the attic: “Suppose you hear a noise coming from the attic of your house. The likelihood of this hypothesis P(O|H) is very high, since if there are gremlins bowling in the attic, there probably will be noise. But surely you don’t think that the noise makes it very probable that there are gremlins up there bowling”

Theories must stick their neck out T –> O

The aim that every statement should try to be falsified. Particular observations cannot verify general theories. Particular observations can falsify general theories

Typically, T does not deductively imply O; rather, it is T&A that deductively implies O (here, T is a theory, O is an observation statement, and A is a set of of auxiliary assumptions)

Something one sees (in the real world)

Something we believe in but cannot exactly observe (it’s not an observation)

Assumptions that back up the theory or lays the ground for it

Hypothesising after results are known

A person, thing, or idea that exists out of its time in history, especially one that happened or existed later than the period being shown, discussed, etc.

True randomness only has variation; evolution adds the feature of retention Example: METHINKSITSAWEASEL

Dawkins describes a device similar to a combination lock with 19 disks, each displaying one of 26 letters. The number of possible letter sequences is (1/26)^19, making the chance of randomly generating the phrase “METHINKSITISAWEASEL” extremely small, even after a billion spins. However, if the process is altered so that correct letters are “frozen” in place once they match the target, and only the remaining disks are spun, the target phrase can be reached much faster, often within a relatively small number of generations. This demonstrates a key aspect of evolution by natural selection: while variation occurs randomly, retention is not random. Advantageous traits are more likely to persist, illustrating how evolution can produce complex, orderly outcomes over time.