Slashdot Mirror
Forging a Head: The Upside of Scientific Hoaxes
An anonymous reader writes "In a very funny piece over at Science Careers (published by the journal Science), scientist-comedian Adam Ruben suggests that a lot of good can come from a well-intentioned hoax. 'Hoaxes have infiltrated science for centuries,' Ruben writes, 'from fake fossils (Piltdown Man, archaeoraptor, Calaveras skull) to fake medical conditions (cello scrotum, the disappearing blonde gene) to fake animals (Ompax spatuloides, Pacific Northwest tree octopus, Labradoodle).' In contrast to fraud, Ruben argues, such hoaxes do a great service to science by illustrating 'failures of our most important tool: our skepticism.'"
While it's true that we need one of these every so often to remind us of the need for scientific rigor, it also does great damage to science for many. e.g. Climategate gave ammo for global warming deniers, piltdown man gave more credence to creationists, etc.
So I get you are still an ape? Fortunately I evolved away from that. :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
In contrast to fraud, Ruben argues, such hoaxes do a great service to science by illustrating 'failures of our most important tool: our skepticism.'"
But... was this peer-reviewed?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Wait...
Labradoodle's are fake? I bet all the Labradoodle owners would be shocked to learn their dogs are not real.
Maybe the author should research before he declares what's real and what isn't. I mean, his bad science isn't actually helping here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labradoodle
If you understand evolution to mean that you, personally, have been an amoeba at some time, you are so far out that I don't know what to tell you here. Please, read up on the subject before making comments. Besides, every scientific theory is unproven. the thing about evolution is that it is unfalsified despite of decades of people trying hard.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Most skeptics reject everything outright
Those people are not skeptics.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
There is more evidence in Creationism - as well as it making more sense.
But if we take Bronze Age myths as evidence, then there's much more evidence for theories other than Judeo-Christian creationism. There are hundreds, thousands of different creationist myths out there.
If you think an old book is evidence enough you have to consider all other old books as equally valid, don't you?
I am pretty much tired of this discussion. The evidence supporting evolution is laid down in decades worth of scientific journals filled with articles on every detail. First we constructed the interrelationship of species by anatomical means. Later we learned to read genetic codes and protein sequences. And guess what - the relationships derived from those are nearly identical to the earlier though. What stronger evidence do you need? Well, you are entitled to your believes of course, but reality exists separately from those.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Well, an amoeba is a single-cell organism.
At the moment of conception you really were an amoeba.
Your point is invalid.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Part of what you said is sort of correct. None of your ancestors was an amoeba. Whether one of your ancestors was an ape or just a common ancestor between humans and apes is uninteresting semantics. You had ancestors that would look like something any of us would see and say "that's an ape!" . But let's focus on the amoeba claim. Amoebas are not simple primitive organisms. Indeed, they share some similarities with complex life forms such as the presence of a cell nucleus. Amoebas are highly adopted for their niches. This means that no ancestor you had ever resembled an amoeba. You did have single-celled ancestors but that's not the same claim. Let me tentatively suggest that if you think that amoeba is a generic term for single-celled organism then you really don't have nearly enough knowledge to discuss evolution, and thinking you know enough to reject it against the scientific consensus is probably an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect. So take a few biology classes. Local colleges will often allow people to take classes they have. Start with an intro bio class, then take a genetics class and an evolutionary biology class. At that point, if you still reject evolution you'll at least understand what you are rejecting.
"Most skeptics reject everything outright" This may very well be true of most skeptics you know, but my definition of skeptics is different. My definition, and the skeptics I know, more closely align with the definition of skepticism associated with philosophy (second definition here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism#Definition) or the one just following for scientific skepticism (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism#Scientific_skepticism). They tend not to reject everything outright, but to suspend judgement until sufficient evidence is in place to make a judgement.
Science is about focused skepticism, not general skepticism. It is very difficult to successfully peer review a paper that is deliberately attempting to decieve. Those usually need to wait until the experiments are repeated and fail to produce the expected results. Politics is a bitter, poisonous soup of lies and disingenuous spins where accurate models do not trump clever rhetoric and trolls will attempt to strike you down not in the search for truth, but just to see if they can do it. Science is hard enough to do without people deliberately attempting to set you up for failure.
Neither the tornado season nor any floodings are outside of historial norms. Don't let mass media educate you on science.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-tornadoes-climate.html
We rightfully call this kind of people "deniers" or "denialists". They may foam at the mouth as much as they like, that is what they are.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Real enough. But they are rotten hunting dogs if you are going after the elusive jackalope.
Have gnu, will travel.
Grumpy people whose default setting is "no new information" do indeed label themselves skeptics. The funny thing is a lot of them seem to be incredibly gullible once they let that guard down. Makes me wonder if the "skeptic" pose is a form of self-protection.
Caveat Utilitor
Fortunately the disappearance of the blonde gene in females cannot happen due to a interesting epigenetic phenomenon.
As is well known, blondeness is fairly prevalent at birth in both males and females but fades as the individual matures, with most blondes turning brunette before the end of adolescence. But a remarkable phenomenon, evidently involving the modification of the blonde gene possibly through environmental effects, often occurs soon after whereupon the prevalence of blondeness starts to increase again. Most remarkable, individuals whose innate blondeness was never expressed as a child (they were always brunette), begin to express the blonde gene in early adulthood. For reasons that so far remain unexplained this phenomenon, though not avoiding males entirely, is almost entirely seen in females.
It appears then that this epigenetic phenomenon will act to restore blondeness to the female population offsetting any long-term trends to the gene's underlying extinction.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Most skeptics reject everything outright.
I'm inclined to dismiss that statement out of hand ...
Check out my novel.
The reality of the situation is that, with vanishingly few exceptions, a biologist who is determined to do any work which does not presuppose the existence of evolution will quickly find himself an unemployed outcast. Students unwilling to presuppose the existence of evolution will have a very hard time graduating with an advanced degree relevant to the field.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.