Tuesday, 4/8/97
Rigorous inquiry should guide thought, not pseudoscience
Today’s world too credulous, does not question unfounded
ideas
By Darrin Hurwitz
In the aftermath of the mass suicide of 39 cult members last
week in Rancho Santa Fe, there has been a flurry of questions
raised by disbelieving people around the world. How could anyone
fall for such off-the-wall ideas? Why did these people seem to so
eagerly anticipate their own deaths? What happened in each of their
own lives that compelled these people to join such a cult?
Many of these questions, in this case, will ultimately be left
unanswered. What the followers of the Heaven’s Gate cult did leave
behind, though, was a rich portrait of a complex theology which
mixed their own brand of New Age religious thought with
well-popularized pseudoscientific beliefs. For the 39 "victims,"
Hale-Bopp comet was the "marker" they had been waiting for, the
signal for the arrival of a mysterious spaceship they believed was
following and directing the course of the comet and which would
take them to a "higher evolutionary level."
As utterly bizarre as their beliefs were, there was nothing
especially unique about them. In fact, unfounded rumors of the
comet having some religious or extraterrestrial significance have
been circulating on talk radio and the Internet for months. In an
article in the Skeptical Inquirer printed prior to the mass
suicide, comet co-discoverer Alan Hale noted that "Hale-Bopp’s
appearance three years before the end of the millennium is
generating an apocalyptic upswelling" and that one source of this
"comet madness" is "tied to the ongoing belief among a significant
fraction of the public that Earth is being visited in large numbers
by extra-terrestrial aliens." In a news conference following the
mass suicide, Hale decried what he called "the ignorance and
superstition" which pervades our society.
We should then perhaps not be overly surprised that cults such
as Heaven’s Gate thrive in America and around the world. While the
particular outcome here was indeed extreme, the pseudoscientific
ideology that the members held and the lack of critical thinking
they employed to make sense of the world around them is common in
our society, even in conventional religions, and is prevalent even
at an academic institution like UCLA.
Today’s world is unfortunately a hotbed for pseudoscience. Turn
on the television talk shows, pick up a tabloid newspaper, or even
watch the local news; "evidence" for religious encounters, creation
theories, UFO sightings, alien abductions, psychic experiences and
government conspiracies abound. Should we be surprised that the
"X-Files," which combines many of these pseudoscientific elements,
is one of the most popular television shows among our generation?
Not to worry that there is no scientific basis for many of these
claims. As long as the ideas are thrown out, no matter how
ridiculous they may be, a sizable segment of the population will
give considerable credence to them.
Why is this? It seems to be due in good part to a lack of
scientific literacy, not simply manifested in ignorance of
scientific findings, but perhaps more importantly, in a lack of
understanding of the methods which science uses first to test and
then to validate results. The late scientist Carl Sagan mourned in
his final book, "The Demon-Haunted World," that we have become a
society which for the most part is scientifically illiterate and
which doesn’t question the pseudoscience which pervades our
culture.
As Dr. Sagan pointed out, understanding the critical method
which underlies science is crucial in differentiating true science
from pseudoscience. This process includes framing hypotheses so
that they are capable of being disproved, confronting these
hypotheses with experiments and finally, conducting careful
observations. Most of all, as Sagan wrote, "science requires the
most vigorous and uncompromising skepticism … Uncritically
accepting every professed notion, idea and hypothesis is tantamount
to knowing nothing."
Many of us would like to think that a university environment
would foster critical thought and scientific thinking. But more and
more, it seems, true academia is being threatened on a variety of
fronts, particularly from high-pressure religious groups on
campuses which undermine individuality, open-mindedness and the
academic pursuit of knowledge in favor of a conformist, ready-to-go
set of fashioned beliefs. In fact, only last November, over 1,000
students packed the Grand Ballroom here at UCLA to hear, as the
handbill advertising the event announced, a "challenging
presentation" of the "scientific evidence for creation" by "the
world’s leading creation scientist."
Surprising to me, and also quite troubling on that November
evening, was the rabid, almost unquestioning acceptance of the
presenter Duane Gish’s unfounded ideas by a college-educated
audience. That his contentions lacked any real scientific merit,
that the accepted tenets of evolution are significantly more
complex than Gish made them appear, and that his conclusions were
nothing but a justification for a thinly-veiled religious and
political agenda, seemed lost on this audience. Unfortunately,
Gish’s speech is simply the tip of a larger anti-academic,
anti-science movement which so many of us seem to readily accept,
or at the least, not question, both on and off campus.
Fortunately, unsound beliefs and unwavering conformity rarely
result in death as they did for the 39 Heaven’s Gate cult members.
But the persistence of pseudoscience and impossible-to-prove
religious tenets and our failure to teach and practice critical,
scientific thinking is ultimately counterproductive to a
technologically advanced, democratic society which will face
increasingly difficult public policy problems in the coming years.
The astronomer Hale draws an even starker picture: "The numerous
scientific and technological challenges that our society will be
faced with during the years and decades ahead are too important and
too complex to be adequately met and dealt with by a population
that cannot distinguish between legitimate science and the
pseudoscience that is so prevalent now."
Ultimately, the responsibility lies with us to legitimately
question religious and paranormal claims, and to teach an
appreciation of scientific inquiry. And while we need to be willing
to accept new evidence and adapt current theories, we also need to
be equally vigilant against unreasoned attacks on science.
As students, learning the basis of scientific thought is crucial
to being productive citizens, regardless of whether we hail from
North or South Campus. As a place of higher learning, the
university is the appropriate place to instruct in critical
thinking. It is imperative that higher education focus not merely
on the teaching of facts (most of which are quickly forgotten), but
more importantly on the methods of learning, the ways in which we
gather and test historical and statistical information from a
variety of sources.
As one academic writes, "Scientists and educators alike need to
realize that an educated person is not the person who can answer
the questions, but the person who can question the answers." If
anything, the horrible deaths in Rancho Santa Fe last week should
convince us of the need to enhance the appropriate form of this
thinking both for ourselves and within the educational
establishment.