Confronting Fraud In Science

[CraigS]

Found a very nicely written article (http://sppiblog.org/news/2522) written by a Physicist, (Laura Greene) about a new book called:

"On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front Lines of Science",
David Goodstein, 2010 Princeton University Press.



Thought provoking stuff and whilst I don't see that we've had any fraudulent material presented here, we should all be aware of "pathological science".
("Pathological science" contrasts to "Pseudoscience", which has no pretense of following the scientific method).

The last highlighted statement above, captures my thoughts on the reasons for trying to keep Forums like this one, focused on mainstream science views.
I feel the value of the Forum rapidly diminishes if we ever lose that 'anchor'.

Cheers & Rgds.
PS: Apologies to the more experienced types who are highly aware of the above points. It doesn't hurt to get a reminder, every so often. :)

[sjastro]

Pathological science is a prerequisite for pseudoscience.
The fraudulent misrepresentation of mainstream science is required in order to justify pseudoscience.

Unfortunately this type of behaviour is alive and well in this forum.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

"Fraudulent" implies intent to deceive, in order to justify pseudoscience ?

If I put myself forward, as an example, my lack of knowledge or understanding, can easily lead to unintentional lapses into 'Pathological Science' ... which I would hope, is detected and highlighted by others. (I would want for no less).

I would guess that most folk are always in the 'learning' mode and thus, I might estimate that this would be the majority of what I've seen, since I've been around here. And it would seem that the 'majority' is what keeps a forum honest.

(Mind you, that last paragraph is based on 'pathological science' !!)

:)

Cheers

[Steffen]

Yes, there is intent to deceive that usually stems from substantial vested interests. This is not to say that every exponent or follower of pathological or pseudoscience shares those vested interests or even the intent to deceive. Many people are simply attracted to what appears to them as anti-mainstream or rebellious, without realising the strings that are being pulled in the background. Same issue as with religion, really.

Cheers
Steffen.

[renormalised]

Precisely, Steffen.

[CraigS]

The same could be said of mainstream though.
The detection test for the 'vested interest' types vs the 'followers' would seem to be the 'yield factor' ... willingness to 'let go' of one's opinion .. (at least for the period of the conversation).

It really does come down to basic honesty and an ability to decouple one's ego from the 'logic centre' from time to time, huh ?

Cheers

[renormalised]

There is all sorts of vested interests within science. No section of it is immune. But when it comes down to the nutty side of things, it is all vested interest. At least with real science, there are some checks and balances in place. Mix money and politics into the equation and you can see where things go.

With the nutters, you get to confront a lot of Freud:):P:P

[sjastro]

In order to develop an alternate theory one needs to show an existing theory is incorrect.
I have never seen "pseudoscience" critique the theoretical aspects of mainstream science in order to show it is incorrect.

Some of the misleading techniques used by pseudoscience are.

(1) The non observation of a prediction made by science is proof that the science is wrong.
The deception here is that it conveniently ignores the experiment itself. The non observation may be due to experimental design, the experiment not being sensitive enough or the simply finding the evidence is like looking for a needle in the haystack.
A non observation is only a null result if the theory is shown to be wrong.

(2) An anomaly proves the science is wrong.
One doesn't have to go past the Pioneer anomaly as an example.
The irony is that the accuracy of Newtonian physics has made the anomaly apparent.
This doesn't make Newtonian physics wrong as pseudoscience demands, as there are a host of other possibliites that are conveniently ignored.
If the theory cannot explain the anomaly then the theory will evolve. The evolution of Newtonian physics into GR led to the explanation of the anomaly in Mercury's orbit. Newtonian physics didn't crash and burn.

Does push gravity, no gravity or PC provide a explanation for an anomaly or lack of experimental/observational evidence? No it doesn't yet the illogical argument that the problems experienced by mainstream science makes each one of the theories correct by default seems to be the prevailing view of the authors. (How you get 3 distinctly different theories "right" is another issue:lol:).

(3) Then there are the usual conspiracy theories against mainstream science. The peer review process being a "boys club", mainstream science turned into a religion suppressing new ideas etc.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

Like I said previously, Steven, where you get nutters you get to confront a lot of Freud:):P:P

[Robh]

"Cherry-picking" often leads to misguided conclusions in many areas of science. Isolated "facts" (usually based on very loose or inaccurate measurements or, worse still, on just hearsay) are selected by the individual because it suites their own particular belief system. Often the individual will attach themselves to these beliefs with an extreme and irrational fervour. These are then extrapolated to some conclusion in an attempt to discredit mainstream scientific ideas.
Truly good science involves respect for established concepts but remains flexible enough to steer in new directions where new observations or evidence arises. And always, the peer review process ensures that the scientific community as a whole preserves the general logic of scientific development in line with the evidence from experiment and observation.

Regards, Rob

[renormalised]

All true, Rob. The problem with the nutters is that they think the peer review process is some sort of conspiracy against "free thinking". What they don't realise is that without it, we'd still be running around thinking the world was flat and the ocean was populated by sea monsters. If peer review means a freedom from any sort of nonsense, many weird ideas and an anything goes culture, then I'm all for it. It saves us the time and effort of trying to figure out reality without the added pressure of sorting out all the garbage. Having to deal with respectable science is hard enough without having to put up with the patently ridiculous.

[renormalised]

Here is a fine example of fraudulent science (as in musiguided and in many cases abused), taken from Thunderbolts "TPOD"...

[renormalised]

Unfortunately, plasma physics, a real discipline, has been taken so far out its context with, and by, these guys it barely resembles a science anymore. It has become a crutch for those wishing to parley their ridiculous notions of what constitutes good science and reality.

[CraigS]

Another revealing confession .. I was just reading a dodgy site ... the one we all know so well .. and they are trying to come to terms with Neutron Stars and Pulsars.

They are actually attempting to understand how (i) dense neutron stars can stay together (in an electrostatic/atomic sense) and (ii) why a fast pulsar doesn't fly apart and (iii) why electrically neutral neutron matter can support "electron clouds" and currents (magnetars).

This would suggest that these folk do attempt some form of enquiry from a mainstream perspective, but they seem reluctant to engage in anything other than collective discussion amongst themselves on this topic. The end result, is referral to the scriptures of the well known culprit scientists (who perhaps, have some kind of vested interests in the outcome). The same happens with mainstream discussions here, but I'd say the difference is 'see for yourself', once you've read the material.

I do see much frustration because they can't follow the rationale of mainstream on this. Perhaps their isolation also turns this frustration into outright anger.(?). Reactionary excursions by 'Ninjas', (created by our own making, I suggest), venturing into the evil mainstream camp appears to have not resulted in an improvement of understanding, quite the opposite, actually ... thereby completing the 'vicious circle'.

Steven's distinctions below, to me, make Pseudo science detection very clear (good for a sticky at the top of this Forum, really). I'm willing to use these to keep me honest !

Cheers & Rgds.

PS: Carl's message below beat my above post. Apologies for the 'disjointed' flow.

[Robh]

Often the most ridiculous and improbable ideas are accepted so easily by so many. Maybe, from some propensity to just believe in the fanciful or, perhaps, as some form of bravado or rebellion against the "conservative" scientific establishment.
Example. Joe Fog sees a bright fast-moving object in the night-sky while driving home after a party. This is obviously "evidence" of another UFO. He believes in UFOs. However, no-one else saw or reported it. Scientists believe at best it was probably a meteor. For Joe, this is "evidence" of another government cover-up or conspiracy.

Rob.

[renormalised]

How can they reconcile this (I've read the same thread) with their core ideologies. They can't, so either they're hypocrites or they never really believed in their core ideologies to begin with (which makes them hypocrites, anyway). Dense neutron stars stay together because of gravity....another concept which seems rather alien to them. In any case, the strong and weak nuclear forces completely overwhelm electrostatic forces at the level of the nucleus....it's what allows inverse beta decay to occur, to begin with (which is essentially what forms the neutron star in the first place....gravity crushes the material down, it becomes degenerate and the protons and electrons merge to form neutrons).

Electrostatic forces wouldn't have snowball's chance in hell of holding onto any material rotating at the velocity of neutron stars.

What these twits also forget is that the neutron stars are surrounded by the remnants of the supernova explosion they were formed in. That's where the electron clouds and the currents present are coming from. The neutron star only provides the whirling magnetic field...essentially the "rotor of the electric motor". The remnant is the "wires" in which the current is generated. If they can't see that simple analogy, then they have no business even trying to understand what they're talking about.

[renormalised]

How's this for playing up to people's egos... http://thunderbolts.info/aroleforyou.htm

This is how people get sucked into this sort of nonsense. Appeal to their ego, their sense of "scholarly injustice" and suspicion of anything from the "establishment".

Leave all your common sense and what you've been taught behind and "believe" in your roll in the great adventure...great way to sell books and DVD's (and it appears to be working).

[sjastro]

Here is another example by a certain Miles Mathis who is idolized by many in the EU community for his stance on mathematics. He has produced different "interpretations" of mathematics including such breathtaking titles such as "the Calculus is corrupt" (obviously corrupt is a favorite word in his vocabulary).

Is Miles Mathis his real name? I read three paragraphs of his "The Calculus is corrupt" article and gave up. I have a low tolerance level to pure drivel.:)

Anyway here is his "Physics is corrupt" article.
http://milesmathis.com/phycor.html

There are some real gems with regards to conspiracy theories.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

Steven, I think this is a pretty straight answer...



Whoever it is, they're hiding behind false names. It's most like just another one of these BS artists who have a gripe against anything and everything they don't understand.

[sjastro]

Ah yes I failed to read the "fine print" at the bottom of the article.

Steven

[CraigS]

You know, I might get torched by you guys for this, but amongst his rant, embedded within a mire of conspiracy theory etc, there is something which resonates with credibility. (This may be the 'lure' tactic, however).

For example, mainstream asserts: "there are too many cranks out there to review all their papers" ... I can see that ... I wouldn't want to have to read through all of them ... and then some honest scientist comes along and strikes a reviewer at a time when he's snowed under with multiple, complex reviews to complete ... resources are limited and he gets thrown into the 'rubbish bin', along with all the other cranks.

I mentioned to Carl that I've seen Susskind telling the story about how his first string theory paper was rejected ... and he went home and got drunk.

I keep coming back to balance. Nothing is perfect, including peer-review.
We have seen from words that I copied from the viXra site, the other day, that the 'Alternativists' are looking for ways to 'sneak' thru the peer review cracks by appealing to disgruntled reviewers. This would seem to be a strategy to gain endorsement from the process which would also lead to diminished quality of mainstream published 'science'.

Physics might become corrupt, if it isn't already !

Some Italian scientist may succeed in bypassing peer support by using 'Social Networking' .. blogs gain widespread support ... so do Amateur Science Forums ... the list goes on ..

Cheers

[sjastro]

Mathis's use of the term corrupt is nothing more than a piece of journalism which is typical of this totally frivolous article.
Simliarly the article on "the calculus is corrupt" refers to the mathematician Lagrange as being a cheat.
Clearly the author is attempting to demonize mainstream science and individuals to promote his own ideas rather than giving an honest assessment. It's a good example of pathological science being used in pseudoscience.

If one can argue the peer review process can result in Physics being corrupted, then logically this should be extended to science in general.
Do we really believe that medicine is corrupted because it to is peer reviewed? It's only corrupted to those who have an agenda to push.

The positives of peer review far outweigh any negative aspects. Revealing scientific fraud which is the basis of this thread is a postive example.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

I actually agree that peer review far outweighs any negative aspects. It makes clever use of human nature to correct flaws in logic - the same as mathematics.

I was attempting to point out that those who accuse the process of being corrupt, seem to be the very ones trying to corrupt it - by any and all means, as listed in my post. Your (Steven's) detection methods are a great way to quickly ascertain the presence of pathological and pseudo science distinctions - and we should all use them.

Preservation of the quality of the peer review system is paramount.

My take on Medical Science is that corrective medicine, (ie: surgery, pharmacology, etc) and detection techniques are very sound and have improved human existence. So has mass vaccination. Medical treatments based on the causes of medical 'conditions', (other than proven, bacterially & virally caused diseases), however, has a long way to go. Meta-analysis seems to frequently establish correlations but rarely, causation. Corruption has also been evident recently in a few cases impacting hundreds of thousands of patients (Avandia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avandia) might go this way, the whole cholesterol causing heart disease trail has cases of corruption embedded within it, also. These statements are however - cherry picking within a huge topic. We should all remain vigilant about these influences none-the-less, especially when it pertains to personal health).

Medical Science is one of the reasons I decided to head back into mainstream Physics and Astrophysics to see how it was fairing under the 'assault on science' ... but Medical Science is another topic (not much to do with Astro !)

Cheers & Rgds.

[OneOfOne]

Hmmm...using false names....sounds like a conspiricy to me!

[Rob_K]

"Medical science" is a pseudoscience, but it is underpinned by a large number of perfectly respectable biological sciences. We get lots of widely-accepted 'medical' pronouncements that are not backed by the underpinning biological science. It must drive the bios nuts! Doctors are technicians, not scientists, and when we let a rampant pharmaceutical industry and a strong medical profession massage the political system to leapfrog the science that's what we get I suppose. :shrug: But beneath it all the good science still goes on, and will win in the end. One hopes. :lol:

Cheers -

(PS, what was the topic?)

[CraigS]

We need to be clear about what is meant by "Medical Science". I have attempted to specify the areas I have reservations about. I don't believe I'd call Medical Science a pseudoscience.

Steven's distinctions for detecting pseudoscience are:



Medical Science is famous for the "double blind, randomised trial" technique. Items (1) and (2) are very clearly taken into consideration throughout this process and the results are analysed thoroughly. Where Meta-Analysis is solely used however, one needs to understand parameters like 'Relative Risk Factor', in order to understand the outcomes and therefore, is subject more to interpretation.

Item (3) is also rampant in the public perception when discussing some aspects of Medical Science. There may be some evidence to support the conspiracy theories, where corruption of officials is proven, say, in court. Mostly, this is very limited in terms of cases and areas.

I would say that overall, mainstream Medical Science does not fit into the 'pseudoscience' category when one applies tests (1) and (2) above. One needs to look into the specifics of the topic in order to prove/disprove the various conspiracy theories. Most conspiracy theories I've seen come from those in the recognised pseudo science areas (eg: faith healing etc), who bear a vested interest in propagating them.

The big problem I see with the areas I have isolated in my previous post, revolves around translating the actual clinical trial results and passing these results onto the Doctors we all visit.

I do believe the latter point may be the intent behind Rob_K's post (?).
(Over to you Rob).

Cheers & Rgds.

[snas]

G'day all
Re: Miles Mathis. What about this little gem:

Abstract: I show that the LHC, string theory, and everything connected to postmodern physics is fatally corrupt. (That is, he knows more than all of the scientists working at CERN)

The Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva has had so many setbacks now that top physicists are claiming (seriously) that the project may be witnessing sabotage from the future.

Sabotaged from the future? Whacko!

Regards

Stuart

[renormalised]

As far as "Miles Mathis" is concerned, everything to do with science is corrupt (which happens to be a favourite word of his/hers/it).

[sjastro]

I vote for "it".

Mathis makes as much sense as sentences constructed by a random word generator.:)

Steven

[CraigS]

Maybe its snarXiv gone 'mustang' !!!
:)

[Octane]

Perhaps Miles is Mr. Pressure.

H

[CraigS]

I prove it !!
Quarks ... energy centre .. expanding pressure wave ..

I am the one.
:)

PS: Actually, he is the perfect pseudoscientist !! He fits Steven's distinctions .... on every point .. (100% !!!)

[renormalised]

I was thinking along the same lines, although that could be construed as an insult to "its":):P

[avandonk]

Nearly all good scientists are used to dealing with the real world that though difficult does not go out of it's way to actively deceive. only humans with ulterior motives do this.

It is up to all of us to know enough or know someone that can explain why some drivel is exactly that. Drivel!

All the really poor science is done by charletans who tell people crap they really want to believe.

Even some executives of medical companies think that double blind tests are something to be avoided. What is worse some of the scientists are just as blind.

I can go on for hours about these idiots. One telltale indicator of a fudged double blind test. NO SIGN of THE PLACEBO EFFECT!

Bert

[CraigS]

Thanks, Bert !
Yet another gem to add to our list of pseudoscience detection methods (or distinctions) !

Recapping, the list is:

(1) The non observation of a prediction made by science is proof that the science is wrong.
(2) An anomaly proves the science is wrong.
(3) Recitation of conspiracy theories against mainstream science. (Eg: the peer review process being a "boys club");

and now, Bert's contribution (many thanks, Bert):

(4) Fudged tests or data: No signs of data which may be used to disprove the pseudotheory.

The list is growing !!
More contributions welcomed.

Cheers

[avandonk]

If I saw a paper where the therapy had 100% cure rate for the so called new drug and zero cure for the placebo or sugar pills I would say fraud straight away. There is always a placebo effect and it's magnitude depends on the severity of the disease. Obviously it is easier to have a 'cure' by placebo for the common cold than for Ebola Virus.

Bert

[AstroJunk]

How about adding:

(5) When an otherwise ordinary educational establishment suddenly regards itself as a global centre of excellence.

I refer to East Anglia Univesity and the climate change hockey stick.Or is that just 1, 2, 3 and 4 together!

[CraigS]

Nice try Astrojunk !

However, the hamsters, in their infinite wisdom, see this one as a perfect example of the Hamster's Handles on Reality, (HHR), Rule #3.1:
Reality by Concensus on a Common Denominator (Pending ratification), as follows:

”Giant Jack Russells exist because me, my mate and everyone else agrees that they do, but none of us agree on exactly what a Giant Jack Russell is”.
Credit to: Bert's Jack Russell, Steven's denomination.

:)
Cheers

[avandonk]

I find the reference to East Anglia Univesity (sic) by astrojunk rather curious.

I do not want to hijack this thread and turn it into another global warming funfest.

I would just like to point out that ten years of emails were scrutinised by jaundiced eyes and the totality of emails that even looked like backing the denialists was three. It was the a bit like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk

Bert

[AstroJunk]

Ah, trial by youtube:)

I wasn't trying to be controversial, I thought their lack of scientific method, peer review and general egotistical tub-thumping was beyond doubt!

Here is a less controversial example (trial by wikipedia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Meadow

The guy whose evidence alone was enough to imprison grieving mothers.

[CraigS]

The list is growing !!
More contributions welcomed.

Cheers

[Esseth]

Whenever i am reading some new amazing breakthrough, i will read it with basket of logical fallacies (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx) in mind. Pretty much keeps me in the right direction.

There is so much out there that drives me nuts, but i just have to try to educate when i get the chance, and if it is only clearing up that there is no planet X coming to kill us for one person then that is enough.

[CraigS]

Thanks for your reply, Alan - a good one !

Your skeptics link has me thinking. With our recent encounters with pseudoscientists, I think we have seen all of those 'logical fallacies' during our discussions. They have also been used against mainstream points, (including the use of the Latin terms ... added, no doubt, for impact).

I wonder whether pseudoscience can be argued without logical fallacies ?

It seems that these items are also 'tactical' by nature and anyone could resort to using them, either consciously or sub-consciously, regardless of the science they are presenting. Perhaps they simultaneously highlight the weaknesses of the argument .. &/or of the presenter's skills ? We really need to separate these two aspects, fairly early in the encounter.

Perhaps these are the only tools available to pseudos, due to the lack of rigour involved in the creation of the pseudo 'theories', in the first place ?

Interesting ...

Cheers & Rgds