I've seen the idea of an "Opposite Day" popping up lots of places in the political blogosphere (most recently from Big Media Matt and Will Wilkinson), and it sounds sort of cool. The idea is that you commit to writing blog posts on topics chosen by readers, taking the opposite position from what you would normally argue.
The problem is, this really only works for people blogging about the humanities and social sciences, where you can sensibly argue both sides of any position, or invent entirely new sides at a whim. Us science types are a little more constrained by reality. We've got all these facts and observations and evidence to contend with-- there's no room for competing interpretations of Newtonian mechanics, so even if I wanted to argue that F doesn't equal ma, there's no way to construct a sensible argument in favor of any other theory...
Which is a pity, because a ScienceBlogs Opposite Day could be a hoot. I'd love to see what PZ would come up with if forced to support Intelligent Design, or how Tim would proclaim the genius of John Lott, or what angle Orac would find for backing RFK Jr.'s position on vaccines.
Stupid scientific method...
(I'm willing to give it a go, if somebody can find a branch of pseudo-science I could construct a halfway sensible argument for. Suggestions (not string theory, sit down, Peter), or a legitimate science debate that I could argue the opposite on. suggestions are welcome in the comments...)
- Log in to post comments
even if I wanted to argue that F doesn't equal ma, there's no way to construct a sensible argument in favor of any other theory
Didn't someone actually come up with a theory that modified F=ma at small accelerations to account for the odd behaviour of the Pioneer satellite and gravity rotation?
Scientists could do opposites day for things on the cutting edge-- where there really are competing models.
Things like: Shapley.blogspot.com argues for external galaxies while www.scienceblogs.com/edwin_hubble argues for nebluae inside our galaxy. (If it were 100 years ago.)
The problem is, the *public* perception of controversies in science are controversies in science at all, they're controversies about science and (more often) flat misunderstandings about science.
-Rob
How about this: Propose experiments which, if their hypotheses are proven true, would cause you to accept a crackpot/controversial/opposing theory.
So Orac can suggest experiments or areas of investigation that, if proven correct, would convince him of a link between thimerosol and mercury poisoning. PZ could propose experiments that would convince him of an "Intelligent Designer". And you could propose experiments to prove... oh... say... the crackpot Time Cube, or some competing Universal field theory (Gave up Physics for animation... sorry!)
And when all the experiments turn up negative, there's vindication in all but the craziest eyes. You get to extend the olive branch, then hit them with it. :)
So you're saying that the socical sciences don't deal with evidence? That will be a suprise to...well everyone.
And your implication that there are no serious disagreements in the physical sciences is big news as well.
Talk about learning something new everyday!
Some stuff you might investigate (if I understand what you're really looking for as "pseudo-science I could construct a halfway sensible argument for"):
- crop circles proving an alien presence
- parapsychology (read mind of people, see future, and the like)
- quantum consciousness (take care, it might be true, who knows...)
- quantum parapsychology (we have entangled particles in our brains, that communicate with other brains)
- show how radio waves create more intelligence in humanity (they are coherent signals, they vibrate and resonate in humans' brains, leading to more 'computational power')
- mitochondria are alien creatures (THEY control US)
- the brain is a differential equations' solver
- memory of water
- dna's astrology (read the dna and predict the future of the person)
- the president of the USA is intelligent
Sorry if I didn't understand what you're looking for.
Take care.
www.fixedearth.com -Copernicus was wrong.
Well, I did once post I agree with Lott ...
Corkscrew: Didn't someone actually come up with a theory that modified F=ma at small accelerations to account for the odd behaviour of the Pioneer satellite and gravity rotation?
Could be. I don't follow those issues all that closely. I've heard of theories that modify gravity on different length scales, but I don't know about Newton's 2nd.
Rob Knop: The problem is, the *public* perception of controversies in science are controversies in science at all, they're controversies about science and (more often) flat misunderstandings about science.
Actually, they're mostly arguments about politics, from what I can tell...
Left Wing Fox: How about this: Propose experiments which, if their hypotheses are proven true, would cause you to accept a crackpot/controversial/opposing theory.
Oooh. I like that one.
I may steal it.
And you could propose experiments to prove... oh... say... the crackpot Time Cube,
The problem with that guy is I can't even figure out what he's talking about. If I could make it make enough sense to devise an experiment, well, I'd probably need to be heavily sedated.
DeeWills: So you're saying that the socical sciences don't deal with evidence? That will be a suprise to...well everyone.
I put this in the category "Silliness"-- what else do I have to do to indicate that I'm not entirely serious?
(The flippant answer would be to note that social scientists deal with evidence all the time-- it's just that they can use the same evidence to support diametrically opposed theories. I saw a button once that read "If all the economists in the world were laid end to end, they'd point in different directions," and it's funny 'cause it's true...)
steve s.: www.fixedearth.com -Copernicus was wrong.
You had to give me that URL, didn't you? Now I feel all dirty...
Sed: That's exactly the sort of stuff I was thinking of. Thanks.
Does alchemy count as pseudo-science? Hmm probably not; too difficoult for pseudoers.
Vitrubius makes a good defense of liver seers, too.
What about championing some interpretation of quantum mechanics that is obscure (transactional?) or controversial (many-worlds?) But I'm not sure what your actual views are on QM interpretation, so I don't know what would be the appropriate opposite.
What about championing some interpretation of quantum mechanics that is obscure (transactional?) or controversial (many-worlds?) But I'm not sure what your actual views are on QM interpretation, so I don't know what would be the appropriate opposite.
I'm a "shut up and calculate" guy, so pretty much any of them would be an opposite of sorts.
There *isn't* really an experiment that can be done to prove that intelligent design is true, since the very thesis itself is non-scientific. (I.e. a supernatural cause.)
I know that the intelligent designers like to talk about "irreducable complexity," but what they're really talking about is "we don't fully understand how this happened."
Astrology is better-- it can be tested, and has, and has been shown to be bullshit. It does make testable predictions (i.e. that the position of the stars and planets will tell you something about people's fortunes, that people born under different signs will have different characters, etc.).
-Rob
Why the NBA is more interesting than college basketball.
Why the NBA is more interesting than college basketball.
That one's easy: because the NBA features many more paternity suits. Lawyers make everything more interesting.
I think the difference is that most data in the social sciences is non-experimental, so you cannot isolate causal relations.