Spotting Empty Language and Science Abuse

Spotting Empty Language and Science Abuse

Jargon is the specialized set of terminology used in a particular field—usually, it’s not well understood or used by those outside that field. Scientific jargon can also be borrowed to give a claim credibility it has not earned. A term with a precise meaning in its field may become vague when used elsewhere without explanation.

Unscientific claims can dress themselves in the language of science. The resulting sense of understanding can make unsupported conclusions seem persuasive.

Consider, for example, Schrodinger’s cat. Physicist Erwin Schrodinger devised the hypothetical cat scenario to expose a problem in extending quantum superposition to an everyday object. In the setup, a microscopic event is linked to whether a cat lives or dies. The thought experiment raises a question about measurement; it does not establish that people can choose reality with their thoughts. The experiment forced people to ask, “Exactly when does a quantum system stop existing as a superposition of states and become one or the other?”

Today, however, misinterpretations of this thought experiment abound, with people taking the tale to mean that two opposite things could be true at the same time, or perhaps that human observers had the final say in deciding what form reality should take. Take a look at this quote by New Age author Gregg Braden:

“Quantum science suggests the existence of many possible futures for each moment of our lives. Each future lies in a state of rest until it is awakened by choices made in the present.”

Neal Donald Walsch, author of Conversations with God, claims, “Quantum physics tells us that nothing that is observed is unaffected by the observer. That statement, from science, holds an enormous and powerful insight. It means that everyone sees a different truth, because everyone is creating what they see.”

Can you see the total misuse of the findings of quantum theory? When physicists talk about the behavior of subatomic particles, the layman assumes he is talking about human beings. When the physicist points to a bizarre paradox using a hypothetical analogy, the layman focuses on the analogy and not what it points to, and assumes the paradox is proof of the miraculous. He triumphantly concludes that our thoughts determine reality, vibration is everything, that we are all one, and that if we want to “manifest” our heart’s desire, we can—because science says so. This appropriation of scientific language (or of a poor facsimile of it) has been used to prop up a vast tangle of New Age thought.

To make sure you don’t fall prey to it, simply pay closer attention:

• Look closely at terms such as energy, vibration, natural, hypothesis, quantum, or chemical. What do they mean in this context? A metaphor may be useful, but it does not by itself supply scientific evidence for a claim.

• Be wary of any sentence that begins “Science says . . .” or “According to science . . .” You are likely about to read something that positions science more like a religious dogma than a method for knowledge acquisition. Science doesn’t “say” anything. It doesn’t prove, either. It gradually builds evidence and rejects hypotheses, and no single study settles every related question forever.

• There is nothing wrong with spiritual or religious inquiry, or with people engaging with reality on artistic, mystical, moral, or impressionistic terms. However, the problem is when it is passed off as science. Be wary of people attempting to find scientific proof for things outside the realm of science, or conflating one with the other—for example, connecting the idea of “frequency” with something akin to personality, mood, or thought, or treating the term “neural net” as proof of a claim about an individual’s mindset.

• Try the plain language test—if you cannot paraphrase the material without resorting to vague mystical language, something is wrong. Misuse of jargon often happens when we try to use scientific terms to explain ordinary psychological or human ones—for example using “energy” to describe something like mood or attitude. Watch out for overly vague statements. For example, what is actually being indicated with the word “vibration” or “field”? What does the word “universe” actually include? What precisely is meant by the term “synchronize”? Is it impossible to define a term without resorting to that same term? There’s a problem. If the explanation remains vague, ask what specific observation or mechanism the claim refers to.

• Sometimes, a thing is pseudoscientific not because of its content or superficial language, but how it is presented. Just because something calls itself research, a study, or a logical argument, it doesn’t mean it is. Likewise, someone who is a scientist doesn’t necessarily say something true or logical every time they make a claim.

• Finally, regularly check to see if something is falsifiable—this means that conceivable evidence could show it to be false. It’s not a perfect method, but if there really is no conceivable way of testing a claim, then be wary of accepting it. For example, “faith can move mountains.” If you point to the fact of no mountains having been moved, one could say, “I guess there’s not enough faith.” There’s no way to show that the statement is false.