Hi Rob;
You've got me thinking again (oh no !!
)
I'm trying to figure out whether your stance on Pathological Science is in fact … pathological ???
It seems that a skeptical approach to scientific discovery actually puts one on the 'Pathological Science' pathway automatically (I know 'cause I'm guilty at times of this). I think if one becomes too skeptical, one is out to prove that every new discovery is bunkum, and this then becomes pathological behaviour, in itself. (Perhaps 'Reverse Pathological Science' ?
)
There has to be a commensurate amount of critical analysis supporting the enquiry on the negative side of the coin, also … especially when it starts out from the cynicism we all seem to acquire as we age. I've been involved in several threads this week where cynicism seems to be all that I'm up against .. and its frustrating for me, when this becomes evident … (I'm not suggesting this comes from you .. you're always prepared to back up your views with supportive evidence .. and I appreciate this aspect). Cynicism is easily acquired, easily used to make extrapolations into the future, and to undermine the plausibility factor of a line of enquiry in the present, eh ?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robh
However, you can't always pin down the results of research as pathological science in today's terms.
|
I understand the perspective, however I think the point of the article is that Pathological Science becomes evident upon investigation into the
process followed by the researchers (… not necessarily the results of the present … which may very well be invalidated by future data). In this way, Pathological Science can be detected in the present. (Ie: by looking at the process followed and the wording of the conclusions). Even if more contrary data becomes available, I don't think this makes the original exercise pathological. An experiment and its conclusions may turn out to be on the wrong track, (with the benefit of hindsight and more data), but this doesn't mean that the original experiments/conclusions were dominated by Pathological Science.
I also think the only real failing of the OPERA team was as Steven suggests .. they've taken an obvious short-cut around a thorough peer-review process. Their reasons for doing this haven't been mentioned anywhere I can find .. but I smell funding issues/motives behind their decision to release the results in the way they did. We should also remember that their announcement wording contained large amounts of skepticism .. I recall something along the lines of: "These results are crazy". Public perception and the media has conveniently ignored this, and taken the interpretation of the results to the pathological level.
Cheers