The "Theory" of Pathological Science

[sjastro]

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.4/turro.html

The "UV catastrophe" which set off the development of Quantum mechanics gets an honourable mention.

Regards

Steven

[Robh (Rob)]

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

[CraigS]

Steven;
An interesting and I thought, well balanced discussion about an issue which plagues modern day science and scientists everywhere. The piece is particularly relevant to the current OPERA FTL neutrino experiment (for eg).

One additional thought I've had lately, which I think has not been quite so prevalent in the past is the consideration of the pressure certain teams (or individual) scientists face nowadays, especially with them having such immediate access to ways of influencing public opinion (probably as a direct result of web-based comms). There is an upside and a downside of this two-edged sword but clearly, it calls for much greater rigour in scientific research and accuracy of statements upon concluding a research activity. Wording of findings is crucial and really must lead the way to further investigation.

Rob;
Whilst I understand where you're coming from with your questions about how the future will regard the paradigms of today, I have to counter-pose the question:
"Does how the future unfolds really have any bearing whatsoever on the reality of the present ?" Ie: if DM/DE is today's best-fit explanation, then it may as well be today's reality. Surely we cannot use speculation about what the future may show is true, as having any weight to influence what we know today .... and that's even with the reality of Moore's Law and seemingly ever-increasing measurement precision !??!!

We may all be living longer .. so scientists may live to be publically humiliated by statements they make today because technology improvements appear to be progressing faster than the aging process .. but hey ... a committed scientist shouldn't be worried about trying to 'look good' (Cox excepted, of course ).

Cheers

[sjastro]

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

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Steven;
An interesting and I thought, well balanced discussion about an issue which plagues modern day science and scientists everywhere. The piece is particularly relevant to the current OPERA FTL neutrino experiment (for eg).

One additional thought I've had lately, which I think has not been quite so prevalent in the past is the consideration of the pressure certain teams (or individual) scientists face nowadays, especially with them having such immediate access to ways of influencing public opinion (probably as a direct result of web-based comms). There is an upside and a downside of this two-edged sword but clearly, it calls for much greater rigour in scientific research and accuracy of statements upon concluding a research activity. Wording of findings is crucial and really must lead the way to further investigation.

Hi Craig,

When it comes to releasing information to the press, frankly science is in a no win situation. The OPERA FTL neutrino experiment is a case in point. The results should never have been released to the press without further testing and peer review. Now we have the premature headlines "Einstein is wrong" or "Physics is in tatters".
If the other hand the results were not officially released to the press until the retesting or peer review process occurred the delay would be reported as "Neutrinogate" or "Scientists cover up results to protect Einstein".
Remember the press beatup over "Climategate".

Imagine the fodder this would provide to every pseudoscience supporter out there.

Regards

Steven

[Robh (Rob)]

Hi Craig and Steven,

I get both of your points of view. The peer review process underlies scientific advancement and what we know today is what we get. Many pseudo scientific claims are obviously pathological.

However, you can't always pin down the results of research as pathological science in today's terms. Take the neutrino experiments again. The second round of OPERA data seems to indicate they travel faster than light. The ICARUS team give reasons to doubt the superluminal neutrinos. Just how much data is needed for verification? Is something else still being overlooked?

In the end, let's say the neutrinos don't travel at c+, do we rate the OPERA results as pathological? Were they too fast to make conclusions? But then they did open up to peer review. Or, let's say further experiments continue to confirm c+ speeds, do we then rate the experiments as revolutionary? The pendulum could swing either way.

Extraordinary claims can seem to be outside mainstream science yet be closer to reality. But, as you say, in the end the peer review process should sort it out if not at present but then at some time in the future.

Regards, Rob

[CraigS]

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 ?

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

[Robh (Rob)]

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.

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.

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

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Robh

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.

I think we really, really have to try hard and separate the perceptions the media dishes up to us every day, (even by applying age-acquire 'junk science judo' tactics … with a healthy dose of cynicism), from the real science and what scientists are actually saying. Give the hard science the benefit of the doubt … and the reporting of it … the skepticism.

(I'm a bit sensitive to this aspect today, as I had a brawl behind a closed door with a GP doctor yesterday who I feel, is not interpreting the same medical science recommendations which we've both researched. I've discovered that GPs seem to be (unfortunately) highly susceptible to media nonsense. He advised me that blood pressure considerations are not a considered risk factor in forecasting athero-sclerosis caused heart attacks ! What rubbish !).

Originally Posted by Robh

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.

See, this is why I'm so focused on the process. It removes the lack of objectivity factor … scientists are people, and can never be anything close to objective. The process removes/minimises that problem (unless you pathologically believe in conspiracies ! )

Originally Posted by Robh

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.

See, I don't see that science is attempting to 'prop' anything up. A possible, plausible line of hypothetical enquiry is proposed .. DE .. enquiry begins .. falsification of that hypothesis also begins … years later, decades later, it is concluded that there may be a better line of enquiry/explanation …
Its us, the amateurs who assume that scientists are propping up a belief. All I can see them doing is proceeding along a line of enquiry … as per the process … its us who have created the conspiracy .. and all because we aren't part of a scientific process which will ultimately catch us out conspiring !

Originally Posted by Robh

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!

Perhaps Einstein let his age-acquired cynicism get the better of him and he took the pathological short-cut !
Was he following 'the process' when he abandoned the cosmo constant idea?
He was after all, human !

Cheers

[avandonk]

It is called projection folks. Where the accuser is guilty of the sin he is pointing out.

Science by its very methods will iron all of this out. So it is really women's work to get rid of the wrinkles. They are much smarter than men and really know how to spot a carelessly executed paradigm.

Bert

[sjastro]

I wonder if the term pathological science is even appropriate to some of the pseudosciences.
For example in the vacuous world of the Electric Universe, we have scientists not also being wrong, but corrupt, dishonest, unethical and criminal. Mathematicians rank highly followed by physicists.

Perhaps this is an example "psychopathological" science at work.

Psychologists have jumped on the bandwagon as to why pseudoscience exists.

Pseudoscientific thinking has been explained in terms of psychology and social psychology. The human proclivity for seeking confirmation rather than refutation (confirmation bias), the tendency to hold comforting beliefs, and the tendency to overgeneralize have been proposed as reasons for the common adherence to pseudoscientific thinking. According to Beyerstein (1991), humans are prone to associations based on resemblances only, and often prone to misattribution in cause-effect thinking.
Lindeman states that social motives (i.e., "to comprehend self and the world, to have a sense of control over outcomes, to belong, to find the world benevolent and to maintain one’s self-esteem") are often "more easily" fulfilled by pseudoscience than by scientific information. Furthermore, pseudoscientific explanations are generally not analyzed rationally, but instead experientially. Operating within a different set of rules compared to rational thinking, experiential thinking regards an explanation as valid if the explanation is "personally functional, satisfying and sufficient", offering a description of the world that may be more personal than can be provided by science and reducing the amount of potential work involved in understanding complex events and outcomes.
In our culture and thinking, people appear to have trouble distinguishing science from pseuodoscience. The prime reason people believe in wishful things is because they want to, it feels good and it is consoling. Many weird beliefs give immediate gratification. Immediate gratification of a person's belief is made a lot easier by simple explanantions for an often complicated and contingent world. The scientific and secular systems of morality and meaning is generally unsatisfying to most people. Humans are, by nature, a forward-minded species pursuing greater avenues of happiness and satisfaction but we are all too frequently willing to grasp at unrealistic promises of a better life.
Psychology has much to discuss about pseudoscience thinking, as it is the illusory perceptions of causality and effectiveness of numerous individuals that needs to be illuminated. Research suggests that illusionary thinking that happens in most people when exposed to certain circumstances such as reading a book, an advertisement or the testimony of others are the basis of pseudoscience beliefs. It is assumed that illusions are not unusual, and given the right conditions, illusions are able to occur systematically even in normal emotional situations. One of the things pseudoscience believers quibble most about is that academic science usually treats them as fools. Minimizing these illusions in the real world is not simple. To this aim, designing evidence-based educational programs can be effective to help people identify and reduce their own illusions.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

I wonder if the term pathological science is even appropriate to some of the pseudosciences.
For example in the vacuous world of the Electric Universe, we have scientists not also being wrong, but corrupt, dishonest, unethical and criminal. Mathematicians rank highly followed by physicists.

Perhaps this is an example "psychopathological" science at work.

Psychologists have jumped on the bandwagon as to why pseudoscience exists.

Hi Steven;
The quote you attached here is a good one .. it encapsulates much from our past discussions on this topic .. and I agree with the explanations for those behaviours.
There are of course, 'anti-pseudoscience' behaviours which seem to exist around the traps as well .. and perhaps these are the equivalent science-domain reactionary behaviours to the pseudoscience ones ? (SUSY in action, here ? )

For instance, I find this extreme dislike for humans' negative influences on the environment to somehow have found a comfortable, safe, resting place inside the scientific world. I find this to be quite disturbing. Humans are part of nature .. the view we are demolishing it from 'outside' of nature, I find, is an extreme position. I feel I am personally still in a constant battle of survival when it comes to nature's ravages … I refute that I'm a bad, disgusting, sub-slime … (as others seem to see themselves, and others, when it come to the environmental issues).

Cheers

[avandonk]

Read this carefully

http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/201...ault-on-h.html


I will leave you all to make up your minds

Bert

[CraigS]

I have come to the conclusion that all humans, (no matter who), are mentally incapable of separating individually held, deeply philosophical principles, from scientifically-sourced, peer-reviewed, climate change evidence.

Political polarisation, and its flow-on tactics, is the inevitable outcome.

The cause is complexity.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

I have come to the conclusion that all humans, (no matter who), are mentally incapable of separating individually held, deeply philosophical principles, from scientifically-sourced, peer-reviewed, climate change evidence.

Political polarisation, and its flow-on tactics, is the inevitable outcome.

The cause is complexity.

Cheers

Human thought is complex, and really messy. It's a wonder that any decent science is actually ever done, or at least kept relatively safe from the fog that's essentially human thought.

And we sometimes wonder why things like EU get a following....

[avandonk]

Here is one bloke that may know how to deal with complexity

http://www.ted.com/talks/eric_berlow...implicity.html

or for more

http://www.ted.com/talks/tags/complexity


The TED site is a really good source for all sorts of interesting stuff that is not driven by delusional people.

http://www.ted.com/

Bert

[CraigS]

Thanks Bert;
I'll pour through this material when I get the chance .. lotsa reading to do.

I watched the first Youtube on simplifying complex systems .. I'm reminded of the renormalisation process .. information is lost by attempting to filter out 'annoying' information. Surely in the case of a system which is critically sensitive to feedback/initial conditions, imposing a filter (seemingly for no other reason than to make it understandable .. which in turn, I postulate, is driven by a philosophical need for determinism and predictability), results in an externally imposed degree of determinism. I really do think in complex systems, it is important to stick with the holistic approach. Anything else seems like a short-cut. (Depends on the fundamental nature of system under study, I suppose).

Overall, I'm dubious about the validity of this guy's approach. (Which kind of goes towards supporting my original statement .. which of course, I concede, may be driven by a deeply held philosophical idea … )

Cheers