Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > Astronomy and Amateur Science

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 08-09-2010, 10:24 AM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Confronting Fraud In Science

Found a very nicely written article 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.

Quote:
Scientists have a macabre fascination with fraud. Some of the most famous recent cases – including those of the physicists Victor Ninov and Jan Hendrick Schön, who falsified results in nuclear physics and nanotechnology, respectively – have remained hot topics for years, continually generating investigations, articles and invited talks at scientific conferences. Part of the reason for this fascination is the damage created by fraud, which not only pollutes the scientific sea, but also causes other scientists, including graduate students, to pursue research in erroneous directions. That cost in time, funding and hampered or even destroyed careers is not even calculable.

Another part of the fascination is that the typical scientist, when confronted with clear fraud, often remains in denial. As scientists, we train ourselves to detect what Irving Langmuir called “pathological science”, in which practitioners park their scientific method outside their laboratories and replace it with wishful thinking. We have learned to review articles and listen to presentations while carefully considering any possible over-interpretations, including those that stem from ignoring data points that do not fit the theory the author or speaker “believes” to be correct. Being human, we have all been guilty of pathological science to some degree; being scientists, we rely on colleagues to guide our way to new knowledge and understanding through discussions, reviews and reproducibility.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-09-2010, 11:43 AM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS View Post

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.
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
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-09-2010, 12:07 PM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro View Post
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
"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
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-09-2010, 01:13 PM
Steffen's Avatar
Steffen
Ebotec Alpeht Sicamb

Steffen is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Toongabbie, NSW
Posts: 1,976
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-09-2010, 01:25 PM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
Precisely, Steffen.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-09-2010, 01:29 PM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steffen View Post
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.
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
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-09-2010, 01:41 PM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
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
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-09-2010, 01:48 PM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS View Post
"Fraudulent" implies intent to deceive, in order to justify pseudoscience ?
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).

(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
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-09-2010, 02:08 PM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
Like I said previously, Steven, where you get nutters you get to confront a lot of Freud
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-09-2010, 02:12 PM
Robh's Avatar
Robh (Rob)
Registered User

Robh is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Blue Mountains, Australia
Posts: 1,338
"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
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-09-2010, 02:21 PM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-09-2010, 02:39 PM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
Here is a fine example of fraudulent science (as in musiguided and in many cases abused), taken from Thunderbolts "TPOD"...

Quote:
The promise of a new coherent theory has risen from the accumulating findings of the handful of electrical discharge investigators over the past century. Electrical discharges in both laboratories and nature display just this kind of cylindrical filamentary structures, which are called Birkeland currents. The hourglass shape, with all the accompanying aspects of planetary nebulae, has been well-studied and is called the Bennett Pinch or the z-pinch. The field has come to be known as plasma physics, and its application to phenomena in space is called plasma cosmology, which is an accepted discipline among the many recognized by the Institute of Electric and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

If the nebula is a large (on a stellar scale) pinched current, it carries more than enough power to supply the radiation “load” of the central star. Hence, the star is likely powered by electricity through coupling with the nebular discharge current, rather than by internal nuclear fusion. At the other end of the argument, the nebular current can’t cease to exist beyond the limits of its optical glow. It must be part of a circuit that winds through the galaxy.

Electrical couplings between circuits at different scales, from superclusters of galaxies to planets and even to their weather, tie the universe into a unitary organic electrical structure and provide the coherent theory of cosmology that modern astronomy has lost.

Traditional astronomy is likely to go the way of the old astrology, and the future study of the stars will be done in the Plasma Cosmology division of IEEE.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-09-2010, 02:43 PM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-09-2010, 02:43 PM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-09-2010, 02:55 PM
Robh's Avatar
Robh (Rob)
Registered User

Robh is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Blue Mountains, Australia
Posts: 1,338
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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-09-2010, 02:58 PM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-09-2010, 03:15 PM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
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).
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-09-2010, 07:02 PM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
Physics is corrupt!!!

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
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-09-2010, 07:17 PM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
Steven, I think this is a pretty straight answer...

Quote:
If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-09-2010, 07:20 PM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised View Post
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.
Ah yes I failed to read the "fine print" at the bottom of the article.

Steven
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 03:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement