Chemistry for Everyone
The History of Science as a Tool To Identify and Confront Pseudoscience Seth C. Rasmussen Department of Chemistry and Molecular Biology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105;
[email protected] Many scientists and educators are concerned about the widespread popularity pseudoscience has achieved in contemporary society. Pseudoscientific and irrational worldviews are already commonplace and anti-science is on the rise. Some consider that such beliefs may indicate an absence of critical thinking skills and a basic decline in scientific literacy (1–3). Studies of scientific literacy reveal a situation that is culturally alarming, not just because they indicate that large percentages of the population do not understand basic scientific concepts, and thus have little, if any, idea of how nature functions and how technology works, but because the studies suggest widespread antiscientific views and illogical thought (4). For example, various polls have shown that as many as onethird of Americans believe in astrology, nearly one-half or more believe in extrasensory perception (ESP), and between one-third and one-half believe in unidentified flying objects (UFOs) as space vehicles from other civilizations (1–3). While it is easy to dismiss such beliefs as belonging to the uneducated, a survey of more than 1500 first-year college students found that greater than 45% of liberal arts students and 37% of science students polled believe in astrology. This same survey also reported that more than 55% of liberal arts students and nearly 44% of science students polled were unable to distinguish astronomy (the science) from astrology (the pseudoscience) (5). One might hope that university graduates would be more skeptical; however, surveys conducted by the National Science Foundation have revealed that nearly 25% of college graduates believe that astrology is at least “sort of scientific” (Figure 1) (1–3). Various other studies have also shown that such beliefs in the pseudosciences are not reduced by a university education, even in the sciences
(6–8). In fact, one such study found that belief in astrology was largely unaffected by the completion of a U.S. science degree: students who commenced a degree program believing in astrology finished that program believing in it (8). These facts illustrate the extent to which even a successful science education has failed to transform students’ intellectual outlook and should raise sharp concern as to the deficiencies in our present science curriculum. Thus the question is, what can we as educators do to stem this susceptibility to pseudoscientific beliefs and ideas? It seems logical that just making scientific evidence available to society should allow people to see the error of most pseudoscientific beliefs. Unfortunately, things are not this simple. Psychologists have shown that rational knowledge and explanations only affect those people who did not have strong beliefs in the pseudoscience in question (9). Stronger believers, however, will selectively seek information consistent with their beliefs, interpret ambiguous information in a manner consistent with the belief, and ignore contradictory information. This is primarily because the majority of people susceptible to pseudoscientific beliefs do not automatically apply rational thinking to presented situations. Therefore, as educators, we must not only teach science facts and subjects, but also help students develop the ability to think rationally and in a scientific manner (10–12). The History of Science in Science Education During the last several decades, there has been a growing awareness regarding the important role played by the teaching of the history of science in undergraduate and graduate science courses. Over the years various authors have given sound justification for the inclusion of a historical component in science programs. These arguments state that history: 1. Promotes better comprehension of scientific concepts and methods (12–15) 2. Illustrates the importance of individual thought and creativity in the development of science (12–14, 16) 3. Is intrinsically worthwhile (13, 16) 4. Is necessary to understand the nature of science (11, 13, 15–19) 5. Counteracts the dogmatic view of science commonly found in texts and classes (12, 13, 15–19) 6. Humanizes the subject matter of science, making it less abstract and more engaging for students (11–19) 7. Shows the connections between science disciplines (13, 14, 16, 19).
Figure 1. Belief by education level that astrology has some scientific basis (3).
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
•
I would like to add to these arguments the fact that knowledge of science history allows one to more easily identify and confront pseudoscience.
Vol. 84 No. 6 June 2007
•
Journal of Chemical Education
949
Chemistry for Everyone
The inclusion of the history of science in science curricula has been found to be an effective way to enhance scientific literacy (10, 12, 14–17). A primary goal of science education is the preparation of individuals who would retain a certain level of scientific understanding after their formal education in school. Such individuals would be capable of applying their knowledge and skills acquired in science to personal or socially relevant issues and would be able to use reason to form their opinions and draw their conclusions (1– 3, 20–22). Such scientific literacy gives students the background essential for the proper evaluation of theories and fosters a critical attitude towards such hypotheses, thus reducing the chance of being misled by propaganda or positions not supported by evidence (10, 14, 20). In addition, history gives a complete picture of science and a feeling for how science is accomplished. As Carl Sagan put it (23): If we teach only the findings and products of science— no matter how useful and even inspiring they may be— without communicating its critical method, how can the average person possibly distinguish science from pseudoscience?
Thus, knowledge of history gives a greater understanding of science and makes it easier to recognize illogical and incorrect treatments of science (15, 24). Some of the oldest and most popular pseudoscientific ideas can be traced back to the “rediscovering” of old forgotten knowledge—alchemy, astrology, numerology, and so forth (24). The proponents of such ideas advocate that these commonly held practices of ancient philosophers were lost or forgotten along the paths of time and then rediscovered by modern-day adepts of this “higher” knowledge. However, students of science history can be shown the natural progression of ideas, in which primitive theories are overthrown, or more typically, integrated into newer, more modern theories. As this happens, beliefs and ideas supported by a flawed theory are cast aside and rejected, a common result of the modern scientific method. Many older beliefs can be viewed in such a way. For example, in the light of modern knowledge, alchemy seems laughable, but viewed through the accepted theories of Aristotle, it seemed quite reasonable and followed a natural extension of those ideas. It is only when one ignores that such flawed theories have been abandoned for good reasons and still clings to the old ideas as science fact that we enter the realm of pseudoscience. Science Literacy versus Scientific Literacy Part of the problem in the majority of science classes is that instructors focus on the current theories, ideas, and laws, and typically skip over how these accepted relationships came to be. As a result, students often do not recognize the big picture and instead store away packets of scientific information with little or no understanding of how all of these ideas and equations interrelate. Maienschein has commented that the result of such an approach is science literacy, which she differentiates from the more desirable scientific literacy (21, 22). She argues that science literacy emphasizes acquiring facts
950
Journal of Chemical Education
•
and basic technical skills over the more abstract critical-thinking and problem-solving skills associated with scientific literacy (21, 22). Garratt has gone even further to state that our present curriculum overemphasizes laboratory work and that most current laboratory exercises actually discourage students from thinking scientifically about the process of science, including the nature of evidence and proof (25). In contrast, teaching science in a historical context can expose students to the nonlinear process by which current scientific knowledge was attained. Such an approach to teaching presents a number of views, ideas, and theories regarding the same subject along with the complex interaction in which they may replace one another as well as coexist in the course of history (26). This then correctly illustrates to students that science is an enterprise in which dynamic change and alteration are the rules rather than the exceptions (20). In addition, including historical and philosophical discussions in science education can prepare students to examine facts from different viewpoints, make them aware of the probable diversity of opinions, and ask them to compare their own viewpoints with those of other students (27). Thus, using a historical approach to teaching scientific concepts can help students cultivate scientific habits of perception leading to the practice of rational and logical reasoning while also allowing students to make sense of scientific claims and successfully reconstruct scientific ideas (20, 25). Addressing Pseudoscientific Concepts Some educators have even advocated inclusion of pseudoscientific and paranormal claims into science courses (24, 28, 29). The idea here is to allow students to subject the ideas and theories to critical tests and thus strengthen the students’ tendency to question the validity of claims while reinforcing that rational arguments, critical thinking, and evaluation are an essential part of the scientific worldview (28). As many of these claims are the result of outdated theories or a misunderstanding of current theories, their inclusion could easily be incorporated into a historical approach of the presentation of modern theory and could result in the powerful lesson that some ideas may appear completely reasonable until they are considered more deeply (24). While I have always utilized a historical approach to teaching my various chemistry courses, I have recently attempted to get students in my general chemistry classes thinking about ideas to which they are exposed, and evaluating such ideas in the context of the subjects discussed in class. While it would be desirable to include such activities via inclass discussions and debates, the time demands and current topic loads of general chemistry courses makes such activities unrealistic. However, many of the same goals can be accomplished through the addition of targeted essay questions to homework assignments and the inclusion of take-home essay problems to standard exams. For example, all general chemistry courses include a discussion of matter and basic definitions of matter, substances, elements, and so forth. In my course, I will include not only the current definitions of these species, but also a brief discussion of previous related
Vol. 84 No. 6 June 2007
•
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
Chemistry for Everyone
theories and definitions. This then leads to the following takehome question: A favorite claim of many advertisers is that their product is all-natural and thus contains no chemicals. In terms of our class lectures, explain why this is or is not a valid claim.
For these types of exercises, students are told that they are graded not on a particular answer; rather their answer will be judged by how well they support their argument. The main goal of these questions is not to enforce a particular answer or argument, but to get the students thinking. I have had several students tell me later that they had heard such claims many times, but had never once stopped to think about what was actually being said. Another good historical example that is easy to introduce in general chemistry, and that has significant pseudo-scientific relevance, is the concept of “vitalism” or “vital force” (30). Vitalism held that living organisms contained a vital force and thus organic materials could not be synthesized, as it required the presence of this vital force. This idea has been finding resurgence in the popularity of herbal medications and the topic can be easily and quickly discussed when introducing the basic definitions of organic versus inorganic chemistry. This quick discussion then sets up well the following question: A favorite claim of advertisers is that their herbal product is all-natural and thus better than synthetic medications. In terms of our class lectures, explain why this is or is not a valid claim.
Again, the goal here is not to impose a particular answer or viewpoint, but to get the students thinking about such arguments. The examples above are but two ways a historical approach can be used to give students a broader view of the subject of chemistry and better prepare students to think about pseudoscientific ideas. In conclusion, it is hoped that the above arguments bring to light both the increasing problem of pseudoscientific views in educated society and that rectifying the current deficiency of historical context in our science education may be an effective way to change the way that students view claims and ideas presented to them. A historical approach to science education can not only reveal the important contribution of science to the development of mankind, but hopefully lead to a conception of a world based on rationality while developing a critical spirit against any form of pseudoscience (31). This goal is perhaps best stated by science educator Michael R. Matthews (32): By introducing students to the speculative, metaphysical, and ethical questions that science throughout its history has considered, the chances of them being seduced by the first guru they meet offering worldviews a little out of the ordinary will be reduced.
Acknowledgments The author thanks the National Science Foundation (CHE-0132886) and North Dakota State University for financial support.
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
•
Literature Cited 1. National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators— 2000; NSB-00-1; National Science Foundation: Arlington, VA, 2000. 2. National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators— 2002; NSB-02-1; National Science Foundation: Arlington, VA, 2002. 3. National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators— 2004; NSB 04-1, NSB 04-1A; National Science Foundation: Arlington, VA, 2004. 4. Matthews, M. R. Science Teaching, The Role of History and Philosophy of Science; Routledge: New York, 1994; p 5. 5. De Robertis, M. M.; Delaney, P. A. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. Can. 1993, 87, 34–50. 6. Pasachoff, J. M.; Cohen, R. J.; Pasachoff, N. W. Nature 1970, 227, 971–972. 7. Salter, C. A.; Routledge, L. M. Nature 1971, 232, 278–279. 8. Matthews, M. R. Science Teaching, The Role of History and Philosophy of Science; Routledge: New York, 1994; p 34. 9. Lindeman, M. Scan. J. Psychology 1998, 39, 257–265. 10. de Milt, C. J. Chem. Educ. 1952, 29, 340–344. 11. Kamear, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64, 931–932. 12. Schwartz, A. T. J. Chem. Educ. 1977, 54, 467–468. 13. Matthews, M. R.; Science Teaching, The Role of History and Philosophy of Science; Routledge: New York, 1994; pp 48– 82. 14. Bent, H. A. In Teaching the History of Chemistry, A Symposium; Kauffman, G. B., Ed.; Akadémiai Kiadó: Budapest, 1971; Chapter 15. 15. Bent, H. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1977, 54, 462–466. 16. Kauffman, G. B. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64, 931–933. 17. Kauffman, G. B. Interchange 1989, 20, 81–93. 18. Herron, J. D.; Boschmann, E.; Kessel, W.; Lokensgard, J.; MacInnes, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1977, 54, 15–16. 19. Ihde, A. J., In Teaching the History of Chemistry, A Symposium; Kauffman, G. B., Ed.; Akadémiai Kiadó: Budapest, 1971; Chapter 18. 20. Wang, H. A.; Schmidt, W. H. Science and Education 2001, 10, 51–70. 21. Maienschein, J. Science 1998, 281, 917. 22. Maienschein, J. and students. Science Communication 1999, 21, 101–113. 23. Sagan, C. The Demon-Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark; Random House: New York, 1995; p 21. 24. Allchin, D. Science and Education 2004, 13, 179–195. 25. Garratt, J. Univ. Chem. Ed. 2002, 6(2), 58–64. 26. Galili, I.; Hazan, A. Science and Education 2001, 10, 7–32. 27. de Carvalho, A. M. P.; Vannucchi, A. I. Science and Education 2000, 9, 427–448. 28. Keranto, T. Science and Education 2001, 10, 493–511. 29. Epstein, M. S. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 1399–1404. 30. Cohen, P. S.; Cohen, S. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 883– 886. 31. Solbes, J.; Traver, M. Science and Education 2003, 12, 703– 717. 32. Matthews, M. R.; Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science; Routledge: New York, 1994, p. 85.
Vol. 84 No. 6 June 2007
•
Journal of Chemical Education
951
