Skeptical Hippo Eyes

Christopher Kastrenakes - in his June 10 column for The Skeptical Examplar, Christopher Kastrenakes mocks the people who equate being skeptical with being anti-science. He goes on to go on and mocks the people who equate scientific research with being pro-science.

But the comparison that Kastrenakes makes, between being pro-science and being anti-science is a mistake. One of the main problems with the article has to do with the fact that the premise for the claim that Kastrenakes makes is incorrect. It is never made explicit in the article about what the relationship is, between not being anti-science and not being pro-science, and the stated basis for the comparison between not being anti-science and being pro-science is wrong.

The premise that is being misinterpreted is that an anti-science person who believes in evolution and doesn't like the conclusions of the theory is anti-science. This should not be compared to a pro-science person who believes that evolution exists and doesn't use that belief to argue for the theory of evolution. Instead, what is being compared should be the worldview that is being called out by someone who rejects the religious dogma of a particular group.

Then there is the real problem with this comparison. The idea that anti-science people don't use the scientific method is something that needs to be made explicit. If a scientist working alone was not using the scientific method, that would be a legitimate point to make about the person who has used that approach. But anti-science people rarely have others working with them, not like that. They make use of the scientific method by relying upon scientific theories that are based upon data to convince themselves that the conclusions of the science are correct. That is the true science. But an anti-science person doesn't fall into that mindset -- some of them fall in that mindset regardless of what they read and study. They don't learn the scientific method through living in isolation. They read it, study it, and use it as the foundation for their argumentation -- something they should be able, and do, so that they don't rely on a religious dogma to sell their conclusions. Not everyone can and will use the scientific method. But the vast majority of the anti-scientific people I know, or ever have known, do.