Science Curriculum Goals at Odds with Academia Supported Pseudoscience
Alan J. Scott
[This article was published in the newsletter Forum on Education, (APS Forum Newsletter), Fall 1999, p. 5-6. The document presented below is a full, corrected version of the article that was printed in the newsletter.]

I assigned a non-traditional homework problem the last week of classes this past semester. My objective was to get my calculus based, introductory physics students to actively reflect upon what science is and what it is not. The students were given a reading assignment that discussed the philosophy of science and then directed to answer a simple, yet probing question.

To set the stage, let me provide you with a brief synopsis of a seminar that took place at the University of Wisconsin-Stout during the spring semester 1999. I attended a presentation on Astrology and Life Work at the Third Annual Celebration of Women and Leadership conference. The presenter was very well spoken and encouraged open discussions and a comfortable environment. I observed that most of the attendees were enthusiastic about the subject and found it stimulating and comforting. The subject matter presented was astrology and numerology. The presenter put forth her knowledge of astrology in a manner that suggested it was founded upon observations and science, and that its foundations were mostly accurate. She stated "Everything has a vibration and resonance and this influences or 'imprints' us at birth." Much of the presentation was spent on describing the terminology and procedures used to establish astrological concepts. The concepts basically indicate that our personality and life work are fixed upon us at birth based upon the alignment of the planets, sun, and moon at the time of our birth. The numerology concepts were similar. This field of study suggests that our personality and life work can be determined by a mathematically manipulation of numbers such as the date and time of our birth. I did not engage the presenter or participants in a debate about the accuracy or usefulness of such a topic at a Women's Leadership conference. I only observed.

The students in my physics class were given two reading assignments. One assignment was to read the essay A Public Debate On Science, Pseudo-Science, and Spiritualism¹ from the APS newsletter Physics and Society. The other essay was Cargo Cult Science² by Richard Feynman. After having read these essays and my description of the Astrology seminar on campus (similar to the above paragraph), they were directed to complete the following assignment:

The results were interesting and I was pleased with the candor present in all of the essays from students. Out of 38 students, 24% supported funding such seminars, 53% were against funding, 5% suggested "maybe fund", and 18% wrote at length of their science philosophy but never answered the question! Two of the students elaborated upon their own psychic experiences. Two other students used religion as a focus to argue against funding and one student used religion to argue for funding. In many cases, the arguments used to support one's position reflected some deficiencies in their philosophical understanding of science. This was true even for the group of the students against funding Astrology seminars. In this group, I found such responses as

Some of the student essays that came out in support of funding Astrology seminars included statements like

It should be pointed out that many of the students that supported funding Astrology seminars, did not necessarily believe it to be an accurate field of study. Some believed it was a false science but felt that equal access in presenting viewpoints was a loftier goal. One student that took a religious approach to argue against funding stated "I think the study of astrology and other bogus beliefs are not just wrong but are also evil. The devil put these ideas and beliefs into people's mind to stray them from the truth of the Bible or other natural proven sciences." This student equated belief in Astrology to be a psychological addiction similar to gambling where both are evil and the work of the devil.

So what statements can be made about the results of this student assignment? First of all, the results are anecdotal and merely suggestive, but no solid conclusions can be obtained from such a small data set. A more detailed and comprehensive study needs done. However, a study³ of the general population done in 1990 indicates 60% believe in astrology and 67% have had a psychic experience. So these results may not be too far apart from the average introductory physics student. One thing seems clear upon evaluating this assignment. Only a small fraction of the students have formulated a sufficiently refined understanding of science to effectively distinguish between real science and bogus science. This appears true even after (i) one full semester of physics, (ii) after discussing science philosophy in lecture presentations, (iii) and after having read some informative essays on the philosophy of science.

So how should science faculty respond to having Astrology or other pseudo-scientific presentations on campus? After discussing this issue with Ken Parejko, a colleague from the biology department, we formulated the following statement:

We never distributed this letter. For one reason, we believed that an inevitable consequence of such a letter would be for some groups on campus to label us (whoever signed it) the campus "thought police". Most in academia embrace the philosophy of open and free discussion of ideas and value diversity of thought. This philosophy has its virtues but can be a slippery slope when it comes to pseudo-scientific subjects. The search for truth must also be paramount. We had other concerns about the letter. An often stated goal of introductory science courses includes increasing student scientific literacy⁴ or awareness^5,6. Does this imply an imperative to pro-actively lobby against having Astrology seminars on campus or anywhere else? I would argue it does. On the other hand, this infringes upon the right for Astrologers (or soon to be Astrology believers) to practice their lifestyle. And who decides what is or is not pseudoscience and how is this decision made? This question can be quite difficult to answer when examined in detail. Hans Christian von Baeyer⁷ in his article Science Under Siege has elaborated upon the evils of antiscience, pseudoscience, and indifference within academia and society. But implementing specific solutions to combat these evils has its difficulties.

Maybe we should ponder an alternative response if Astrology or other pseudo-scientific topics are popular with the student body. Instead of fighting the presence of pseudoscience in academia maybe we could offer it as a degree program! Starting in the Fall of 1999, the University of Minnesota⁸ will be offering a minor degree in alternative medicine which includes a study of acupuncture, massage and spiritual healing, therapeutic touch, and naturopathy. When academia sponsors such programs, the task of increasing public understanding of science is seriously undermined.

The process of flushing pseudoscience out of society must be done with arguments and evidence that persuade not with authoritative decrees that belittle or appear condescending. The statement (or letter) that my colleague and I wrote decrying the evils of believing in Astrology gave no clear arguments or evidence disputing Astrology's claims which, in hindsight, it should have included. Why does Astrology neglect the precession of the equinoxes in casting horoscopes? Why are objects that are not visible to the naked eye excluded from influencing us at birth? Etc. Presenting arguments and evidence when disputing pseudo-scientific claims also tempers any overzealous tendencies we might have to label certain topics as entirely baseless. Case in point - in the preceding paragraph, I have tacitly labeled acupuncture as being pseudo-scientific. The American Journal of Physiology has just reported a study⁹ on cats that link acupuncture with a release of endorphins, which in turn produced a lower blood pressure in the animals. So could acupuncture have some merit in humans beyond any psycho-physiological effect?

The road to reduce credulism and increase the general public's understanding of science is exceedingly bumpy. Traveling it requires patience, a humble awareness of the human condition^#, and a keen knowledge of the applicability or limitations of scientific models.

Alan J. Scott
University of Wisconsin-Stout