Quote:
Originally Posted by Robh
Steven,
Most interesting read. I was rather fascinated by this approach and the accounts of pathological science. It also reminded me of nobel prize winner Linus Pauling's claims as to vitamin C preventing colds and used as a treatment for cancer.
Is a misinterpretation of the available data to this point in time to be regarded as pathological science in the future? I wonder how many of the tentative theories of today will be regarded as pathological science in the future. That is, when more accurate or more inclusive data will change the interpretation of the physics. For example, what if future data completely discounts the existence of dark matter and dark energy? Interpreting something into existence ... the elusive dark energy!
How does one regard a set of potential solutions, the "fill gaps" of today, when they turn out to be red herrings at some future time?
Regards, Rob
|
Hello Rob,
Being a firm believer in the peer review process, I think this provides a circuit breaker for the infiltration of pathological science into mainstream science. I think pathological science is more of an individual concern. The individual can be influenced by ego, faith and a variety of emotions which can lead to subjective judgements, the collective aspect of the peer review process makes this far less likely to occur.
That's not to say however that mainstream science gets it right every time, classical physics made a horrible mess of blackbody radiation theory (UV catastrophe), but this was based on applying an existing theory applicable to other phenomena, not delusionary thinking which is a characteristic of pathological science.
The same principle applies to dark matter. Newtonian physics provides the phenomenological theory for the existence of dark matter. The main problem is where does dark matter stand in the standard model of particle physics. Dark energy is far more mysterious. QFT predicts it's existence but way too much of it.
If dark matter and dark energy don't exist it won't be the death knell of Newtonian physics and QFT. I'm sure particle physicists will be elated.
Pathological science is much more prevalent in fringe science or pseudoscience. Pseudoscience represents an ideological opposition to mainstream rather than a credible alternative.
Regards
Steven