[by François Vazeilles [1]]
Science, pseudosciences… and bad science… “official” science
Pseudosciences are successful in mainstream journals dedicated to phenomena described as extraordinary and not explained, it seems, by Science, and even via the mainstream media which do not know how to discriminate between Science and pseudosciences because, on the one hand, of the small number of qualified science journalists and, on the other hand, of the appeal of the sensational or of what is identified as such. The argument of authority playing an essential role, the general public has difficulty in identifying the ″real″ scientists from the ″self-proclaimed scientists″ who put forward bogus or largely inflated CVs, or even ″scientists″ accredited only by the media, the ″seen on TV″ having as much or even more value than the real recognition by peers ignored by the general public.
But what about the actors of science themselves? Could they not only mistreat science and its good practice, but also present distorted visions of it to people curious to learn more?
The difficulty arises as soon as we want to define what Science and the scientific approach are. Not at all because it would be impossible, but because it should not be done according to some! The result is that this refusal of definition leads to bad science, even to excesses. This is what I explain in my publication entitled ″Science and Pseudoscience. How and Why Did We Get Here? ″ [2]. As it is obviously not possible to transcribe here the 58 pages of this document, with a bibliography containing more than 100 references, I will only give a few examples, inviting the reader to take a little time to consult the detailed analyses cited in [2] and in my other texts which will be presented later.
The essential criteria of reason, objectivity, universality, recourse to experience and nature, refutability (Popper), economics in hypotheses (Ockham's razor), peer review, consensus, causality, and the two closely intertwined pillars of theoretical approaches and experimental approaches, are opposed to postmodern thought which advocates, in particular, relativism, rejects reason and objectivity more or less explicitly, and is not foreign to certain developments in society ranging from radical environmentalism to "wokeism". But postmodernism does not have the exclusivity of rejections, admitted or not, of these criteria, ignorance is often the vectors.
Would the application of these invariants specific to Science be a hindrance to research? This is not the case, quite the contrary; this is what happens in our laboratories and in all disciplines, including the human and social sciences. This Science does not prohibit doubt, failure, recognizes error; but we know that if good practice is respected, failure allows progress and the error will be discovered by the authors or other researchers. It would be quite inconceivable that licensed actors of Science could deny these criteria… And yet, actors of national teaching and research organizations reject reason, or even objectivity, the universalism of knowledge, peer opinion, consensus; misunderstand what theoretical approaches and models mean; refute experimental sanction by recourse to nature. We will discover a representative sample of the diversity of these intellectuals: philosophers, sociologists, writers, microbiologists, physicists, engineers, doctors...
Science and pseudoscience
Wanting to define Science and the rigorous approach that allows it to be qualified as such (with a capital letter!) is considered a violent act according to Aurélien Barrau (Professor of Physics at the University of Grenoble-Alpes). However, almost all researchers apply, without suffering, the criteria that are imposed on the entire scientific community, a guarantee of this universal approach to Science.
According to Pascal Bruckner, only rhetoric would count [2] and Alain Finkielkraut [3], the guarantee of reality becoming optional. Excluding the guarantee of reality amounts to renouncing rationality. As for requiring only rhetoric, Jacques Bouveresse [4] specifies that literality is not a criterion for scientific writings. This does not mean, of course, that the quality of the language, in this case French, should be sacrificed. Furthermore, in many disciplines – including mine, high-energy particle physics – publications are written in English. This “all English” could be open to criticism; this theme was the subject of an ISCC conference [5] organized by Michaël Oustinoff [6] and Dominique Wolton [7] and titled " Communication and Globalization – The Challenge of All-English » [3]. Invited to this conference by Michaël Oustinoff to explain why the English language is "the obligatory tool" in our collaborations on a global scale at CERN and in the dissemination of results, my presentation received a favorable reception from Claude Hagège. [8], a linguist and philosopher who needs no introduction here, who fights against the “all English” and also spoke at this conference.
This quality of French, when used, is at the service of the theme studied, whether it is a specific scientific problem or a more general discussion on Science. It is useless to draw inspiration from certain postmodern thinkers with abstruse or pompous texts (Derrida, Lacan, ...) or who appeal to inappropriate analogies (Deleuze, ...), which is also the case of Alain Badiou who presents himself, modestly, as being " the most requested, commented on and translated living French philosopher in the world", and who embellishes his philosophical writings with mathematical notions, assimilated or not, quite foreign to his philosophical readers, unless the latter really understand what a physicist does not understand.
Defining science and its good practice, establishing standards are not to the taste of other scientists, for example Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond [9]. For Bruno Latour [10], resorting to nature is not the right way to resolve a scientific controversy. This was also the position of Michel Foucault, who strongly inspired the postmodern approach.
Other authors, such as the essayist Jean Staune or the senior research engineer at the CNRS Philippe Guillemant, have a spiritualist vision of science, which goes against the methodological materialism of science. Blaise Pascal – my illustrious fellow citizen – knew mathematics well … and considered that religion and science are two parallel worlds. This subject is also very well treated by the sociologist Yves Gingras: " The impossible dialogue. Science and religions " [five].
Rationality is called into question by the media Aurélien Barrau in one of his works entitled " On the truth in science » and by the no less media-friendly Didier Raoult in his book « On Ignorance and Blindness. For a Postmodern Science », published well before the Covid19 pandemic. I invite the reader to consult my reviews of these two works [5, 6]. For Jean-Michel Besnier [11] [7]: “ The complex phenomena we face have forced us to renounce our claims to be rational. ". He adds : " Bachelard said in 1937 that we must promote "a non-Cartesian epistemology", and we can see how right he was. ».
Curiously, Aurélien Barrau and Didier Raoult also reject, or do not want to understand, the criterion of economy in hypotheses. They are also in favor of communicating results to the general public or to the press before their presentation to experts in the field, the preliminary judgment of peers being therefore set aside.
Consensus is rejected by Didier Raoult in favor of the "knower". But who decides that a person knows? The answer is the argument of authority dear to postmodernism.
The development of theories and the formulation of hypotheses can interpret experimental results, but they can also, in other cases, precede future experiments. This is an aspect that Didier Raoult does not yet understand, who favors serendipity – another anglicism – a tenacious belief that rarely corresponds to the reality of experimental research… but values the “discoverer” who knows how to see what is not expected. Recent discoveries in the hard sciences confirm the solidity of the two pillars of theory and experiment: the experimental demonstration of the “Higgs boson” particle 48 years after its theoretical formulation, the experimental demonstrations, indirect then direct, of gravitational waves and black holes, a century after their predictions arising from general relativity.
There is also the incomprehension of the experimental approach, or even its rejection. We have already cited Bruno Latour, but this is a common trait of most postmodern intellectuals and precursors or inspirers of this school of thought. Friedrich Nietzsche considered "that [he] It is not true that the essence of things appears in the empirical world ", and this attitude persisted with Edouard Le Roy, Oswald Spengler...
Today, theoretical physicist Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond admits, during his conferences, that he does not understand the experimental approach well – why not, it is not shameful – but then why does he feel the need to make such unflattering judgments about it as " the experimental method is limited to a flat agreement with the theory… "; or why criticize the work of experimenters working in the field of particle physics, at CERN, by deploring, wrongly and aptly, the reproducibility standard: " to discover the Higgs boson…no one will ever do exactly the same experiment again ", while two independent and competing experiments have been running – Atlas and CMS – since 2009 and will continue to operate for at least 25 years after the discovery in 2012. Moreover, he even accuses these experimenters of not always understanding the physics they are studying. Elsewhere, reported by the philosopher Jean-Michel Besnier [7], he goes even further when he states that "... Since relativity and quantum mechanics, roughly since the 1930s, science has produced nothing significant. It has become an applied science, concerned only with producing effects and increasingly resigned to abandoning the search for the ultimate causes of natural phenomena. "It obscures the importance of the experimental concretizations of the theoretical predictions that we have already noted, and also the theoretical work aimed at unifying these two great general theories that are quantum mechanics and general relativity, in particular the work on superstrings and loop quantum gravity.
This attitude perfectly illustrates the notion of "denialism", a neologism derived from the English word "denialism" [8], " the systematic, stubborn and doctrinaire refusal of proven facts or theories that are the subject of consensus ". This "denialism" very often leads to denigration and even slander. The comments of the philosophers Jean-Michel Besnier and Yves Michaud[7], university professors, support those of Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, the first discovering that fundamental research can be done in teams, which would be a sign of the weakening of the IQ of researchers (sic), the second regretting the forgetting of the use of hypotheses (contrary to Didier Raoult who rejects hypotheses) in favor of serendipity.
The philosopher Dominique Lecourt, a renowned university professor and epistemologist, supported Raymond Piccoli (director of a non-academic laboratory on lightning, generally presented as an astrophysicist, inaccurate information), when he wrote in a note from the Diderot Institute that French research is in a lamentable state, close to necrosis, linked to its organization and the fraudulent practices of its researchers (see my review [9]), including in the hard sciences. The author states without hesitation that " This hard science has long been criticized for its inefficiency and is becoming increasingly rare... data manipulation, even invention "How could we doubt it when Edouard Husson (historian, professor at the University of Cergy-Pontoise) mentions the growing fraud in publications in the hard sciences [10]. These three authors do not support their denunciations with any source: what about the official research organizations that do not feel the need to rectify remarks that are barely... slanderous?
The universal aspect of research does not suit everyone. Quoted by Pascal Engel [11], the philosopher, research director at the CNRS, Barbara Cassin, recipient of the CNRS Gold Medal, the highest award given by this organization, defends a " reasonable relativism… The universal is a strategy rather than a value… It is relative " Pascal Engel concludes that a " relative universal… seems not to be a universal at all ". We can note that she collaborated, during her career that led her to the French Academy, with many philosophers and intellectuals, which is normal, but among them we find, without being really surprised, Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari, Jacques Derrida, and even Alain Badiou. Pascal Engel also cites the philosopher David Rabouin (Research Fellow at the CNRS in a laboratory at the University of Paris-Diderot) when he " evokes a local universalism » ; Engel concludes that « universality seems to have become a bogeyman of thought " Indeed, a "relative universal" and a "local universal" are concepts that defy scientific logic!
Another revealing example of the rejection of the criteria of Science will not be unrelated to the development that follows; it concerns the rejection of objectivity according to the philosopher Florian Cova (Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Geneva): " The end of the cult of objectivity… it makes no sense to ask scientists to be objective… science does not require the scientist to be objective… », which I obviously contest [12]. This rejection in favor of subjectivity would mean that Science loses its universal aspect, since it would become impossible to compare research on the same theme. I obviously prefer the words of Pascal Engel evoking " cognitive objectivism » [11] in these terms: « we can have knowledge of an objective reality independent of our mind ».
But the most extravagant position is that defended by an agronomist from INRAE, supported by other researchers from AgroParisTech, VetAgro Sup and the University, and referring to other researchers from the CNRS and the University, including the sociologist Jean Foyer [13].
Bad science…official?
This agronomist from INRAE does not just question some of its criteria, he resolutely rejects the so-called "Science" normal " for the benefit of a " extraordinary science "... and inevitably of the future, where subjectivity and objectivity merge. His "demonstration" associates two fields that are actually absent from "normal science": biodynamics and "quantum" sociology (yes!). It was worth giving a detailed and sourced analysis, choosing a title associating, in a concise and interrogative form, these two fields: " Biodynamics made credible by quantum sociology… and vice versa? It goes without saying that this interrogative form aims to convey the most complete surprise and certainly not doubt! My analysis is presented in two forms [16]: a short version published on the site " The Theorist Threat » and a more complete version hosted on the CERN website.
A few excerpts here illustrate that the authors (agronomists and sociologists) do not simply provide a sociological analysis of the practice of biodynamics – an interesting topic – but take sides in favor of this pseudoscience and this quantum sociology that is "certainly" not shared by all sociologists. In all these excerpts, the references have been removed but are given in my analysis [16].
Wendt [12] uses the philosophical conception of panpsychism, according to which the mind is a property present everywhere throughout the world that would be superimposed on the material world. This assertion is supported by vitalist considerations. This would even go towards the neo-vitalism defended by the sociologist Bruno Latour. This concept attributes an actor role to our planet, in the same way as that assumed by humans, so that the Universe would be a " big quantum ", a quantum world.
Cyrille Rigolot – the agronomist author – refers in particular to the publication of sociologists C. Compagnone et al., where it is written that the thought of Rudolph Steiner – the creator of anthroposophy and biodynamics – is a " knowledge revealed ", that the " classical analytical methods » fail to validate the « knowledge of the biodynamic agriculture community ". On the other hand, techniques not validated by the " normal science ", such as the use of " the Kirl effectian » or to « Pfeiffer sensitive crystallization " would unambiguously confirm biodynamic knowledge. The philosopher Michel Foucault is cited, further on Bruno Latour...
This new practice " does not rely solely on scientific rationality but also appeals to intuition and emotion ". Emotion? It appears in the " spiritual dimension … and emotional in the farmer’s activity [in biodynamics] … a fusional and sensory relationship is established between the plant and the farmer… [which allows him] to gain an awareness of things ».
Horns filled with cow dung and quartz, buried with due regard to the lunar cycles and the zodiac, serve as a kind of antennae for the cosmos which acts " on the four elements (earth, water, air/light, fire) which structure the analogical thought of biodynamics ". The different chemical elements are associated " to certain forces and even attribute a certain subjectivity to them ". For example: " Nitrogen is a very intelligent guy, he tells you what Mercury, Venus, etc. are doing, because he knows it, because he feels it. ».
But this is still not enough, to these technical aspects of preparation by the practitioner, it is appropriate that he adds " “friendly” relationships of protection, assistance and coexistence over the long term… [with] the plant … Not only do humans maintain more or less direct communication relationships … with plants, but these are animated by spirits with which it is a question of allying oneself through different rituals… It is a question of entering into contact with the “spirits of the place” or the elemental beings … or beings of the different elements (Ondines, Gnomes, Sylphs, Salamanders, etc.) [who] are part of the anthroposophical cosmogony ».
However, biodynamics can be learned. training courses are organized on the perceptions of the forces of life... trying to become aware of the different physical, etheric, astral or spiritual dimensions of our body... the objective is to enter into communication with the plant through meditation, aspiration, or empathy... [SO] A trend usually emerges that provides information about the state of the plant's life forces. " Participants are even invited to meditate, in groups, with the plants, and to exchange " their perceptions of immaterial dimensions and the development of their (supra)sensitivity... »The “charisma” of the trainers is mentioned.
Sociologist Jean Foyer reports on an experiment in which he participated and which brought together ″half a dozen experts with different specialties [of which] …the biodynamic coordinator of the experiment, a homeopathic doctor, an author of a book on the sensitivity of water, an expert in life force ″. Wouldn't these specialties be pseudosciences? Wouldn't these learnings and behaviors have the features of a sectarian approach around a guru? Georges Fenech, who chaired the Interministerial Mission for Vigilance and the Fight against Sectarian Abuses (MIVILUDES), classifies anthroposophy among these abuses.
In order to promote the relationships between agents and natural elements, different techniques are used: “ pendulums, wands, meditations, visualizations, elixirs… or simply based on their feelings… different techniques for rebalancing the place (geobiology, acupuncture, flower hydrosols, etc.) ". Agents' abilities are enhanced if they have other qualities that increase " sensitivity to supra-material worlds where one can perceive “non-ordinary realities”… magnetizers, water diviners, bonesetters or healers… ».
Human domination over plants is condemned in terms of " links between the domestication of cereals and the origin of the State, the family model and private property or those between colonial plantations, racism and gender relations " But fortunately, " … there are other historical or contemporary examples where the relationship with plants is thought of in a companionship mode which can involve emotional ties, including love...”. Here we are typically in the "new age" ideology, indigenous knowledge, and elsewhere still feminist methodology, socially constructed gender, etc.
The conclusion goes beyond biodynamics: ″It is a different way of seeing the world, justified by a fundamentally new relationship between Subject and Object″
The texts that we have analyzed [16] reveal another aspect of the "foundations" of biodynamics: the use of notions that are no longer current in scientific knowledge or that are not recognized by Science, the real one, or even the promotion of practitioners of parallel sciences. Here is a reminder of what we found: " the four elements (earth, water, air/light, fire), mediums, healers, naturopathic doctors, magnetizers, dowsers, bonesetters, experts in the forces of life, occultism, astrology, telluric and plant powers, cosmic forces, memory of water, vital force, homeopathy, spiritual dimensions, pendulums, wands, meditations, visualizations, elixirs …». These authors consider that all these examples fall under a ″extraordinary science″
Quantum sociology? Edgar Morin never utters this expression, but it is almost the same. In his writings, he criticizes reason in man and the subject must intervene in certain human sciences. In addition, he refers to quantum mechanics (duality), and also to logic (Gödel, …), optics (holograms), thermodynamics (entropy). He praises a return to the ″noosphere″ dear to Teilhard de Chardin and accepts the ″orixas″ (real existence of spirits in Brazil).
Sociology is a discipline that matters. It is truly a science, whatever the postmodern sociologist Michel Maffesoli (professor emeritus at Paris-Descartes University) may say: " For me, sociology is not science, it is knowledge. I have always tried to establish a comprehensive sociology, not an explanatory one, nor a quantitative one. "He is, at least, consistent on one point: postmodernism is, in fact, not compatible with Science.
It so happens that independently of the publication of my text expressing surprise at the silence of INRAE (and CNRS and universities) concerning remarks that reject the foundations of Science, the agronomist Philippe Stoop (member of the Academy of Agriculture) published shortly afterwards, on European Scientist, the text: " Agrology in action: Activist researchers and BorderLines according to INRAE " [five].
He was reporting on a debate organised by the Agrobiosciences mission of INRAE, where " the rationalist on duty at AFIS "[French Association for Scientific Information] was asked to keep his arguments to himself."rationalists″, all the other stakeholders reinforcing each other in this new science, the one that is precisely prescribed by the INRAE agronomist defending biodynamics. When Philippe Stoop discovered my text, he wrote that this new " is even more astonishing than the publication on the fascist character of evidence-based medicine, which I cited in my article. ! "
Conclusion
It is legitimate to recall that these French intellectuals defending quantum sociology and biodynamics have responsibilities. They are supposed to be qualified to produce robust knowledge, teach it, and popularize it. They come under public scientific research and/or teaching organizations: INRAE, AgroSup, VetAgroSup, CNRS, Universities, etc. Should we ignore the attitude of these authorities when they are slow to react when science is being mistreated, or because they no longer have a choice, having delayed too long... or do not react at all? The recent example of CNRS sociologist Laurent Mucchielli reveals a certain unease in certain "sociological" practices in France [18], without forgetting, of course, the ramblings of wokeism with regard to science and the impasse on biology, among other fields, denounced by the Observatory of Decolonialism and Identity Ideologies.
While it is certain that this mistreated science will disqualify itself by the absence of results, because it is incapable of advancing knowledge, whether it is that defending biodynamics, or the other examples of pseudosciences described in [2] and not recalled here, it is not the same in its perception when denialism obscures the advances of Science throughout the world and in France, even worse when, without proof, research personnel are accused of misconduct in their work. What will be the understanding of what Science is by the general public, politicians, and young people, from middle school to university? How can scientific culture be developed, in the same way as the humanities, if its exposure is mistreated by academic actors themselves?
Notes and bibliography
As I indicated in this post, all sources are accessible in my texts referenced below. Some additional references are, however, given here, and also the notes listed.
[1] I am Director of Research Emeritus at LPC (Clermont-Ferrand Physics Laboratory), UMR 6533 CNRS-IN2P3/Université Clermont Auvergne. I belong to the international ATLAS collaboration at CERN, which has, as of the date of this post, more than 5500 members – including around 3000 researchers – from 181 laboratories in 42 countries. The genesis of this collaboration dates back to the early 1990s… at a time when there were far fewer people! I have actively participated in its creation and its work since then.
The comments I make in this post, and in my texts cited as references, are my own.
[2] François Vazeille, “ Science and Pseudoscience. How and Why Did We Get Here? BHSA, Volume CXIX/2, No. 818-819, pages 5-62, July-December 2018.
https://cernbox.cern.ch/index.php/s/V0xQlTe5Nphjkoa
This text is published in the Bulletin Historique et Scientifique de l'Auvergne, a publication of the Academy of Sciences, Belles Lettres et Arts of Clermont-Ferrand, an old society created in 1747 and belonging to the National Conference of Provincial Academies. It summarizes a conference entitled " Science and pseudoscience: how and why did we get here? and additional information. This conference was given in the premises of the Hôtel de Ville, at the invitation of this academy. The draft had been the subject of a seminar in my laboratory a few months earlier, and a resumption had been given subsequently to ADASTA (Association pour le Développement de l'Animation Scientifique et Technique en Auvergne). Referenced in 2018, its writing had been requested of me in 2021. Due to the conditions linked to the health crisis and the limited number of Bulletins published each year, it was not published until April 2022, after several updates.
[3] " Communication and Globalization – The Challenge of All-English », CNRS, Auditorium Marie Curie, November 14, 2012.
[4] Yves Gingras, “The impossible dialogue. Sciences and religions”, puf, February 2016.
[5] François Vazeille, Review of the work “ On the truth in science ", AFIS, April 10, 2017.
[6] François Vazeille, “ From Didier Raoult's very personal epistemology to the good practice of science », Review of the book « On Ignorance and Blindness. For a Postmodern Science », The Theorist Menace, May 10, 2021.
[7] François Vazeille, Review “ The reality of the shortage of ideas among our academic researchers » from the interview with Jean-Michel Besnier and Yves Michaud entitled « Towards a shortage of new ideas? Study shows real innovation is progressing slowly despite ever-growing number of researchers worldwide », ATLANTICO, May 16, 2020.
[8] Pascal Diethel and Martin McKee, “Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond?” », European Journal of Public Health, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2–4, 2009.
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full.pdf
Normand Baillargeon, “A new enemy: denialism.”, Québec Science, November 23, 2015.
http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Normand_Baillargeon/Un nouvel-ennemi-le-denialisme/
[9] François Vazeille, Review “ The world of scientific research is doing better than you think » of the work « Reflections on French research… », Contrepoints, July 3, 2019.
[10] Edouard Husson, “ For one Raoult who rebels, how many "deviant" French people are pilloried by the technocracy when they could be useful to the country?, interview ATLANTICO, June 24, 2020.
[11] Pascal Engel, “ Rationalist Survival Manual », Test Bench Collection, AGONE, October 2020.
[12] François Vazeille, “ Science and its good practice », The Theorist Menace, May 2021.
[13] On biodynamics and a censorship reported by “ [DECOLOBS] Agrigenre censored », July 9, 2022.
We learned that the Éditions de l'Université Grenoble-Alpes UGA had established a link to the AgriGenre site and the review of a work [14].
Agrigenre is the research notebook “ Sociology of the environment and gender » held by sociologist Valéry Rasplus of INRAE, aiming to report on agricultural practices while taking into account gender relations. He is a member of the interdisciplinary research network on gender ARPEGE (Gender, Society and Equality Policy Network), a collaborative research structure associating numerous partners including INRAE, CNRS and INSERM. The work entitled « Scientific Minds. Knowledge and Beliefs in Alternative Agriculture ", edited by Jean Foyer and others, notably mentioned biodynamics. The link to the review by Valéry Rasplus was removed two days later, to the great satisfaction of anthroposophists. A scathing and well-documented critique of this work and the review is given by Richard Monvoisin, a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic and member of the same university [15].
[14] The editorial team of Académia, “ Censorship 2.0 published by the University of Grenoble-Alpes », UGA Editions, July 8, 2022.
[15] Richard Monvoisin, “ Scientific minds are in the mud (and me in the shit) », July 25, 2022.
[16] François Vazeille, “ Biodynamics made credible by quantum sociology… and vice versa?
Short version on the blog « The Theorist Threat », October 2021.
Detailed version hosted at CERN, October 2021.
[17] Philippe Stoop, “ Agrology in action: Activist researchers and BorderLines according to INRAE », European scientists, December 30, 2021.
[18] Acermendax, “ Sociologist Laurent Mucchielli’s trajectory towards conspiracy theory », The Theorist Menace, August 2021.
