Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
I'm trying to figure out whether your stance on Pathological Science is in fact … pathological ???   |
Had a great chuckle over that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
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' ? ) |
Agreed. The problem is that more often than not people seem to be attracted to rebels like moths to light. In the case of science, the more outlandish the claims the more the moths. The media will pump up a misguided/rogue scientist's cause because it entertains and sells. A good degree of skepticism is healthy but blanket skepticism can be anathema to good progress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
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.
|
Yes, I can see that. The process used to validate the results will be an indicator of the degree of pathology. If only scientists could be totally objective 100% of the time. Wishful thinking has a lot to answer for.
So, what do we call "bum steer" science? Let's say we have 50 years of dark energy and then someone concludes there is another reason for the apparent acceleration. It isn't defined as pathological but it is certainly damaging in the sense of the amount of time and energy (pun) gone into propping it up.
Somewhat amusingly, I recall how Einstein scrapped his idea of a cosmological constant and dismissed it as his biggest blunder. Some 80 years later, the concept had been revived!
Regards, Rob