Slashdot Mirror
Seven Rules For Spotting Bogus Science
keynet writes "Robert L. Park is a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and the director of public information for the American Physical Society, wrote a list of warning signs to help federal judges detect scientific nonsense. (OK, so it hasn't worked and the Patent Office sure hasn't got a copy.) As he says, 'There is no scientific claim so preposterous that a scientist cannot be found to vouch for it'. What he doesn't say is that there are plenty more who will invest in it or base legislation on it."
With so many judges being appointed for purely ideological reasons, it may be a bit much to ask that they be expected to be concerned about scientific nonsense. Can you spell Creationism?
If you saw it on slashdot, there's a good chance it's a hoax.
Je t'aime Stéphanie
Is it too good to be true? That is pretty much the only thing you need to check. Simple antigravity? Too good to be true. Car that runs on water? Too good to be true. Honest politician? Too good to be true.
The big problem is that people are greedy, lazy, and generally lacking in common sense. Another set of rules isn't going to change that.
"This is your world. These are your people. You can live for yourself today, or help build tomorrow for everyone."
Fantastic guidelines for a part of society that has influence over the direction of law and has no basis for understanding fact from fiction.
Can you say "Global Warming"?
Why did he release these so called new "rules" direct to the media instead of having them peer reviewed first? I smell a rat :)
Can you say "Aspect-Oriented Programming"?
As he says, 'There is no scientific claim so preposterous that a scientist cannot be found to vouch for it'. What he doesn't say is that there are plenty more who will invest in it or base legislation on it."
From the article, the full paragraph of the quote is:
There is, alas, no scientific claim so preposterous that a scientist cannot be found to vouch for it. And many such claims end up in a court of law after they have cost some gullible person or corporation a lot of money. How are juries to evaluate them?
The very next sentence indicates that there are very many people who are willing to invest or base laws on bad science!
I have identified seven indicators that a scientific claim lies well outside the bounds of rational scientific discourse. Of course, they are only warning signs -- even a claim with several of the signs could be legitimate.
I just know the above disclaimer will be ignored by most. Which makes the whole thing a bit dangerous. Afterall, according to the rules, Quantum Physics could be considered bogus.
Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
(from the article)
:D
---
There is, alas, no scientific claim so preposterous that a scientist cannot be found to vouch for it.
---
Which means that at some point these seven points are going to be debunked by one of these guns for hire scientists
Fuzzy Knights: New RPG Strips Tuesday and Friday!:
http://www.fuzzyknights.com
Just like there's bogus religion, bogus reality shows, and bogus politicians.
For example, religions that claim to be "all loving" are actually responsible for more murders over all of time than any other cause.
Furthermore, many reality shows are actually scripted and use actors; the people are, in fact, barely real -- they're simply reading scripts.
Finally, many politicians don't really have the qualifications necessary to hold public office -- many of them can barely read/write at a junior high school level.
Background: 28/M/Bi-Sexual; Owner of a Linux company; MBA Harvard 2003; B.S. Comp Sci MIT 2000
Darwin proposed his "Theory of evolution" in a book. The equivalent of TV as far as popular media at the time goes. Proponents of this claim that it is always being supressed by religious groups, and local government officials.
Fortunately, they have chosen a theory that can't be proved, and only has anecdotal evidence. Animals 1 000 000 years ago were different, so we must have evolution.
The only way this could possibly be true is for Darwin to propose a new law of nature!
....The Patent and Trademark Office recently issued Patent 6,362,718 for a physically impossible motionless electromagnetic generator....
For sale desgin for Flux capacitor, will pay shipping in US....
--My sig is bigger than your sig--
Because something about it doen't smell right.
For judges that don't have time to read the whole article:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan.
I think his whole list can be summed up by this question: has it been reviewed by a panel of the "scientists" peers and subsequently published in a respected journal? If the science is too bogus to pass this, then likely most or all of his points apply.
Project Steve
The points made in the article are apt, but I worry that some of them may sound a bit too much like "common sense." Just as Park points out that modern scientists have learned to distrust isolated anecdotes as evidence, I have found that I am learning to distrust common sense. There are too many instances when the commonly accepted way of thinking about something is wrong.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I'm not automatically inclined to believe in, for instance, claims that a powerful establishment is suppressing certain scientific work (Park's point 2). However, I think we should be careful about dismissing out of hand the possibility that the establishment might stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power in society. Instead of making this a criterion for junk science, perhaps we should be sensitive to the influence of the establishment. After all, we're willing to question research that is funded by a party that has something to gain by the results. Why not keep an eye out for cases where the opposite might be happening?
I suppose what I'm saying is that we should allow for some wiggle room in our interpretation of Park's criteria. Park seems to think so too- just before he gives his list, he notes that "even a claim with several of the signs could be legitimate."
"Too good to be true" is heavily related to the evaluator's background in the subject matter. That's part of the problem: judges are not steeped in the evidence they must weigh. They need a more thorough guideline of what "too good" would mean to a knowledgeable expert.
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
Why don't they just use the Crackpot Index to judge them?
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
From the article: Ancient folk wisdom, rediscovered or repackaged, is unlikely to match the output of modern scientific laboratories.
Now would be a good time to point out that science still doesn't understand how aspirin (derived from salicylic acid, which was discovered at least 2000 years ago, works.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
This is just a shortened version of The physics Crackpot Index.
It's written for physics but seems to apply pretty well to any science...
+++ ATH0 +++
If you saw it on slashdot, there's a good chance it's a hoax.
You probably saw it multiple times ;)
At university I was given several courses in Methodology, not all of them fun unfortunately, but all of them relevant. Certainly in my current work as a government employee I continuously see claims being made by government and private sector alike which are shaky at best. I still value what I learned in Methodology to judge those.
Methodology or anything that teaches kids to discern right from wrong should be taught in schools, so that we can protect ourselves from wrong ideas based in nothing. This could be by just explaining kids how you can know something is true and when something hasn't been proven yet, but might be true and when things are real BS. (BBC's Panorama had an illusionist who debunked the claims of homeopathy. Entertaining and educational)
I also have one fundamental rule I adher by: Never trust data given by the person that is going to benefit from the decision you make upon it.
Use Adsense for Charity
"The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test..."
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
The only real exception to this is in new fields, such as computational biology; sometimes a whole new way of looking at the world comes along, and for a few years -- even decades -- the frontiers are wide open. Quantum physics was an example of this in its early years. At that moment, individuals and small groups and big organizations are roughly on a level playing field. But once the easy discoveries in the field have been made, the balance tilts back toward big science. That's just the way it is.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Back in my Freshman year I had to take an Engineering Seminar at my university (as with all the Engineering Majors.) My teacher was a department head of Engineering and he literally got 4-5 pieces of mail/email a day from Quack theorists. Ranging form mumblings about aliens and the moon to the decay rates of photons. Most of the bad Science could be shot down by noting the logical fallacies that were oh so rampant.
He also brought in a clipping once of an advertisement (From Parade Magazine or was that Popular Mechanics/Science) that promised to be selling an device that could derive energy by burning water. It used a jumble of big words like Hydrogen and Oxygen. That would be nice to get free energy by exploiting the energy taking conversion from water to Hydrogen Peroxide.
Of course things like that are money seeking monkeys, while the quacks tend to just be insane.
I'm all for spotting bogus science. The problem with some of these rules is assuming:
A) That there's always a friendly attitude towards actual innovation in science.
B) That there's no corruption in "accepted" scientific communities.
The "respected" scientists of various fields can be manipulated and manipulating, have their own vested interests, and have their reasons to be questioned as well.
That being said, I think a lot of these are spot-on, and that people do need the knowledge to ask good questions and spot frauds.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Religions only need two rules regarding science:
Rule one, you do not ask questions about Science.
Rule two, you do not ask questions about Science!
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
"6. The discoverer has worked in isolation."
:(
But this list was developed by one guy. Ack, I don't know what to believe anymore
Maybe he knew that I could not handle the truth?
Now, where's my hazel twigs...
Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules.
...should be: if it has a missing step before Profit!, it's probably bogus.
You are a bit behind the curve on aspirin. Try looking up information on COS-2.
When Doc designed the flux capacitor, he had to keep it as a secret. If it was common knowlege, people would abuse the ability to travel through time and create disturbances in the space-time continuum due to great carelessness.
Don't ever call Dr. Everet Scott a phoney. It may just ruin your chances of enjoying one of the best trillogies known to man.
Kan jeg få en pils, vær så snill?
It fails on the first two counts, and probably a couple others too. (These were just the easiest to find examples of.)
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. (Good Morning, America)
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. (beware of elderly)
Most of these apply to programmers I know. Ironically, including myself.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
The opening line being
..."
:-)
"I might not be a scientist BUT that doesn't mean I shouldn't comment on
something as important as quantum mechanics....
How Challenger blew up and why it was a terrorist attack
Why SUVs are environmentally friendly
etc etc
Oh and anything with an "ology" at the end of it, real biology is called genetics
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Oops. Meant COX-2.
And rule number 8:
Must have a power supply of exactly
"0ne-point-twenty-one Jigawatts!"
Wow....rule 2 and 4 (and rule 1, if you change it to a Patent Organisation [not to much of a change :)]) means Einstein was a fraud!
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Bogus science premises usually are well thought out, extensively researched but are dependant on one imaginary component, like carbon fiber nanotubes.
Sounds like that stupid fucking segway scooter.
Warning sign number 2
>2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress
>his or her work.
Well, a member of the secret scientific establishment brotherhood would say that, wouldn't he?
I'd like to add another tell-tale sign
8. The scientific study was funded or conducted under the auspices of a media company.
Recently in the UK we've had a number of TV documentaries about controversial theories. One was an investigation into homeopathic medicine. The other was into the idea that otherwise very mild diseases might lead to obesity. In both cases the TV company funded a small scale test.
The problem was that the tests involved only about 100 subjects, far too small to have any statistical validity whatsoever. They said so in the show, but is that enough? Several people I've talked to afterwards recieved the impression that the tests in the show proved something.
Far from promoting an understanding of science, the shows succeeded in missleading the public not only as to the validity of the theories under examination, but also as to the value of such small scale tests.
I've never come across this kind of thing in the UK before, is this happening on TV in other countries too?
Simon Hibbs
You're right about one thing though: it did take a long time.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
There have been quite a few lone wolves in history who have made important discoveries. (Farnsworth and TV for example). Though the article states specifically that this happens less nowadays, I don't think if some individual makes an important discovery on his or her own that it should be greeted with so much skepticism that it's just discounted sight unseen.
I've been swashdotted -- Elmer Fudd
and from the article:The Patent and Trademark Office recently issued Patent 6,362,718 for a physically impossible motionless electromagnetic generator, which is supposed to snatch free energy from a vacuum.
Really, if this was all they were handing out patents for we would not be in the mess we are in now.
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
The discoverer may not have much choice in the matter. For example, a reviewer may have leaked the story, or he may worry that someone else is going to scoop him, or he may work (horrors of horrors) for an institution with a PR department (meaning just about any university, research lab, or company).
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you anyway. Sure, scientists rarely reason like "well, if this guy is right, I'm going to lose my research funding/market/whatever". Thinking usually is more along the lines of "well, this guy obviously can't be right, because we get so much money for our way that a lot of people with a lot of money think we are right; so this guy must be wrong, end of story".
Like a lot of particle physics or astrophysics these days.
All scientific evidence is anecdotal in some sense. Just because someone has impressive sounding credentials doesn't mean his scientific anecdotes (=research results) are necessarily true. Just look at Schoen. Ultimately, the only way to know for certain is to reproduce the results. All one can ask of a scientific paper is that it contains all the information necessary to reproduce the results. If the results can't be practically reproduced or verified some other way (occasionally, experiments work like a public key cryptosystem), then they just don't matter.
This statement is followed by a pretty nasty put-down of things like traditional medicinal knowledge. Of course, such knowledge isn't "scientific knowledge". But that doesn't mean that it's not true, and it certainly doesn't mean that a court should disregard it. In fact, most evidence a court hears is not scientific evidence.
Einstein worked in isolation--does that make relativity "junk science"?
Again, like a lot of astrophysics.
With his rules, Park demonstrates simultaneously that he is too gullible when it comes to "reputable" sources and that he is too prejudiced when it comes to sources that he doesn't know. I don't know whether that makes Park a quack, but I do know that it makes him the kind of person that seriously hurts the scientific community and scientific discourse.
Scientific truth depends not on "warning signs", it depends on logical consistency and experimental reproducibility, and it depends only on that. Sadly, that often means that science can't give definitive answers because logical consistency or experimental reproducibility can be very hard to achieve or verify. But that is no excuse to substitute Park's own unscientific approach for them.
Most anti-evolution people are simply religious folks too afraid to face the facts. I suggest reading 29 Evidences for Macroevolution. I still do not see any objective evidence PERIOD for the existence of a supernatural deity. But objective evidence for evolution is abundant.
Think about it: man has invented various Gods all throughout history. The ancient Gods (Greek/Roman mythology, etc) were easy to disprove... (no Atlas dude holding up the Earth). The only reason the Christian God has hung around so long is because he is defined as untestable. News flash: You cannot invent something, make it untestable, and put the burden of proof on the opposing side to disprove it.
Is a similar set of 7 rules for spotting vaporware ;o)
Check if they have A Masters Degree ... in Science!
Afterall, according to the rules, Quantum Physics could be considered bogus.
By which of these rules, exactly? Even when it was first proposed, Quantum physics was NOT pitched directly to the media, was NOT claimed to be suppressed by the establishment, was NOT at the edge of detection, was NOT based on anecdotal evidence, was NOT based on centuries-old information, and was NOT developed by one person in isolation. Yes, it was a radically new theory that descriped new laws of nature, but atomic-scale physics was already known to be different, since Rutherford and before.
Yes, science is often weird and disturbing and hard to understand, but that's not a reason to confuse it with pseudo-science.
(Anti-disclaimer: IAAP)
I found two books I read to be very helpful in learning how to sort between the good and bad: "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" - by Carl Sagan "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and other Confusions of our Time" - by Michael Shermer
I would like to point out that when Asprin was discovered 2000 years ago I bet it was not known HOW it worked either
I mean, just a few days ago Slashdot ran an article about how the ancient Iraqis may have known electricity. Yes, I will agree with the author trying to point out bogus herbal remedies, which are, for the most part bogus. But to blanketly deny the wisdom of the ancients, when we make so many rediscoveries.... better to chalk this whole category up to the failure to seek peer review.
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
"data" is not the plural of "anecdote."
Ho ! these laws can also be used to detect religeous bunk...
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government. Claims that the oil companies are frustrating the invention of an automobile that runs on water, for instance, are a sure sign that the idea of such a car is baloney. In the case of cold fusion, Pons and Fleischmann blamed their cold reception on physicists who were protecting their own research in hot fusion.
Anyone remember the recent Slashdot discussion about Big Aerospace, Senators (and possibly MJ-12) stiffling little brave guys with little rockets?
'There is no scientific claim so preposterous that a scientist cannot be found to vouch for it'.
As a scientist, I fully support this statement and declare it to be irrefutably true.
He once wrote that "common sense isn't very common". Nor is it always sensible.
Disclaimer: Kudos to the bloke if he really has developed antigravity
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
The question as to exactly how something works is not something that science can answer directly. Rather, experiments on related phenomena end up giving enough clues for someone to "understand" it and come up with a theory. That process, of devising a theory, is far more creative (and random) than scientific. Science provides the methodology to test it though, without which the theory is useless.
The claim that a sample of 100 subjects is "far too small to have any statistical validity whatsoever" is quite wrong. When you obtain a statistical measure - correlation for example - you assess its significance by looking at the probability that you could get that result given the sample size. A smaller sample requires a better result for the same significance, but a sample of 100 - or even 1 - can give a statistically significant result.
If you toss a coin a hundred times and it comes down heads every time, you can be quite sure that it's not a fair coin.
... you mean like the parent comment?
Wolfram spent the last decade exploring cellular automata and recently published a massive book about it. I saw him give a fascinating presentation at the University of Washington a few months back, and he seemed on the level. The consensus of the critics: he has valid contributions to CA but needs to keep his ego in check...
Science Club Rules
The 1st rule of Science is you don't talk about Science
The 2nd rule of Science is you don't talk about Science
The 3rd rule of Science is when someone says stop, or goes limp, the research is over
The 4th rule of Science is only two guys to a research project
The 5th rule of Science is one research project at a time.
The 6th rule of Science is no shirts, no shoes
The 7th rule of Science is research projects go on a long as they have to
The 8th and final rule of Science is if this is your first night, you have to do research
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
Pardon the flame, but all these laws are also good for realizing that a divine power is a hoax as well.
The art of misinformation is similar no matter what the field, whether it's voodoo science or attempting to justify something that can't be proven like the mythology of religion.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator is no fraud! It really works, J.L Naudin has independently replicated it! Honest! Never mind G. Pusch - he's not skeptical, he's dogmatic.
...
Excuse me- I just need to reverse-age a bit with my Priore healing machine.
Note: you won't get this post unless you've read Bearden's site and read sci.physics.electromag
Bearden may be a crank, but his site is the most entertaining crank-site ever!
Gobshite, I say. African witchdoctors have used neme tree leaves since forever to treat malaria. Neme tree leaves contain quinine, which is known to treat malaria. This is known because scientists analysed the neme leaves to find the exact chemical which produces the effect after seeing african doctors proscribing it. Naturally the scientists are hailed as geniuses and the ancient folk wisdom dismissed as hocus pocus. This goes for most homeopathic medecines. Most of them work because they contain drugs. Identifying the specific drug makes it easier to control dosage, but it doesn't mean taking the herb won't treat a disease.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
However, more generally, making rules for evaluating innovation is a dangerous thing. Like art, there are no rules of what is art and what is not and creating rules for that can only be tyrannic. Who's to decide? There are plenty of scientists working alone in their backyard, UFO's might exist, and extrasensory comunication is not much more freaky than the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen distant-action paradox.
By the way, this list rules out the validity of religion as well on all seven points :-)
We have instinctual systems that make it hard to apply these seven rules, and it helps to be aware that people who seem to believe lies are mostly following their gut.
To apply these rules in every instance, we all know what happened last time we ignored Dr. Chaos and his mad ramblings about his doomsday weapon. Who would have thunk he meant the RIAA. And how he managed to fire it from a 60's kish super gun mounted atop a volcano...
In general my rule of thumb from now is to believe the scientist if he's pointing his invention right at me. Otherwise I'll feel free to disregard...
.8 Profit
Judges and attorneys are quite cognizant of "junk science" in the courtroom. Keep in mind that there is (usually) an attorney on each side of a case. There is also a judge that doesn't want to look like a fool. To this end there is what is called the Daubert test for determining whether testimony of an expert witness is admissible in court. This, in a nutshell, looks essentially to whether the proposed expert testimony or opinion is based on good science.
Five criteria are used:
1. Is the expert qualified?
2. Is the expert's opinion supported by scientific reasoning and methodology?
3. Is the expert's opinion supported by reliable data?
4. Does the expert's opinion fit the facts of the case (relevance)?
5. Does the expert opinion qualify under general evidentiary rules of Federal Rule of Evidence 403?
Criterion 2, above, relies on determinations as to whether a scientific theory can or has been tested; what the error rates are; whether a theory has been subjected to peer review and publication (these are not dispositive, but they are certainly considered by the court and if they are missing, hackles are raised); whether a theory is generally accepted in the scientific community or whether it i ssubject to debate still; and whether the details of the case "fit" the theory.
A "Daubert" hearing is usually convened if any of the above are in question, and the judge rules on whether expert testimony should be permitted. The experts C.V. and the materials he relies upon in the case, as well as his expert report (prepared prior to trial) are all discoverable, so there are no surprises either at the Daubert hearing or at trial.
If a case has enough at stake to require an expert to testify, generally there will be a competing expert. This gives you a dueling experts scenario (cue the music from "Deliverance") where bought and paid for experts contradict each other, in whole or in part.
The primary issue usually then becomes credibility which unfortunately usually is not based on scientific validity, but is instead based on more subjective criteria. Qualifications also come into play -- the guy from Harvard usually beats the guy from Podunk State all else being equal. Fair? Not really, but it is reality.
The problem with legal disputes and science is that you cannot set up special courts for every case in which science is a key issue. It would fracture jurisdiction even further. Besides, specialization doesn't really help because every case involves different science.
There is no way a tribunal can be all-knowing. For some limited types of cases that recur frequently, there may be some benefit to setting up specialized courts. Unfortunately, after you get past the trial, at some point it is impossible to set up specialized appellate courts to hear appeals. Laymen will be involved in the process at some point.
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
Last year the childhood prodigy and creator of Mathematica published a 1400 page book claiming the cellular automata will revolutionize and replace physics as we know it. This effort has many of the hallmarks of fringe science- fantastic claims and working in isolation (he cites few mainstream references and rarely published the past 20 years). On the other hand, he did eventually publish it all in great detail (sometimes amazing, sometimes tedious). The "scientific process" now has enough documentation to decide whether to accept or reject his claims.
In some sense Wolfram resembles Isaac Newton who is ranked as the top scientist of al time for the major inventions of the calculas, unification of terrestial with celestial gravitation, spectral optics, and the reflecting telescope. Newton was also paranoid secrative and took over 20 years to publish his results. Newton also did extensive work in Bible studies and alchemy, which turned out to be non-scientific. Newton also helped run the first professional society and scientific journal (Royal philosphical society).
Karl Popper has a hard nosed approach
If either of these don't apply then it isn't science.
Young Earthism attempts to make scientific statements, and fails the tests of observation. (ie, attempts to describe the history of the Universe, and is quite falsifiable). So Young Earthism is bad science, **not religion**.
Intelligent Design says that a Designer is behind the behavior of the universe, but makes no scientific statements, and can not be falsified observationally, so it is not science: it is Religion, **not science**. For the beliver in Intelligent Design, scientific observations about the behavior and history of the Universe tell about God's nature (since, by presumption, God exists). For the non-beliver, they do not (since, by presumption, there is no God). But science can make no (firm) statement about which is true.
Religious descisions (for both the believer and the non-believer) are descisions of faith and experience. No amount of science will (or can) ever change this.
I guess I was hoping for something a little more along the lines of a philosophy of science. Although I agree that bad science is usually accompanied by one or more (usually more) of these conditions, the conditions could just as readily be applied to certain particularly brilliant scientific breakthroughs. The conditions need fine-tuning to eliminate the false positives if we want to be sure to encourage the next Einstein, rather than mistakenly brand him a charlatan and run him out of town.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
If it's posted on Slashdot, and has to do with encryption of random data, or 'increasing the speed of the Internet' by many times, it's a pretty good bet it's bogus. It's also a pretty good bet we'll read about it every couple of weeks for the next couple of years. :)
Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).
1. You do not talk about bogus science
2. You do not! talk about bogus science
3. If this is your first bogus publication you have to publish
1. If the announcement is made by AOL and IBM, and not an antivirus company, it's a hoax.
2. If anti-virus programs can't save you, only deleting this file will help, it's a hoax.
3. If it tells you to email this to everyone you know, it's a hoax.
4. If a little kid in India is trying to get his letter around the world...sorry I digress.
5. If it was sent from my Dad in all caps, probably another hoax.
I'm not a scientfic historian, but couldn't points "2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work." and "7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation" be used to discredit a scientist on the order of Galileo? Or, for that matter, couldn't 7 and "6. The discoverer has worked in isolation" be used against Einstein? I am sure to be corrected if wrong, but I always kinda thought Einstein worked pretty much in isolation.
So these aren't a litmus test--just a leaning.
--
$tar -xvf
How about the immediate marketability of an "invention"? Most products take months to years to bring to market, and in this time, the word gets out. You seldom see only one company have the exclusive market for a product. If vitamin O had been But I always drink plenty of..."Malk"? -- Now with Vitamin R sold by other companies too, it might have taken off. Be wary of the sole keeper of a secret.
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
A friend of my Dad's, from about 1975 to present, matches # 1, 2 and 5 to a "T".
I was his assistant for a long summer, but I don't have a funny name. But I have a big hump on my back which moves from one shoulder to the other between camera shots, does that count?
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
Even though aspirin was "discovered" by a folk tradition, it's effectiveness has been verified by controlled, double-blind studies. There are many folk remedies, perhaps some of them actually work, but we won't know that until we verify them with the scientific method. Look at echinacea (proven not to work) laetrile (proven not to work) gingko (proven not to work)
Too good to be true.
--- Jason Olshefsky
Karma: Poser (mostly affected by adding this line long after everyone else did)
Rule 7 talks about proposing new laws; doesn't that rule out Einsteininan physics, since they require addenda to Newtonian physics?
www.wavefront-av.com
Sadly, we need this common sense. A lot of people are living in what Carl Sagan called a "demon haunted world".
Just last week I was with some people, otherwise intelligent people in a book club, who turn out to believe in predestination and ghosts - one lady says she hears voices of dead friends and they tell her they are OK and they give her comfort.
What is scary is not so much that (we all need comfort when friends die, and whatever we choose to believe is at least understandable), but the fact that the entire group of people misunderstood science. "There must be types of radiation that are not yet known causing this", was the consensus. Everyone just took this lady at her word!
Last week on a radio show here in Canada a "shaman", Doctor Somethingorother, took questions. One went like this:
"Doctor: Fred here from Winnipeg. My question: When you are about to get in touch with your spirit self, do your electrons speed up their frequency? And does this mean I have a talent for communicating with the spirits? Because this happens to me weekly: first I suddenly feel like my inner electrons are speeding up their frequency and then I am unable to talk for what seems like a while, I am like a Zombie for a few minutes, and meanwhile I feel like I am in the spirit world and communicate with their mystery, and then I come back again". Doctor: "Yes! Exactly! And Yes! And Yes! You are talented in spirit communication, and indeed the frequency response of the electrons increases as we get near the spirit communication level, as the energy increase is a presurcor to this communication..." bla bla bla.
Now this poor caller was presumably an epileptic or narcoleptic. He should have been told to get (science-based) medical treatment. But no-one found it necessary to point this out: just because someone starts talking in an authoritative voice, he is believed.
Just now as I typed this message received a junk fax for "Marina, a Leading Psychic". Many people will pay for this stuff, in 2003. Not 1403! Weird.
This suspension of disbelief is dangerous. I think we need to be forceful in debunking myth. It seems to me that in the early 21st century we are a bit too apologetic.. "emotional correctness": it is seen as necessary to respect all beliefs. I think we do ourselves a discredit by that.
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
8. The creation uses a flux capacitor.
9. The creation requires 1.2 GW of power.
Scientist making claim lives in isolation in the cellar of a large mansion or castle.
Or maybe:
Scientist making claim lives in isolation in the cellar of his parent's house.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
They are specifically advocated as warning signs - if these come up then further examination is required.
* [The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.]
And those cases where it was valid, scientifically, the literature bore this out fairly soon after. Remember the target of these rules are judges. If your deciding a court case on yesterdays lab results, then there's a problem.
# [The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.]
I think that this would trigger a second look to most reasonable people, both at his principle claim, and this claim.
# [Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.]
From the OED:
Anecdote: The narrative of a detached incident, or of a single event, told as being in itself interesting or striking. (At first, an item of gossip.)
Pages of dull tables are not an anecdote. They are a record of events. Yes, you still have to trust the researcher, but that's _not_ what this one is warning against. It's warning against delivery over content.
# [The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.]
You said: Of course, such knowledge isn't "scientific knowledge".
But that's the point - this is a guide to seperate true scientific evidence from not scientific knowledge.
# [The discoverer has worked in isolation.]
You said: Einstein worked in isolation--does that make relativity "junk science"?
And how long did it take from his publication till relativity was accepted generally? (NB: The Nobel prize was for his more collaborative work on QM).
Although it's worth noting that Einstiens lone wark was, essentially, mathematics, by making a co-ordinate transformation Lorentz invarient under the constraint of a fixed speed of light. The actual physics, and proof came much later, with many teams.
* [The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.]
You said: Again, like a lot of astrophysics.
But you missed the important part of the rule: If they make other laws of nautre wrong, then it's probably not the other laws of nature that are the ones that are incorrect.
If you're reffering to the situation with particle physics, then well, yes. That's an exceptional area. How much time with this rule's inclusion cost, in terms of re-evaluating and researching particle physics, over the time it will save, by getting pseudo-science rejected in a court.
This is not for the average man to tell truth from fiction. This is intended to assist judges in telling a well proven fact from junk science.
I think that they do the latter very well. For my line of work, (Research science), if I used these as gospel, I'd get nowhere.
Well, let's see.
"The Earth is Round, not Flat."
"The Lights in the Sky are Suns like Ours."
"The Earth Revolves around the Sun."
"Heavier than Air Crafts can Fly."
"Objects Heavier than Water can Float."
"Sickness is caused by Germs that you Can't See."
Feel free to fill in more examples!
I wish I could be more enthusiastic about Robert Park's list, but it's never so simple. Much of good science fails some of these tests and much of the bad science passes it.
He puts too much faith in peer review. I realize it's all we've got, but it's failed again and again and again. The other scientists just don't have the time to do a good job and many times they have ulterior motives. That's why the peer review journals have printed so many faked articles recently. (Read here or here for starters. )
I would believe his claim about pitching to the media directly, if he didn't do it himself so often. Was his column peer reviewed? His weekly news summary is entertaining, but his smug sense of superiority really grates on me. How in the hell does he know that cold fusion doesn't exist? You can't prove a negative, but there he goes trashing Fleischman and Pons. I'm not saying that cold fusion does exist, but I think it's more complicated than his sound bite. Let's face it, Park is as much of a media whore as the other scientists and he's just as prejudiced.
His other list items are just as faulty. Most scientists work in some kind of isolation because they don't want others to scoop them. But let me guess, the guys who are friends of Park aren't in isolation because they're hanging out with him.
Plus, new laws of nature are what science is all about. We don't need people dropping rocks all day and then announcing, "Yup, gravity still works." We want people probing the undefined areas of knowledge where marginal results leave us confused. That's the whole point.
The deepest problem is the faith we place in the scientific method. We want those guys in white coats to ladle out pure truth. That's why we spend
so much tax money on them. But it's never so simple especially when the phenomena are new or strange. He says you can always find some scientist to certify anything. So what good are scientists? I know, other scientists are the problem. If everyone would just listen to Park,
everything would be alright.
Park could handle this a bit better if he wasn't so arrogant. A more enlightened stance is to say that the scientific method takes a long time to converge on an answer and even then it may not be right. But it's the best we can do.
> As he says, 'There is no scientific claim so
> preposterous that a scientist cannot be found to
> vouch for it'. What he doesn't say is that there
> are plenty more who will invest in it or base
> legislation on it.
Or Religion.
That's ONE of the effects of aspirin. Causes can have more than one effect, and effects can have more than one cause.
Salicylic acid (sp?) is such a simple molecule, chances are it does all sorts of things.
Usually, the smaller the molecule, the less specific its effects.
I think the point is that pseudo-science ideas tend to obey many of the rules while real science ideas tend to obey few. Although you can create counter examples of each rule--demonstrations of real science which follow one or more of the rules--I claim it is impossible to produce a valid scientific principle that violates all seven. Likewise, I think it's unlikely to produce an idea accepted as pseudo-science which follows none of the rules.
--- Jason Olshefsky
Karma: Poser (mostly affected by adding this line long after everyone else did)
The problem isn't that a "new law of nature" is proposed, it's only a problem if that new law of nature doesn't simultaneously explain the new observation while at the same time giving the same results for old observations.
Quantum mechanics was absolutely a totally different law of nature which was hinted at by experiment but couldn't possibly have been conceived of until De'Broglie & Bohr had enough balls to call a spade a spade. At the same time when the rubber hits the road quantum mechanics gives exactly the same answers as classical mechnaics in the classical limit, which it must otherwise since we know classical mechanics works in it's range.
As an exercise for the student show that Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2 reduces to E=1/2Mv^2 in the limit where v is much less than c(note in these equations M is the rest mass and m = M/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)).
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
If the claim is made by someone from Texas.
The vast majority of alternative remedies fail this test. In fact, the definition of "alternative" could be something that can't be shown to work (without serious side effects). If it could be, it would be accepted by "the establishment" and cease to be alternative.
I did some research on this, and here's what I found:
Albert Einstein pitched his relativity findings directly to the media. However, it was not quite well accepted at first (as it was somewhat counterintuitive) and Einstein did make remarks to the effect that the scientific community was trying to suppress his work. Of course, at the time, relativity was at the very limit of detection as things like gravitational lensing was all but impossible to detect with the much cruder telescopic instruments they had mid century. Certainly his findings were basic new laws of nature.
And varies with time. Twenty years ago somebody was claiming to have a new holographic storage technology that would store 10 terabytes in one rack-mount unit. At the time, I said that it failed the "too good to be true" test. Today, it is "Where shall we ship it, and how are you going to pay" - 10Tb is off-the-shelf stuff
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
... It crashed at 7 times as fast so I had to slow it down to 6 times as fast.
Yes, you can CAPITALIZE certain words in your response, though that will not affect the fact that it makes no sense. If you want to convince me that "we don't know how aspirin works" is a valid assertion, first tell me how specific you need the "know how" to be. Are you saying we have to know everything conceivable about every possible interaction that the molecule can make? Doesn't seem reasonable to me.
Perhaps things were different in Einstein's day, but physics has been in the "Big Science" mode for decades. Look at a typical particle physics paper out of CERN or Fermilab-- it has normally 30 or 40 authors. In contrast, biology has only recently (with the advent of genomics) gotten into such a "Big Science" mode.
Just a LITTLE note, all demarcation rules between "science" and "pseudo-science" have been shown NOT to work. In the philosophy of science this past phase is now known as the "demarcation debacle" in which these rules cannot be applied generally especially in apriori fashion. They have misclassified many instances of what is considered good science as pseudo-science and pseudo-science as science, and they have been shown to arise because of hidden biases/agendas of the people that proposed them. Claim evaluation is case-by-case process that isn't necessarily easy to do.
I have to disagree with the author in one particular area at least, that of health/nutrition/interest groups. To say that there are no powerful interess that oppose particular scientific views is just completely naive. For example, the ability to label a food as GMO-free is being contested in the U.S. It's not some dark conspiracy, it's plain as day. Monsanto et. al. lobby, spend money, etc., it's all public record. So if a scientist making the point that people should have a right to know if foods contain genetically modified material already has a strike against him in the judge's mind because he says that a powerful interest is trying to suppress his conclusion, and is therefore a nut, that's just not a good thing. (BTW wherever one stands on whether GMO's are dangerous or not, surely people should be allowed to make up their own minds via labeling).
Of course, what happened is that we had the high-tech bubble which then popped. Now the VCs are so suspicious that very few high-tech business plans ever attract funding.
See my journal, I write things there
If you find it on Slashdot, it's bogus.
scott
You need a very different set of tests for young sciences, eg the social sciences. My favorite tests:
1. Whether the Usenet newsgroups for that science have healthy ongoing debate (bogus sciences like AI have empty newsgroups with occasional announcements of conferences , or references to literature that isn't even online)
2. How many websites for that science make an effort to explain the basics to average websurfers (AI is dismal for this)
The uniqueness of fingerprints has yet to be proven. There have been cases where defendants successfully challenge the validity of fingerprints based on a partial print.
Under reasonable scientific rules, fingerprint evidence is very suspect.
I agree that these seven rules are useful for judging bogus science, but I reject the implication that if it's not scientific, it is not true. Just because someone cannot point to a scientific reason, doesn't mean that various herbal or eastern medicines don't work. There is much about the workings of the human body that scientists cannot explain, so I'm not surprised that there are centuries-old non-scientific medical practices that cure millions of people every year.
In the same way, science is unable to deal with any reality that is not observable or verifiable. Theology and metaphysics are by definition unscientific, but that doesn't mean that they don't deal with truth; it just shows the limitations of science.
I'm not knocking science; I'm just saying that it's not ultimate truth.
Now would be a good time to point out that science still doesn't understand how aspirin (derived from salicylic acid, which was discovered at least 2000 years ago, works.
Now would also be a good time to point out that folk wisdom doesn't have the foggest how aspirin works. Science, however, does know that aspirin works better then, say, copper bracelets, and universally applies that knowledge (as opposed to folk wisdom, which differs from person to person and community to community.)
This once again perpetuates the myth that all UFO photos are blurry and therefore suspect. There are many, many CLEAR photos of strange flying objects going back decades.
The real problem is there is no way to conclusively authenticate or disprove many of these except for the obvious fakes that photo experts can weed out.
It's also interesting that the skeptics, in addition to arguing that the blurry, grainy photos are probably fake, also often argue that the good, clear photos are probably fakes because they are too good and clear!
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
Wow, you've managed to demonstrate you don't understand evolution, geology, physics, biology and basic scientific method all in one post!
Are you sure you're at the right site? Here, we like to use logic to think about things.
You hear all the time about skies being injured by sliding into trees, and you are tempted to think "In Soviet Union, trees run into you!" ? Well, Bob Park was joggin (in the US) one day, and a big old oak tree fell on him.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Criticize "Creationism" and it's Insightful. Criticize "Evolution" and it's flamebait.
Instead of being a hypocritical mod, respond to my problems with evolution. Prove to me my dead cat thrown in a cave won't be considered 10 million years old.
You can't because it's common practice to date the rock of things that are too old to get any carbon out of.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/
They were supposed to protect us from crap science. Then they were disbanded.
I guess REAL science is just too hard to deal with. It rudely remains the same no matter how much wishful thinking or political pressure is brought to bear.
Mumbo jumbo pseudo-science is much easier to deal with. It is whatever you want it to be. It changes whenever the political expedient demands.
The world of science is being affected by the media far more than the media is affected by science. If somebody comes up with an anti-gravity machine, for example, it is QUITE possible that they will try to secure their place in history by announcing it directly to the media, to prevent the news from leaking prematurely or other scientists from stealing the idea, or, heaven forbid, patenting it before the originator can claim "prior art". The other scientists can examine it to their hearts content, ONCE the originator has had his day in the sun. Look at Apple's secrecy with their products. News leaks KILL these people. The same psychological principles hold true for a scientist who comes up with something completely new. Look at the greatest invention of the 20th Century, the Segway [snicker].
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
Yes, conspiracy theorists often seem like quackpots. But to discount the POSSIBILITY of establishment interference is to deny basic economic theories of self-preservation. Don't you think it's possible that oil companies would fight to stop alternative fuels from coming forth, or would they welcome their own doom joyously? Would Microsoft welcome a perfect disassembler that would reveal all their source code, or would they see this as a threat? Does Microsoft support Java for its cross-platform functionality? How about a pill that took the place of food, would MacDonalds say, "Sounds good, who cares about the bottom line and the millions of jobs we're going to lose?" If the establishment didn't want to preserve the status quo at all costs, FUD wouldn't exist. But it DOES exist, and I see it being used daily to kill small innovators (BeOS, anyone?). NOBODY welcomes a better product or idea if it's coming from a competitor.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection. Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. Thousands of published papers in para-psychology, for example, claim to report verified instances of telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition. But those effects show up only in tortured analyses of statistics. The researchers can find no way to boost the signal, which suggests that it isn't really there.
Nice science - If we can't prove something exists, it doesn't. This ignores the reality that our scientific methods are still in their infancy. *Of course* we can't prove aliens exist in the billions of galaxies out there, we can't even make our own space shuttles work without exploding. And just because I've never been to China doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. There are enough people who claim to have been there, and many even have photographs of it, but I've never been there, so I wisely discount these "tourists" as quacks. Same goes for religious experiences, aliens, telepathy, precognition, etc. 100 years ago, Nuclear Power would have seemed insane, but not because it is "crazy", but because our own limitations prevented it from becoming reality for us. Everything is "at the very limit of detection" at one time or another.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal. If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. Because anecdotes have a very strong emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of science. The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test, by means of which we know what works and what doesn't. Contrary to the saying, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote."
See my last answer. Anecdotal evidence is not hard science, but it points toward science. The millions of people who speak in tongues should direct scientists toward examining the possibility and searching to explain and understand the phenomena. Scientists must keep their minds open, not closed.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries. There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth. Ancient folk wisdom, rediscovered or repackaged, is unlikely to match the output of modern scientific laboratories.
Acupuncture. Works.
And a lot of "old wives tales" have a logical scientific basis that was undiscovered until much later. But people recognized that certain things worked for them, for whatever reasons (like bread poultices, washing regularly to prevent illness, etc.) And I still think the Pyramids, the ancient batteries, and Captain Kidd's Island security system are pretty cool. Oh yeah, crop circles, Bermuda Triangle, blah blah blah. We don't understand everything, but we also shouldn't discount everything we don't understand, either. I personally don't understand wrestling, so it must be a hoax, too... No, wait, bad example...
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
Didn't ALL the great scientists work in isolation? It's hard to say "Nobody understands me" when everybody you know works at your lab 8 hours a day and is in total agreement with your seemingly insane ideas. Same with persecution. Persecution never happened, since everybody was on the same page. "You're right, dude, the world ISN'T flat!" "The world revolves around the WHAT?? Oh, yeah, right. Okay, cool. I'll change the history books." "God isn't smiting the sinners with the Black Plague, it's just a disease? Damn, shoulda known. Thanks for the update."
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation. A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.
That Einstein guy was a quack. Same with Newton. Same with Copernicus. Our knowledge of the world is full and complete and needs no revision. Thank you.
Yup, bogus science abounds among Christian circles. Young Earth - Old Earth - Flat Earth - Earth-centered Universe - it is an age old problem, usually involving axe heads grinding on whatever topic is "socially relevant" these days. The net result is this: Christianity has become "Right-Wing" "Anti-Abortion" "Anti-Gay" "Anti-Women" "Anti-Science" "Pro-Ignorance" - nothing more than a list of rules and regulations to be followed or be damned.
Is the science of Christianity bogus? Yes - some of it. Is the Bible bogus? No. Is the Bible scientific? NO!!! Where we get ourselves in trouble is when we make the scriptures say something they simply weren't intended to say. In fact some of the strongest warnings in scripture are aimed at "believers" who twist the Word of God into their own self-serving substance (well-intended, or not).
Amazingly enough, the Bible even talks about this. Quoted below is 1 Timothy 4:7-8 (New International Version):
"Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives' tales; rather, train yourself to be godly. For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come."
I'm glad that things like Creationism and Morality are so harshly scrutinized, even scoffed at. Christians would do well to fully understand the "Seven Signs of Bogus Science." But Christians would do even better to fully understand God's heart for those who don't know Him, and make it their life's goal to have that same heart.
This sig is a test. If this had been an actual sig, you would be reading something quite a bit wittier than this now.
I'm a biophysical chemist. My Dad used to be a state legislator in Mississippi. One day, some crazy inventor actually got some of the legislators to listen to his "discovery" of an engine that produced more energy than it used. He wanted the state legislature to pressure the U.S. patent office to give him a patent, which it had so far refused to do. I had to explain why this couldn't possibly be (Dad, just put your hand on it.: is it warm?). But, man, is it hard trying to explain thermodynamics to the layfolk.
This Gedanken experiment is turning out to be a big let down.
But science can make no (firm) statement about which is true.
Not quite. One of the most important parts of any theory is parsimony. Creationism violates this, and therefore science can discount it.
It boils down to a simple hypothetical conversation.
Creationist: Where did the universe come from?
Scientist: I can't say for certain.
Creationist: God created the universe.
Scientist: Where did God come from?
Creationist: I can't say for certain.
Basically, you add to the equation, but don't get any answers. The question of 'Where did X come from?' is posed, and saying 'X=Y' is unneccessary and unparsimonious. You can't bring 'Y' into the equation unless it will bring you closer to an answer. Creationists do so, with the claim that science cannot discount it, but science can, and does, say it is incorrect. True, science can't change your 'beliefs', but you can believe 2+2=5, but there's no reason for that to be taken seriously.
Creationism isn't outside the realm of science, but claiming it is is the only way to keep it around.
GL
It is falsifiable, not the discovery of only one, was extensively discussed among peer and certainly do not make media headline except in hollywoods fertile (sic) creative mind.
When you have such a disclaimer, better support it with good grounded argument instead of a throw-it.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
He worked in isolation. There were no references cited in his theory of relativity. It was laughed at for years because of that basic "unscientific flaw".
One the whole, I think this article is solid, but one thing that troubles me is the urging to not listen to someone who cites an establishment that is opposed to their evidence. There are plenty of examples where scientific evidence was supressed in order to achieve a particular agenda (think tobacco and lung cancer, vehicle safety in the 70s, and drug safety to name only the biggest). The author should at least acknowledge this issue and suggest as a rule to be highly skeptical of evidence presented by someone who has billions of dollars in profit at stake.
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
At the time of Galileo "law" of nature or at least the model we have for them, were not grounded. But now everything as fundemmental as been found, most new "model" are only a correction at some frontier point of the old model (at least where I work in physic). Hreck, even relativity is only a frontier model at certain speed, for everyday's life people can use newtonian law and still find the same result to many digits after the coma.
The point is : point 2 is not really valid because the establishment in question WASN'T the scientific establishement but something altogether diffeernt. the argument being that the scientific establishement itself would not let something new remain hidden, they would rather be the first to investigate it ASAP for the nobels.
And point 7 as per above was before the model were set so it is ok, because there was nothing b4.
Finally einstein did not work "alone" isolated. He was in cooperation and dialogue with many scientific at that time which had as many extremly important discovery made. And again it was a fundemmental law, thus the "celebrity". heiseberg uncertainty principle isn't as known, but IMO should be : the principle shows that whatever we will want to do there willalways be limitation due to measurement and not everything can be known on a particule/conjugated variables in Q systems.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
"On December 18, 1953, Dr. Irving Langmuir gave a colloquium at the Research Laboratory that will long be remembered by those in his audience. The talk was concerned with what Langmuir called "the science of things that aren't so," and in it he gave a colorful account of several examples of a particular kind of pitfall into which scientists may sometimes stumble."
One of the best papers ever on this sort of thing is now, finally, on line here - N-Rays, Mitogenic Rays, Allison Effect and much more.
8. Scientific evidence based on posts from Slashdot :-P
My journal has hot
The advice given is intended to be used in granting and interpreting patents. There is no list of rules that is guaranteed to produce good science. If there were, we wouldn't need to have the intensely human and social process of science to work things out.
The problem is that it sometimes takes a long time. People who want patents want them right away. So, the question becomes whether there's more risk in getting bogus science patented versus waiting for science to finish its process before giving a patent. I'd argue that the former is more risky. A patent seems to grant an imprimatur, and I don't think that should be given when there's a reasonable doubt.
Part II: How to Spot Propaganda
There are all sorts of inbetweens. There are skeletons of ape like humans that have all sorts of tool using abilities, fossils of bird like dinosaurs.
Go to a decent natural history museum and you can see some examples.
- An airplane.
- A maglev.
- An antigravity machine
- A submarine that runs on uranium.
- A car that runs on water.
- A program that can make most files fifty percent smaller without data loss.
- A program that cam make any file smaller by at least one byte without data loss.
The problem is that as far as a judge is concerned most technology is to good to be true.Space elevator
Unless that cat was fed on 14C-depleted food, it will be quite obvious in 3000 years that its remains are not 10 million years old.
ISTM to be completely accurate, one would need to test aspirin vs a pill consisting of a chemically and biologically inert substance (which sugar is not).
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
YHBT HAND!
If it matches any of the baloney detection tests it's not just a wishy-washy might-be "warning sign", it's proof that some part of the claim is bogus.
And for the curious, please...
It's the rudest thing I've ever seen in my life, and does a horrible discredit to the memory of the man.-Rick
Back around 1980 (I wish I could find a cite, but nothing comes up on quick search) some researcher at -- I think it was UCLA, but I might misremember -- took a notion to do proper double-blind tests on assorted folk and herbal remedies, with the intent of proving how much wonderful medicine was being neglected by the establishment. To the researcher's horror, most had serious negative side effects, and some could easily be lethal or do permanent damage even in "normal" doses. But he was honest enough to publish what he found, not what he wanted to find.
One result that I recall in particular was that daily use of chamomile tea could, after 3 years or so, cause fatal damage to -- damn, I can't remember if it was liver or kidneys, but you get the idea.
Aspirin (a descendant of willow bark tea) survived into modern medicine because it actually works, with relatively minimal side effects. One suspects other "natural" remedies would have done likewise, if they hadn't been found to have drawbacks beyond their value.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Your "real biology" comment reminded me of a funny incident in college 15 years ago. My fello astronomy major friend and I were walking through the biology area of the science building. Noting several open doors and in a mischevious mood I said in a voice loud enough to be intentionally overheard . . .
.
"Biology is not science, it's just naming things!"
Man, you should have seen the pissed off looks the profs sticking their heads out of the office to see who said that gave us . .
My motto is: Never give up - unless it's harder than you want it to be.
I guess the article missed a #8. Anyone invoking the word Truth (Caped or not) in the argument is sure to be a hoaxster. From the Pope on down.
Help fight continental drift.
Our textbooks that teach evolutionary theory as fact are a perfect example of this. Textbooks with "facts" that have been proved innacurate as early as the mid 90s that are still being used to this day.
I keep forgetting my place. Jesus is for losers. Why do I still play to the crowd?
5. The invention/revelation has been "coming real soon now" for so long that no one remembers what the hell they're waiting for.
Duke Nukem Forever is bogus science?
Prove anything at all to anyone. Period. You can't and neither can I, prove that I exist; but you can't. Dumbass the theory of relativity states that everything is in relevance to what you percieve, but is not necessarly true. Thus one cannot prove that I am a crack addict, or regularly shoot up on it ha
fools! You'll never catch me I am the gingerbread man!!!!!!!!!
There isn't one. Sorry to burst your new-age bubble. That's why I became a scientist- to whittle away at the edges of falsehoods.
(I'm not knocking alternative mecidine, it surely warrants scientific inquiry!)
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
I'd say that Park fails to be sufficiently skeptical, and acknowledge that all conclusions are provisional. Thus references to "the most fundamental laws of nature" and
Seems like he's taking an ideological stance that energy states are finite, and that our sense of scale is accurate. In other words, he comes out as one of the physicists opposed to the idea of a "Zero Point Field" below 10^-33 m wavelength and that energy is all-pervasive and abundant even at 0 Kelvin. There are, however, other very well informed and quantitatively supported camps on this issue.
Scientists, Engineers, and Naturalists: beware of excessive Reductionism, Positivism, Absolutism, Materialism, Relativism. They are provisional tools, like hypotheses, that can easily lead to overweening worldviews that have little to do with the endeavour of science, and everything to do with protecting privileges.
Damn those pesky terrorists
These are WARNING SIGNS. Not litmus tests.
If you saw a person waving a few of the aforementioned red flags, it would warrant closer investigation of the claims then might normally be required, not dismissal.
Dogmatism is bad no matter how you slice it; the author of the 7 rules was aware of this.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
The Crackpot Index
John Baez
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:
1. A -5 point starting credit.
2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
14. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
15. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
16. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
17. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
18. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
19. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
20. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
21. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
22. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
23. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
24. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
25. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
26. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
27. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
28. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
29. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
30. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
31. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
32. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
33. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
Whew! I'm glad we're done with all that science.
Now we can get back to studying the funk.
Keep your packets off my GNU/Girlfriend!
You're an idiot. HIV is constantly evolving. In fact, HIV evolves fast enough that each host has a different strain by the time it finaly kills them. And don't tell me that HIV just randomly mutates. That is exactly what evolution is. Random mutations that improve survivability.
Found on Google:
"Don't Talk About Fight Club"
Everybody Wang-Chung tonight!
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense...
BUT
Just because I can't prove flying pink elephants(or extraterrestrials) DON'T exist does NOT mean that they DO infact exist.
Now if you have a credible theory about the existance of flying pink elephants(or UFO's) you might go looking for them and you might convince others to come with you and help.
Does this make your search goofy or un-scientific? Only to those who disagree with your theory. They of course do NOT need to help you out and should politely stay out of the way.
The problem is that there are some scientists who are not satisfied with letting people explore theories that they disagree with, in fact some of these people actively try to keep people from doing research. Why? Because the very idea that somebody thinks differently then them might cause somebody else to think differently about THEIR theory, which is a risk they would like to avoid.
This line of activity not only happens in Science, it happens in religion as well. Surprised?
Here are some other good sources: Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/webcourse/lost/sagan. htm
Baloney Detection
How to draw boundaries between science and pseudoscience, Part I
By Michael Shermer
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=0 00D743A-CC5C-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21
and
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=0 00ADC77-B274-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21
This happens in Big Science, too. Neutrino detection experiments detect very few neutrinos. Most attempts to experimentally verify general relativity also have problems. (The precession of the orbit of Mercury is tiny, and mostly accounted for by effects from other planets.) But that work has been repeated multiple times using different techniques by different people, which yields some confidence. Still, there's no single killer result in either area.
As for suppressed inventions, those are rare, but they do exist. A major attempt was made by MagneTek (later Universal Manufacturing), which made old-style inductive fluorescent lamp ballasts, to suppress the electronic fluorescent lamp ballast. Litigation resulted. The lone inventor won. The verdict was for about $96 million. This created the compact fluorescent lamp industry.
This is probably the most tenuous connection, so I appologize if I may be wrong. Darwin developed his first theory of evolution in Zoonomia.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
It is always claimed that "The Church" has suppressed his evidence.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
Evolution is not detectable because it happens on a huge time scale. We cannot see a family of animal (not species) evolve into a different family of animal since it happened in the past and it takes too long for it happen.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
We have to rely on Darwin's annecdotal evidence from the Archipeligo. There is no laborory that macro-evolution can be studies in.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
This is the same call we hear from all the pro-evolutionists. Evolution must be true since it is the only theory that scientifically explains out origin. First this assumes that everything is in the realm of science. Second, it is an arugment from ignorance.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
Darwin's biggest achievements came in a remote, mostly uninhabited island chain.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
Darwin had to propose an entire this new evolutionary force to explain our creation.
Timex appealed to the government to block digital watch imports. When they lost, they decided to compete instead of complain, and have done very well since. But most times the entrenched old guard is displaced, which is why they fight so hard to keep the riffraff out.
The point here is simple: there is a tyranny of the status quo. Look at Microsoft - they are not trivial to displace from a monopolistic position; neither are corporations and universities that have a vested interest in gradual instead of rapid, massive change.
Gradualism is always more accepted by the powers that be than revolution. Remember the old adage: evolution not revolution. That's what the powers in place want to see, they do not want to see something that will displace them. And when they hold the power, they will act in their own interest the vast majority of the time. If a Star-Trek transporter were invented, imagine how the airlines and automobile manufacturers would fight it and would fund studies showing how dangerous or energy inefficient it was. Their survival would be at stake, and they'd fight to stay around. Yet their vigor in fighting would not be indicative of whether transporters were useful.
Got Wisdom?
..then it's almost certainly bogus, unless proven otherwise. Most of them wouldn't know the scientific method if it smacked them in the head.
Yes, the folks that gave us lobotomies, eletro-shock therapy, repressed memories (Are you *sure* your daycare teacher didn't do magic sex stuff to you? Really sure? Really really sure?), rampant ADHD and autism (over)diagnoses, along with less overtly harmful stuff like psychotherapy. All of these are based on pretend science -- no need for yucky stuff like experiments and control groups.
I disagree. Science is using observation to determine the viability of hypotheses. Here are a few reasons to believe the Biblical account:
This paper states humanity likely moved out of the Middle East very recently...
Using rare mutations to estimate population divergence times: A maximum likelihood approach
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 95, pp. 15452-15457, December 1998
http://www.rannala.org/papers/PNAS98.pdf
-----
In this paper we propose a method to estimate
by maximum likelihood the divergence time between two populations,...
When applied to three cystic fibrosis mutations, the estimatorRD
could not exclude a very recent time of divergence among three
Mediterranean populations. On the other hand, the divergence
time between these populations and the Danish population was
estimated to be, on the average, 4,500 or 15,000 years, assuming
or not a selective advantage for cystic fibrosis carriers, respectively.
------
Evolutionary Genetics tries to estimate how 'old' our current species is by dividing the number of mutations observed in a specific DNA region with the estimated mutation rate. The generally accepted figure is around 150,000 years, but...
A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region.
Nat Genet. 1998 Feb;18(2):109-10.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/en
-----
The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies of human evolution and to forensic identity testing.
-----
This paper shows how genetics is now used to determine the human family tree:
The Human Family Tree: 10 Adams and 18 Eves
NY Times Article (free subscription required)
http://www.nytimes.com/library/nationa
-----
The human genome is turning out to be a rich new archive for historians and prehistorians
Population geneticists believe that the ancestral human population was very small -- a mere 2,000 breeding individuals
But the family tree based on human mitochondrial DNA does not trace back to the thousand women in this ancestral population. The tree is rooted in a single individual, the mitochondrial Eve, because all the other lineages fell extinct.
The same is true of the Y chromosome tree, a consequence of the fact that in each generation some men will have no children, or only daughters,
This ancestral human population lived somewhere in Africa, geneticists believe, and started to split up some time after 144,000 years ago, give or take 10,000 years, the inferred time at which both the mitochondrial and Y chromosome trees make their first branches.
The tree is rooted in a single Y chromosomal Adam, and has 10 principal branches, Dr. Cavalli-Sforza reports.
-----
Besides the curious fact of the "single-ancestor" DNA bottleneck existing at all, it applies to both male and female branches, at around the same time and the previous paper about the mtDNA mutation rate applies to the 144,000 years estimate. (i.e. divide-by-20).
Continuing on, the paper talks about how the male lineage began to descend. It refers to the Y-chromosome originator of the lineage as 'Adam'...
-----
Of these sons of Adam, the first three (designated I, II and III) are found almost exclusively in Africa. Son III's lineage migrated to Asia and begat sons IV-X, who spread through the rest of the world
-----
In other words, the Y-Chromosome ancestor was:
This is shown quite clearly by this chart accompanying the NY Times article.
The Bible says the same thing: [This is the only section of this post from the Bible]
-----
The Bible. Genesis 10:
1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
2 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras....
Note: 7 sons in all
5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
-----
The Bible says the world, created about 6000 years ago, was destroyed by a worldwide flood around 5000 ago. It describes how, in the aftermath of the flood, human lifespan began declining at an rapid rate - from close to 1000 years before the flood, to around 100-200 years within a few hundred years after the flood ended. This could be due to highly increased radiation during the aftermath of the flood causing DNA damage. The increased radiation could account for the 1/3/7 lineage being so distinct (due to increased mutations during the immediate aftermath).
One causative factor in radiation release could simply be the earth being torn up during the flood - the Bible describes the earth as a single continent before the flood (Genesis 1: "And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." ), multiple continents after ("islands of the Gentiles" - a common term to refer to the rest of humanity). The radiation release could not only account for shortened lifespan and the reason for the 1/3/7 lineage pattern being distinct - it could also skew techniques like radiocarbon dating.
Some other facts:
Two last things: You can't *prove* God -- the Bible says God is pleased by faith. Similarly, you can't prove atheism either. But with evidence like the three papers above, science is consistent with belief in the words of Jesus Christ. And his words are those that are recorded in the Bible - and a lot has been done in his name - the crusades, inquisitions, racism - that is against his words.
From the bottom of the link in the parent:
weasel words (e.g., The separation of powers of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the United States may not conduct a war without a declaration of Congress. On the other hand, Presidents are given control of foreign policy and the conduct of wars, which are potentially powerful tools for getting themselves re-elected. Presidents of either political party may therefore be tempted to arrange wars while waving the flag and calling the wars something else -- "police actions," "armed incursions," "protective reaction strikes," "pacification," "safeguarding American interests," and a wide variety of "operations," such as "Operation Just Cause." Euphemisms for war are one of a broad class of reinventions of language for political purposes. Talleyrand said, "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public").
[boldface mine]
I just thought that was kind of interesting in the current political climate...
What does the future look like since excessive patenting means the scientists can no longer build on each other's work?
Murphy was an optimist.
Hypnosis was developed long ago by mesmo. He was discredit for doing hypnosis and it took until after his death before the scientific community accepted it.
Likewise, Galleleo died because nobody would accept his stuff. Even his peers.
There are plenty of cases throughout history where ppl fought against the establishment and it was only later that the idea was accepted. You can also bet that it still happens today.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science", by Martin Gardner (former "Mathematical Recreations" columnist for Scientific American). Though this book is decades old now, many of the same old hoaxes are still going strong. Some guy named Hubbard is featured prominently (didn't he start some religion?). Look in used book stores or at the library; I think it's out of print. Sorry, I'm not selling my copy on eBay.
Why does any article related to detecting bad scientific claims get so many posts by people desperate to defend religion?
If you throw a dead cat into a 10 million year old cave, it would take an infinite amount of time for its carbon to completely decompose. Therefore, you are wrong.
Sedimentary layer dating? This isn't quantum mechanics! It's very simple. A certain percentage of carbon dioxide has C-14 in it. It is rare, but it does exist. This C-14 is deposited at a fairly constant rate. That makes it easy to date sediment. The number of layers doesn't matter nor does erosion.
If you would prefer to date things relative to each other with sediment, then it gets a little harder, but not much.
Until you can recreate a computer from sand, you can't use it any more than an African tribesman can.
Until I see you turn into an educated person without any help from teachers, I will firmly believe that our educational system is failing.
It amazes me how many people believe creationist pseudoscience so unquestioningly.
It's amazing how many people believe that evolution IS faith based. It has been demonstrated repeatedly and yet there are still people who don't believe it. Next you are going to tell me the Earth is flat and that it is the center of the universe!
Just now as I typed this message received a junk fax for "Marina, a Leading Psychic". Many people will pay for this stuff, in 2003. Not 1403! Weird.
If Marina was any good as a psychic, she would only send faxes to people gullible enough to believe what she says. Why should she waste her time and money sending faxes to skeptics like you?
The article's first paragraph is clearly taking a shot at BlackLight Power in New Jersey.
The site can be reached at BlackLight Power. While the hydrino concept is difficult to accept for almost all mainstream quantum mechanists, I think all of them would acknowledge Dr. Mills as a very bright man who is capable of more original thought than 98% of the scientific community. This doesn't make his theory 'correct', but doesn't make him a pariah either.
Only through experimental repeatability and multiple independent observations of the 'hydrino' can true scientific credibility begin in his case.
Quantum mechanics has accumulated nearly a century of scientific evidence and it is not unreasonable to think big ideas need this kind of time frame for validation now and in the future.
You are told you cannot understand the principles involved with the new creation because your brain is not sufficiently advanced to comprehend it.
:-P
Dare I say it? OOP!
Table-ized A.I.
This statement concerns me:
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries. There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth.
Ancient folk wisdom, rediscovered or repackaged, is unlikely to match the output of modern scientific laboratories.
First, I'd note that I am certainly supportive of many elements in Western medicine. The statement about "modern scientific laboratories" is, however, incredibly smug.
Mind you, modern medicine has managed to produce pharmaceuticals which have managed to cause serious harm to people (weight loss drugs that caused cardiac damage, thalidomide, etc.). While I don't disagree that modern medicine has certainly done some great things, people who write off traditional medicine are guilty of the same crime as Flat Earthers.
Second, as someone who is going into the healthcare profession (starting as an EMT again, then transitioning into a PA program, then perhaps acupuncture), I'd note that there is a significant amount of research, study and use of traditional modalities in a Western medical setting. My father, a chiropractor and acupuncturist, studied at the UCLA Medical School Center for East/West medicine, and felt that it was an incredible experience. He has taken many referrals from Western doctors to assist with pain management, using a modality many consider "quackery"--never mind the strong anecdotal AND scientific evidence.
The Chinese herbal medicine doctor I go to reads Western medical research extensively, has contacts with doctors at Oregon Health Sciences University (ranked as a top US medical school), and is well versed in Western and Eastern treatment systems. He was able to successfully treat my friend's Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, after many Western doctors turned him away.
Granted, we should be judicious people. Just because we don't exactly understand how something works doesn't mean we should discount it.
The word 'Evolutionists' kinda lumps biology, chemistry, physics, geology, etc. together into one group all trying to disprove Creationism...
Scientific papers get peer-reviewed when they show up in journals. 'Peer-reviewed' sounds kinda friendly, until you realize that every post-doc and PhD ais trying to publish as many of their OWN papers as possible, trying to raise funding or reach tenure.
Everybody's looking for a new and exciting angle to be the next Einstein or Watson & Crick. They WANT to discover something that is outside the current thinking because that's what gets the attention. Another way is to finally prove something that was only theoretical. Or disprove something that was thought to be true.
On the flip side, nothing's worse then finding some new paper that's contradicting your line of research. You want to tear it to shreds, you reread their data and see if you get the same conclusion. And you pray that it doesn't answer (or invalidate) the research you just spent the last two years on...
The point is: peer-reviewed doesn't mean you get a thumbs up and a gold star for every paper. It means that everybody's double-checking every step you make and making you justify every statement.
Disclaimer:
I only work in a research lab. I keep delaying graduate school out of sheer terror of the oral thesis defense....
A certain percentage of carbon dioxide has C-14 in it. It is rare, but it does exist. This C-14 is deposited at a fairly constant rate. That makes it easy to date sediment.
This method of dating requires the assumption that C-14 production/decay has been in equilibrium since the organism in question died.
There's one problem.
C-14 is currently being produced by hard radiation in the upper atmosphere faster than it is currently decaying. It's not in equilibrium yet, and only will get that way when there is enough of it that it decays in total as fast as it is produced.
C-14 dating assumes that the C-14 content of the atmosphere was the same when the organism died as it is now. If there was less C-14 in the past, which is true, then it would seem now like more of it had decayed than actually has, and make said organism seem older than it actually is.
Dark matter, dark energy -- keep these concepts in mind before you speak so confidently about the extent of human knowledge or Science's map of Reality. I've said it before and i'll say it again -- the human need of the scientist to remain the arbiter of what IS is the biggest barrier to fundamental developments in science. Individually it's psychological, collectively it's sociological; in both scopes there's a resistance to the idea of reconsidering or abandoning an supposed Knowledge, despite the pressure of anamolous observation, because the individual or collective ego is threatened with annihilation by such a change.
But Reality doesn't care if your model is incomplete. Edison summarily dismissed AC power systems as impractical, even dangerous, even after Tesla had succesfully developed the theory and practice of polyphase AC, because Edison's ego was heavily invested in DC systems. He ended up licensing and selling AC systems because Edison was above all a businessman. If he'd been an academic, say, whose career was built on the idea that AC power was untenable, perhaps he would have gone to his grave defending DC.
3, 5 and 7. Next?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Egon: There's something very important I forgot to tell you.
Venkman: What?
Egon: Don't cross the streams.
Venkman: Why?
Egon: It would be bad.
Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good-bad thing. Whattya mean "bad?"
Egon: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Ray: Total protonic reversal....
Venkman: Right, that's bad...OK.. important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Reproducible results, dude. If it works, and you can verify it---trivial in the case of basic antibiotics---then you've got yourself a winner.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
What are laser diodes and what do they do that's too good to be true? I mean, I know what lasers do, and I know what diodes do, and while the former is pretty nifty, I don't think diodes really sound "too good to be true".
"A device that allows current to flow in one direction but not the other? Oh my pants!"
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
> There is not one true theological or philosophical system, although some are more true than others.
Fair enough. Please answer these two questions:
1. Which theological or philosophical systems are more true than the others?
2. What objective criteria was used to arrive at that conclusion.
It's the "Subterranean Cosmodrome of Power", thank you very much!
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
an equivalent to BCS theory for high-TC superconductivity
In English, please?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Err...
Okay, my understanding of quantum is mildly shaky, so someone smarter than me should probably elucidate. But from what I do know, scaling up any quantum property, much like slowing down any relativistic property, leads to classical physics. That is, Netwon's mechanics equations are a pretty good approximation when something isn't very fast or very small. (For physicist values of 'very'.)
And, of course, the idea that brains of twins are somehow 'entangled' is utter bunk. Most of the matter in our bodies is cycled through the process of eating and excreting.
I know, it sounds nice, but believe me, anything you can actually see can't be thought of in quantum terms.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
While Parks will weasel about whether his criteria are conjunctive or disjunctive, assuming they are disjunctive (which he will argue whenever he is arguing against a scientific proposition or technology), he would have rejected the Wright Brothers' claims of first flight.
Seastead this.
Err, the photoelectric effect (which was one of the first indicators of the quantized nature of electricity) and the nature of blackbody radiation (likewise) are readily demonstrated---in fact, they were the initial justification for quantum theory.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Yes, post-modernism, that ubitquitous but indescribable phenomenon sweeping the industrialized world is represented partially by a rise in hucksterism. As the industrialized world starts to lose faith in scientific progress, a return to mythopoeic beliefs, organized religion and pseudoscience begins to grow. People start to eschew rationality and science for things that "sound good", and are consequently tricked by con-artists that no urologist would ever endorse (read: people that send out Mangina Enlargement Spam).
Solution(s)? If it's too good to be true, it probably is. Free money? Doesn't exist. Free energy? Doesn't exist in a practical form. Use common sense and diligence to see through the hucksters! And while one may not always want to have faith in science on moral grounds (because, well, science has no morals allegedly), have faith in science on rational grounds.
That's my $.02x10E80
Our illustrious friend is somewhat accurate with his point #2 in general, but it's interesting that many GAME-CHANGING research has fallen under that. Here are some examples:
Galileo - Theorized that the Sun was the center of the "universe" and not the Earth. Galileo was, by and large demonized by the current SCIENTIFIC community.
General Relativity - Theorized that time
Quantum Mechanics - Theorized that "fundamental particles" did not follow the accepted laws of motion (i.e. Newtonian). Even Einstein did not accept Quantum.
Boltzmann - committed suicide over the rejection of his ideas merely because "atoms" were out of favor. His theories were later proven.
So, you have to be careful.
> The only real exception to this is in new fields, such as computational biology; sometimes a whole new way of looking at the world comes along, and for a few years -- even decades -- the frontiers are wide open. Quantum physics was an example of this in its early years. At that moment, individuals and small groups and big organizations are roughly on a level playing field. But once the easy discoveries in the field have been made, the balance tilts back toward big science. That's just the way it is.
Quantum Physics was not an easy discovery. It was the accumulation of a series of revolutionary theories by Planck first, then Bohr, then Heisenberg, Schrodinger, then Dirac and so on. *This* was big science and it was small-budget.
In what sense do you call this easy work? Even if you had put hundreds of mediocre scientists to work in an organized big-budget project at the time of Max Planck, to experiment on and explain the ultraviolet catastrophe problem with Wein's law, they still wouldnt have come up with the revolutionary notion that energy is quantized. It required a theoretical genius to figure out this fundamental law of nature.
Even fields like computational biology and genome mapping and decoding still await brilliant or revolutionary discoveries and theories from individual geniuses, particularly in explaining gene interaction and expression. Big budget science involving hundreds of medicore scientists cannot arrive at such theories easily. Millions on monkeys at typewriters cannot produce a Hamlet.
Basically, intelligent design is saying that you have to be consistent when you analyze "intelligence". In other words, you look at a building and go through a mental process and end up saying, "this was designed by _someone_" You look at a computer program and say "this was designed by _someone_" You also look at certain things (e.g. pink noise) and say "this is random." SETI does this - they are looking for signals that indicate intelligence.
However, when you look at, for example, human beings, if you went through the same mental process you have to contradict yourself - you see something that is complex, you see something that exhibits a pattern, but you say, "this is random noise".
You're correct that there aren't any REAL scientific claims, but "forensic" science is never really able to "claim" anything, it just suggests a more or less likely scenario. For example, quantum mechanics suggests that a bullet could disappear from a gun and reappear in your chest, but a forensic evidence would probably suggest that the bullet was shot from the gun.
So, in other words, Intelligent Design suggests that, in order to validate their non-scientific worldview (that there is no god) scientists are unable to consistently apply logic to whether something is designed or not, IF that design implies the existance of a god.
---Random mutations that improve survivability.--- No no no. Random mutations, at best, simply increase variation. It's selection that skews that variation towards new forms of survivability.
That's why they calibrate it. Go to an ice cap, sample air bubbles in the different layers of ice, and measure the relative carbon concentrations. Seriously, do you think the scientists believe it occurs at a constant rate?
The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
So that would mean that those CloneAid people with the human baby clones are lying to us? No way.
This is all quite obvious to us already. The general public (well, those with common sense) require validity of claims through the desire to hear about SOURCES. When Peter Jennings goes into a story about a new medical claim like rat turds give you cancer, or something, he usually starts off with "According to a study published in this weeks Journal of the American Medical Association..." and so on. That tends to tell the public (again, those with common sense) that the study probably has some scientific validity.
But when you get a story like those alien-subservient CloneAid smarty-pants holding press conferences without any published results, it provokes a media blitz. Go figure.
Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is enemy action.
that you cannot find a scientist to deny its validity...
Everything works both ways, y'know...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
We know only too well how aspirin works since newer drugs have been developed to take away the bad aspects of it while conserving the good. Unfortunately, aspirin inhibits two different enzymes (COX I and II), COX II is the key to aspirin's good effects. When a COX II inhibitor was developed and released on the market about 5 years ago, we didn't know exactly what sorts of side effects it had. You can ask your pharmacist for something called a "package insert" for more information on both the side effects and the actions of the drugs in question.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
If his first instinct, upon hearing anything, is to say "Try again, you lying piece of sugar-honey-iced-tea," he's arguably your best friend when dealing with an expert witness.
Someone mentioned the "too good to be true" principle. Let me offer a counter to that:
Let's say that I can have a SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse-Examiner) nurse take a rape kit from a victim. Let's then say that the assailant left certain body fluids behind.
Now, let's say that I have a suspect. Wouldn't it be nice if we could draw blood from him, compare it to the evidence left behind in/on the victim, and know with reasonable certainty whether hehad sex with the victim.
In my own lifetime, this was considered too good to be true. Today, genetic comparison is a fairly common part of sex crime investigation. It lets us nail the guilty to the wall, and helps us to exclude the innocent from suspicion more quickly. Sounds like a benefit to everyone.
Too good to be true? No, getting paid more than the BFI or Waste Management garbage collectors would be too good to be true.
I think that number two does not belong on the list. There are the obvious arguments that Galileo and Copernicus' science would not pass this test, but the suppression of valid science by corporation or governments continues to be an enourmous problem even today.
The best known example is the discovery of the probiotic used in the treatment of ulcers in the 70's. A guy named Dr. S. K. Dash invented this treatment using probiotics that cured 90-something percent of ulcers, but his treatement would mean that huge pharmeceutical corporations would lose millions of $ to this cheaper, more effective competitor (their products did next-to-nothing for the treatement of ulcers). As a result, major pharmeceutical companies invested huge amounts of money in discrediting Dr. Dash in both the courts and the media. Ultimately the science won out, but it was a very trying time for Dr. Dash and his associates, and a less-determined individual may actually have had his discovery suppressed.
I've read this book, and it is quite an interesting read. It expounds on the topics mentioned in the article as well as giving some detailed accounts of examples of voodoo science. I highly recommend it. The ISBN is 0195147103.
Just curious. How does A New Kind of Science fare?
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. Check.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. Kinda. Give it half a check.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection. Hard to say. We'll have to let him go on this one.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal. Hmm. I guess a run of a computer program qualifies as anecdotal. Check.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries. No! (Phew!)
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation. Whoa! Off the scale here! Gotta give him a check and a half for this one.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation. Ding! Rung the bell on this one, too!
Using Mathematica to add these scores up, I get 6/7.
I guess A New Kind of Science isn't A Real Kind of Science.
With that said, the sort of entanglement we are talking about with EPR might work for a few photons or maybe a few tens of photons or atoms, but thinking that such an effect would scale up to the macroscopic seems about as likely as all of the bits of the broken glass just randomly jumping back up to the shelf.
Modern scientific laboratories made Thalidomide into a household name once, so I have to agree with him. It's really hard to beat that sort of output.
Looks like a very beautiful place. I hope to get there someday. From the pictures I've seen of Australia, and Tasmania in particular, there are sights that are so different from anything I've seen here in the states.
Did the scientist announce the scientific breakthrough in an "Ask Slashdot" post?
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
"Humans are genetically predisposed to religion, to believing in a supernatual creator who loves us or hates us. "
The religions are Wired so that they catch on, like a bad joke or a good virus. I would never have beleived in a supernatural creator had i never been introduced to it in movies, books, by my parents, and i definitely would never have thought such a being cared about us, let alone loved us or hated us if it weren't for the abovementioned. The idea itself has a quality that it propegates itself very easy. Sure, there may have been a person in the past who was hardwired to think of a god, but i am not nor ever was one of those people... there is no such thing as a foxhole in an atheist.
humans ARE hardwired to desire things, and after countless exposures to things like 'being loved' 'being hated' 'hating others', and other things in the world there may be rationality in accepting the idea of god into our minds, according to what we allready know about the outside world. Why is it that there is sunday school, where kids too young to even understand the implications of any of what they are mindlessly repeating told to mindlessly repeat things and read stories if this is not the case? it's to infect the young with the idea. same goes with all "childrens books"[that isn't cartoon/drug based], etc etc...
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Spot on, dude. Why is it that the creationists always think they're the only ones that can spot these obvious flaws, yet the 1000s of scientists working full-time in a professional capacity are completely clueless. A little humility wouldn't be out of order for the creationists!
This is Slashdot. Are you sure that *you* are at the right site?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
May I suggest that the professor will have to read: "The Universe is a Cloud, Some Raw Food for Thought" www.lrsp.com where he will find, conclusively, that the Big Bang theory has just collapsed into a heap of dust nebula.
The random mutations that do not improve survivability tend not to get passed on to future generations, the ones that do improve survivability do tend to get passed on.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
---The random mutations that do not improve survivability tend not to get passed on to future generations, the ones that do improve survivability do tend to get passed on.---
This is the creationist understanding of evolution: the idea that you gotta wait around for a lucky mutation to evolve. But that isn't how it works. The vast majority of mutations don't increase survivability in any discrete way: what they do is increase the total pool of variation in a population: slight differences in all sorts of different traits. None of these things may confer any particular advantage at the moment: they could be the grounds for a new selection generations hence when the environment changes.
virtual mod point to you!
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Simple example (maybe too simple):
The "discovery" that the Earth revolves around the Sun could not possibly have been true, because it contradicted the laws of nature as they were known at the time by Europeans. (Forget that the helio-centric model was an ancient idea for non-Christians/non-Europeans, and the geo-centric model was a throwback enforced by the Catholic church for its own purposes.)
For another, perhaps better, even simpler, historical example, refer to Charles Siefe's book "Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea".
I guess that in many cases, it is a good rule of thumb for the educated layperson.
"My perpetual motion machine works because the Laws of Thermodynamics don't apply to it."
"Really? Can you explain *why* the LoT don't apply to your particular machine?"
"Ahhh...no...."
But scientists frequently fall back on this argument when presented with novel theories/developments. In fact, it is very rare that a new theory NOT have to overcome overwhelming opposition until it's accepted. This is not an inditment of scientists or the scientific method, its just the way "real" science works.
That's not to say that there aren't things that science can't explain Yet. After all, these "laws" that most people throw around as absolutes are really just the best mathematical abstractions and models that we are able to create to understand that which we observe. That is why the Newtonian "Law" of gravity is mostly right, and works just fine to explain many physical phenomina, even though a "better", more complicated, more comprehensive law was proposed by Einstein.
I can't improve on Jacob Bronowski's words ("The Origins of Knowledge and Imagination", p69)
"...none of our explanations can be true, that in some sense there is no ultimate truth accessible to us for the simple reason we have to make a cut in the universe in order to do the experiment at all. We have to decide what is relevant and what is irrelevant." _aside_ We called this the "framing problem" when I was doing AI/robotics research. _continuing_ "Since I hold that the universe is totally connected, that every fact has some influence on every other fact, then it follows that any cut you make at all is a convenient simplification. But in essence it is a distortion, and you are now decoding only a part of the total..."
This seeming limit to human comprehension, and the inability to remove oneself from the universe in order to understand it, is why so many theoretical physicists turn to religion, particularly Eastern religions, seemingly in contridiction to their scientific training.
Blaise...blaise...blaise...
---anactofgod---
"Equal opportunity swindling - *that* is the true test of a sustainable democracy."
I'm not religious, but I certainly agree with your point that there are lots of ways for scientists to derive benefit. The same is true of religious people trying to convert people to their religion, even when they believe it wholeheartedly and genuinely believe they will help others if they can convince them.
I don't automatically dismiss arguments from people who have something to gain by convincing me. I just have to be a little more skeptical.
The part I can't accept is your "Science is great, but please don't put it ahead of common sense" nonsense.
If science can't be ahead of common sense then nothing could ever be believed if it contradicted existing beliefs. Things like relativity and quantum mechanics massively violate common sense, but in all cases where common sense and science make different predictions regarding the outcome of an experiment in these areas, it is the science prediction that turns out to be correct.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
> What if the bottlenecking is not theoretical, but real? i.e. There really *was* a single Adam and a single Eve.
...it should have read:
Correction to the top of my post above. Instead of:
i.e. There really *was* a single Adam and a single Eve.
i.e. What if Noah and his wife correspond to Y-Adam and m-Eve?
While I believe there was an Adam and Eve to begin with, the genetic bottleneck we're discussing fits the narrowing down of the human race to Noah and his family rather than Adam/Eve.
"base legislation on it."
Come again? Just how many scientists
do you think are in congress? and how
many of them actually made the proposals
you accuse them of?
Were that I say, pancakes?
Dr. Robert Park has some fair commentary on the matter of "bogus science", however, his perspective causes him to categorically reject (without inquiry) that which he does not understand or have laws with which to explain. That he thinks that we humans in the year 2003 should have scientific laws to explain everything that exists, or else it "doesn't" exist, makes me laugh. I'm sure a few hundred years ago he would have insisted that the earth was flat. Take a look at an intelligent viewpoint of the scientific process, Dr. Edmund Storms
Segue, indeed. The Segway is an invention, not a scientific discovery. Different rules apply. No laws of nature were harmed in the making of this device.
Carry on.
Virg
So your saying Ginko Biloba does not act as a vasodilator, or affects platelets ability to clot?
Are you saying Echinacea does not provide antiviral, antifungal, anti-inflammatory, and antibacterial properties when used externaly or as a mouthwash or to cure yeast infections like candida? Or that it does not briefly help excite the immune system (hence why it's bad for people with lupis and other overactive immune disorders)?
i am not familier with whatever laetrile is so I can not say anything about it, but the above two have been studied.
I'd like to see your proof they do not work as study has shown. Note I'm not saying they work as some bad marketers and websites might claim.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
I call bullshit on the chamomile thing. This isnt like those studies where they force feed rats 10x their body weight in sachrin and say "see it causes cancer" is it?
Got any links or book titles to verify the validity of this study.
Any idiot knows not to use blood root internaly, so one whould hope this researcher didnt do things as stupid as that.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
No, what was unusual is that this was a "standard daily cup of tea" type dosage, studying live human subjects, NOT a test megadose on rats. And it was conducted under double-blind conditions.
:(
I wish I could find info on this particular study, but so far it eludes me. Hell, it's been a long time, and was over a decade pre-internet. Probably languishing in some pile of deadtree medical journals, never to be seen again.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
People should always struggle to get other people to adopt the truth...even if they themselves don't actually know what that truth actually is. That is why they try.
People are better off knowing the truth, don't you think? Isn't it easier for the truth to be adopted if someone is stuggling for it? And since we don't know for certain what that truth is, the best we can do is to struggle for what we currently know.
One take on an all powerful God is that he is the purveyor of all power.
I'd love some verification (as you would). Frankly if these deadly consiquences were that easy to cause from simple things like chamomile tea, Celestial seasonings needs to be raided by the FDA and held accountable for the untold deaths directly resulting from use of the products they push on the american consumer.
Only half joking.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
I don't recall which herbal remedy it was, being this was a few years ago (and since I don't use any, I didn't really care :) but one that was popular for ...weight loss??... was found to be the direct cause of several deaths due to side effects on the heart. IIRC the U.S. marketers pulled it voluntarily. (It was a big flak on the TV news magazines at the time.)
:)
Irony: that people who believe that folk medicine is "unexplainable by science" (IOW, "magic") will demand a full cite and scientific proof if someone relates that said remedy may not be so good for you after all.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Well that's completely different from your claim of camomile tea.
Most likely it was Efedra,aka Ma huang.
Yah, it might help you lose weight, but it can also cause you heart problems, however I would say in no greater risk then all the people who abuse amphetamines in other forms. Then again Fen-Phen was a more dangerous concoction then properly used ephedra.
Wouldn't irony be taking speed to lose weight but instead gaining weight?
From this page ephedra (usually Ephedra sinica) over the centuries has traditionally been dried as a whole herb and then added in very small amounts to a tea,
I think it would be a good idea for you to read the entire page at that link to get more information about ephedra, and check out the pages they have for the other herbs you mentioned.
I don't believe "folk medicine" is unexplainable, look at willow bark. In most cases no scientific study has been done and all people have to go on is anecdotal evidence. Science can easily prove or disprove the folklore. Nothing is good for you if used improperly: food, drugs, heavy equipment.
Many drugs created by the pharma companies mimic or duplicate the chemicals in nature, from herbal or other sources. The thing is, a plant is not uniform and can have varying levels of those chems while a manufactured version can be controlled, that's why aspirin is safer then making your own willow bark tea.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
People don't know what they want to believe. How can anyone want to believe anything but the truth. Since they aren't believing what they want to, the truth, what's to say that what I believe isn't closer to the truth than what they believe. The best way to resolve this is if each of us tries to convice the others that what they believe is right.
As for demanding proof... that is a noble cause if used for a quest for understanding. However, monkeys like you simply throw out that demand only as an attack when you realize that you yourself have no real facts (don't confuse that with theory which is nice and pretty). What is amusing is when the monkeys like you chatter on about facts that have already been proven to be blatant falsifications and fabrications.
So in short, take your bitchy little attitude and throw yourself in front of a large bus. By freeing up your theft of oxygen (that is obviously not reaching the reasoning portions of your brain but is in full force at your bullshit artist portions) you can contribute greatly to the biosphere supporting all oxygen requiring lifeforms.