Science vs. Pseudoscience - Siska De Baerdemaeker

Prevodilac: Milenka Okuka Lektor: Ivana Krivokuca

In the late 1700s, a German doctor named Samuel Hahnemann began publishing

Krajem 18. veka, nemački doktor po imenu Samjuel Haneman počeo je da objavljuje

articles about a new treatment approach he called homeopathy.

članke o novom načinu lečenja koji je nazvao homeopatijom.

Hahnemann’s theory had two central hypotheses.

Hanemanova teorija je imala dve centralne hipoteze.

First, the treatment for an ailment should be a dose of something

Prvo, lek za neko oboljenje bi trebalo da bude doza nečega

that might cause that ailment.

što bi moglo da izazove to oboljenje.

And second, diluted medicines are more powerful than concentrated ones.

I drugo, razređeni lekovi su jači od koncentrovanih.

So, a homeopathic remedy for insomnia

Dakle, homeopatski lek za nesanicu

might include an extremely diluted solution of caffeine.

bi uključivao izuzetno razređen rastvor kofeina.

Over the following 300 years,

U narednih 300 godina,

numerous physicians and patients turned to homeopathy,

brojni lekari i pacijenti su se okrenuli homeopatiji,

and entire hospitals were built to focus on homeopathic treatments.

i čitave bolnice su sagrađene sa fokusom na homeopatskim tretmanima.

But despite all this, many studies have shown that homeopathy

Uprkos svemu tome, mnoga istraživanja su pokazala da homeopatija

has no therapeutic effect,

nema lekovita dejstva,

and homeopathic treatments often perform no better than placebos.

a homeopatski tretmani često nisu bolji od placeba.

So why do so many practitioners and institutions

Zašto onda toliko doktora i institucija

still support this practice?

i dalje podržava ovu praksu?

The answer is that homeopathy is a pseudoscience—

Odgovor je da je homeopatija pseudonauka -

a collection of theories, methods, and assumptions

tj. zbir teorija, metoda i pretpostavki

that appear scientific, but aren’t.

koje se čine naučnim, ali to nisu.

In the worst cases, pseudoscience practitioners encourage this confusion

U najgorem slučaju, oni koji upražnjavaju pseudonauku podstiču ovu konfuziju

to exploit people.

da bi iskorišćavali ljude.

But even when they’re well-intentioned,

Čak i kada postoji dobra namera,

pseudoscience still prevents people from getting the help they need.

pseudonauka ipak sprečava ljude da dobiju pomoć koja im je potrebna.

So how are you supposed to tell what’s science and what’s pseudoscience?

Dakle, kako da razlikujete nauku od pseudonauke?

This question is known as the demarcation problem,

Ovo pitanje je poznato kao problem razgraničenja,

and there's no easy answer.

i nema lakog odgovora.

Part of the issue is that defining science is surprisingly tricky.

Problem je delimično u tome što je definisanje nauke izuzetno komplikovano.

There's a common idea that all science should, in some form or another,

Uvreženo je stanovište da bi sva nauka, u jednom ili drugom obliku,

be related to testing against empirical evidence.

trebalo da bude u sprezi sa testiranjem u odnosu na empirijski dokaz.

But some scientific activities are primarily theoretical,

Međutim, neke naučne aktivnosti su prvenstveno teorijske,

and different disciplines approach empiricism

a različite discipline pristupaju empirizmu

with varying goals, methodologies, and standards.

sa raznim ciljevima, metodologijama i standardima.

20th century philosopher Karl Popper tried to solve the demarcation problem

Filozof XX veka Karl Poper je pokušao da reši problem razgraničenja

with a simple rule.

upotrebom prostog pravila.

He argued that in order for a theory to be scientific

Tvrdio je da, kako bi teorija bila naučna,

it must be falsifiable, or able to be proven wrong.

mora da bude moguće opovrći je ili dokazati da je netačna.

This requires a theory to make specific predictions—

Ovo zahteva od teorije da ima specifične pretpostavke -

for example, if you’re theorizing that the Earth revolves around the Sun,

na primer, ako teoretišete da se Zemlja okreće oko Sunca,

you should be able to predict the path of other celestial bodies in the night sky.

trebalo bi da možete da predvidite putanju drugih nebeskih tela na noćnom nebu.

This could then be disproven based on whether or not

Ovo potom može da bude opovrgnuto na osnovu toga da li se

your prediction corresponds to your observations.

vaše predviđanje poklapa ili ne poklapa sa vašim zapažanjima.

Popper’s falsification criterion is a great way

Poperov princip opovrgljivosti je sjajan način

to identify pseudoscientific fields like astrology,

da se identifikuju pseudonaučne oblasti poput astrologije,

which makes overly broad predictions that adapt to any observation.

koja pravi preterano široke pretpostavke koje se prilagođavaju bilo kom zapažanju.

However, falsification alone doesn't completely solve the demarcation issue.

Međutim, opovrgljivost sama ne može skroz da reši problem razgraničenja.

Many things we now consider science were once untestable

Mnoge stvari, koje trenutno smatramo naukom, nekada je bilo nemoguće testirati

due to a lack of knowledge or technology.

zbog nedostatka znanja ili tehnologije.

Fortunately, there are other factors we can use to identify pseudoscience,

Srećom, postoje drugi faktori koje možemo koristiti da identifikujemo pseudonauku,

including how a field responds to criticism.

uključujući to kako oblast reaguje na kritiku.

Scientists should always be open to the possibility

Naučnici bi trebalo uvek da budu otvoreni za mogućnost

that new observations could change what they previously thought,

da bi nova otkrića mogla da promene njihove prethodne stavove,

and thoroughly disproven theories should be rejected in favor of new explanations.

a iscrpno opovrgnute teorije bi trebalo da budu odbačene u ime novih objašnjenja.

Conversely, pseudoscientific theories are often continually modified

Nasuprot tome, pseudonaučne teorije se često konstantno modifikuju

to explain away any contradictory results.

kako bi opravdale kontradiktorne rezultate.

This kind of behavior shows a resistance

Ovaj tip ponašanja pokazuje otpornost

to what philosopher Helen Longino calls transformative criticism.

na nešto što filozofkinja Helen Londžino naziva transformativnom kritikom.

Pseudoscientific fields don't seek to address their internal biases

Pseudonaučne oblasti ne žele da se bave svojim unutrašnjim pristrasnostima

or meaningfully engage in transparent peer review.

ili da se smisleno bave transparentnom naučnom recenzijom.

Another key marker of science is overall consistency.

Još jedno ključno obeležje nauke je sveukupna doslednost.

Science relies on a network of shared information

Nauka se oslanja na mrežu zajedničkih informacija

that ongoing research develops across disciplines.

koju stalna istraživanja razvijaju širom disciplina.

But pseudoscience often ignores or denies this shared pool of data.

Međutim, pseudonauka često ignoriše ili negira taj zajednički korpus podataka.

For example, creationists claim that animals didn’t evolve

Na primer, kreacionisti tvrde da životinje nisu evoluirale

from a common ancestor,

od zajedničkog pretka,

and that Earth is less than 20,000 years old.

kao i da je Zemlja manje od 20 000 godina stara.

But these claims contradict huge amounts of evidence

Ove tvrdnje su pak u suprotnosti sa ogromnom količinom dokaza

across multiple scientific disciplines,

širom više naučnih disciplina,

including geology, paleontology, and biology.

uključujući geologiju, paleontologiju i biologiju.

While the scientific method is our most reliable tool

Dok je naučni metod naše najpouzdanije oruđe

to analyze empirical evidence from the world around us,

za analiziranje empirijskog dokaza iz sveta koji nas okružuje,

it certainly doesn't reveal everything about the human condition.

zasigurno ne otkriva sve o ljudskom stanju.

Faith-based beliefs can play an important role in our lives and cultural traditions.

Religijska verovanja mogu da budu važna u našim životima i kulturnim tradicijama.

But the reason it’s so important to draw a line

Međutim, razlog zašto je tako važno podvući crtu

is that people often dress up belief systems as science

je to što ljudi često maskiraju verska ubeđenja kao nauku

in efforts to manipulate others

u pokušajima manipulacije drugima

or undermine legitimate scientific discoveries.

ili podrivanju legitimnih naučnih otkrića.

And even in cases where this might seem harmless,

A čak i u slučajevima gde se ovo može činiti bezazlenim,

legitimizing pseudoscience can impede genuine scientific progress.

legitimacija pseudonauke može sprečiti istinski naučni napredak.

In a world where it's increasingly difficult to tell fact from fiction,

U svetu u kom je sve teže razlikovati činjenice od izmišljotina,

it's essential to keep your critical thinking skills sharp.

ključno je da održavate veštine kritičkog mišljenja britkim.

So the next time you hear an amazing new claim,

Sledeći put kada čujete neverovatnu novu tvrdnju,

ask yourself:

zapitajte se:

could we test this?

možemo li ovo da testiramo?

Are the individuals behind this theory updating their claims with new findings?

Da li pojedinci iza ove teorije nadograđuju svoje tvrdnje novim otkrićima?

Is this consistent with our broader scientific understanding of the world?

Da li je ovo u skladu sa našim širim naučnim razumevanjem sveta?

Because looking scientific and actually being scientific

Zato što izgledati kao nauka i zapravo biti nauka

are two very different things.

su dve veoma različite stvari.