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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Bogus science premises usually are well thought out, extensively researched but are dependant on one imaginary component, like carbon fiber nanotubes.
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.
I would like to point out that when Asprin was discovered 2000 years ago I bet it was not known HOW it worked either
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.
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.
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.
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)
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:>
> Science just isn't intended to answer every question. One question it doesn't answer is WHY.
Very often, science does answer the "Why?" question. For example, "Why do apples fall toward the earth rather than in some other direction?", "Why can we construct a nested hierarchy of species on the basis of their morphology?", "Why can we construct a nested hierarchy of species on the basis of the mutations in their genes?", etc.
> Science can give you many equally valid explanations of HOW species could have resulted, stemming from different base assumptions, demonstrating which one is accurate is completely outside of the realm of science.
This goes on in every field of science. Meaningfully different hypotheses have different implications for potentially observable phenomena, so we try to make the relevant observations and discard the hypotheses that aren't compatible with what we see.
> Think back to your science fair days, Can it be reproduced? Can it be verified?
We can't reproduce the reactions that we know happen in the heart of the sun, and yet for some reason we don't have thousands of preachers ranting against that knowledge every Sunday morning.
> Evolution is religion and superstition just as much as Creationism or Hinduism.
Ah, the last desperate argument of the creationist rears its ugly head.
> It's no more provable than either, at least, until you die.
Science isn't in the business of "proving" anything. Science is in the business of explaining observations. The theory of evolution explains lots of observations; the religion of creationism explains none.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
You misunderstand the rule. The rule is not to dismiss the ability of people from years ago to be able to discover medicines. It's to counter-act the following claim:
If a belief has been around for a very long time, it's rediculous to think that all those people for all those years believed it and yet it's not true.
The claim sounds pretty convincing at first, but rewrite it to the following and it sounds pretty silly:
As long as something is believed long enough, it automatically becomes the truth.
So the rule is simply stating, if somebody feeds you the line "but it's an ancient remedy that's been around for 5000 years!" it's absolutely useless in determing the truth of their claim. If that's their best evidence, they're in trouble.
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
Ever heard of the placebo effect?
Yes, and science can't explain why it happens. But it does still happen, none the less, and it is quite powerful. Many think that there is a psychological connection, but they have not yet found the physiological mechanism. Otherwise, it would be a useful effect for doctors to exploit.
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.
enough of this prattle. go read this tutorial about radiochron dating and maybe you'll learn something today. or read about isochron dating methods and learn how different dating methods can be used to verify one another. or, heck, why not just start at the beginning: go read about fossils and paleontology.
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.
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.
But science *is* the only way to evaluate claims that fall within the bounds of science. If you claim that some homeopathic remedy cures some disease, that claim can be subjected to scientific scrutiny. You can do a double-blind test to see if the effect is significantly greater than a placebo. When such things are done, and it's shown that such a treatment is not effective, the proponents of homeopathy will tell you, "Hey, man, you just can't evaluate this with your narrowminded scientific methods. It's, like, deeper than that."
That isn't probing the limits of science. That's just head-in-the-sand BS. People are free to maintain their non-falsifiable beliefs, but once they use those beliefs to make an *empirical* claim (e.g, Benny Hinn heals cancer, homeopathy cures disease, psychics predict the future, etc.) science is the appropriate means to evaluate it.
Close, but not quite.
All else being equal, science will consider the simpler explanation more likely to be true. Both of the italicized phrases are very importent.
The simplest possible theory of everything is simply "God wills it thus." You invoke one entity, and don't muck around with gravity, electomagnetism, etc. You even get some predictive power: "God wills that apples fall, so when I drop this apple, it will fall."
The reason that science discounts this theory is not that it has a simpler one. Quite the contrary; just try to learn quantum mechanics in anything less then five or ten years. What it has is a theory that predicts things much better. "God wills it" doesn't work well as the only theory of the universe, because it's a disguised form of appeal to experience, and there are a lot of edge cases, such as the famous gold foil experiment that gave strong evidence for the existance of atoms, where your experience isn't sufficient.
First, the point is that given two theories that make the same prediction, science prefers the simpler one. Second, the point is that that means nothing about the truth of such theories; the more complicated one may still be correct.
Thus, if there is a God who did indeed create the universe, then there is one, regardless of how the additional apparent complication may offend your sensibilities. Thus, Occam's Razor is only a rule of thumb useful for proceeding with scientific discovery; it is not a fundamental truth of the universe and has no power.
Finally, in this particular case the true paradox is "Something, instead of nothing, exists." "God exists and created a universe" and "A universe exists" are really on the same level of complexity; both simply assert something exists. From our point of view it may seem simpler to simply assume the existance of a universe, but again, that has no power over what is true. A pet bird that never leaves a house may find it easier to simply assume the existance of a house, but that doesn't mean that the house was not created by humans and lots of raw materials that weren't a house to start with, even if it never sees the humans of the house do anything remotely resembling construction.
The oldest records of my family tree date back to 1860. Therefore the world was divinely created 140 years ago?
The oldest living dog I know of is 16 years old (determined by reading his showdog papers). So the world was divinely created 16 years ago?
Stories about demons, elves, pixies, ghosts, spirits, goblins, superhumans, giant mutated lizards that breathe fire and demolish largish cities, also exist in many (most?) world cultures.
Punctuated equilibrium accounts for problems seen with traditional natural selection, not for problems with evolutionary theory. It's important to realise there's a distinction between the theory and the mechanisms behind the theory. The mechanisms are constantly being changed as new evidence is discovered. The theory has withstood all serious attempts to be discredited.
"No, you're still not getting it - the layers on top of your cat are known to be younger than the cat."
So if I throw a dead cat (that died yesterday) in a well and it caves in you know the rock on top of the cat is younger than the cat. Or if I throw it in a cave and the cave collapses the cat is younger than the rock of the cave? Are you serious?
Thanks for demonstrating my point. "Evolutionists" *don't* know that the rock above something is younger. In fact it's always the case when you bury something that what's buried is SIGNIFICANTLY (on the order of millions of years) younger than the dirt piled on top.
A person buried 6 feet under is less than 100 years old but the dirt is millions upon millions of years old.
So no, you don't get it at all. But in true Slashdot fashion your ignorance is moderated up.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Since the last ice age ended around 10,000 years ago, no tree can be 20,000 years old because its climate would have changed too drastically for it to survive.
Flood stories exist in most world cultures because it rains on most world cultures.
You confuse the principle of a theory with the application of the theory. If a theory says that new species arise due to natural selection and evolution, that doesn't tell us anything about the population dynamics, rate of evolution, or why two populations may find interbreeding uninteresting. If I can't fix your television, that doesn't mean that there is an error in Maxwell's equations.