Confronting Fraud In Science

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

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

You know, I might get torched by you guys for this, but amongst his rant, embedded within a mire of conspiracy theory etc, there is something which resonates with credibility. (This may be the 'lure' tactic, however).

For example, mainstream asserts: "there are too many cranks out there to review all their papers" ... I can see that ... I wouldn't want to have to read through all of them ... and then some honest scientist comes along and strikes a reviewer at a time when he's snowed under with multiple, complex reviews to complete ... resources are limited and he gets thrown into the 'rubbish bin', along with all the other cranks.

I mentioned to Carl that I've seen Susskind telling the story about how his first string theory paper was rejected ... and he went home and got drunk.

I keep coming back to balance. Nothing is perfect, including peer-review.
We have seen from words that I copied from the viXra site, the other day, that the 'Alternativists' are looking for ways to 'sneak' thru the peer review cracks by appealing to disgruntled reviewers. This would seem to be a strategy to gain endorsement from the process which would also lead to diminished quality of mainstream published 'science'.

Physics might become corrupt, if it isn't already !

Some Italian scientist may succeed in bypassing peer support by using 'Social Networking' .. blogs gain widespread support ... so do Amateur Science Forums ... the list goes on ..

Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

You know, I might get torched by you guys for this, but amongst his rant, embedded within a mire of conspiracy theory etc, there is something which resonates with credibility. (This may be the 'lure' tactic, however).

For example, mainstream asserts: "there are too many cranks out there to review all their papers" ... I can see that ... I wouldn't want to have to read through all of them ... and then some honest scientist comes along and strikes a reviewer at a time when he's snowed under with multiple, complex reviews to complete ... resources are limited and he gets thrown into the 'rubbish bin', along with all the other cranks.

I mentioned to Carl that I've seen Susskind telling the story about how his first string theory paper was rejected ... and he went home and got drunk.

I keep coming back to balance. Nothing is perfect, including peer-review.
We have seen from words that I copied from the viXra site, the other day, that the 'Alternativists' are looking for ways to 'sneak' thru the peer review cracks by appealing to disgruntled reviewers. This would seem to be a strategy to gain endorsement from the process which would also lead to diminished quality of mainstream published 'science'.

Physics might become corrupt, if it isn't already !

Some Italian scientist may succeed in bypassing peer support by using 'Social Networking' .. blogs gain widespread support ... so do Amateur Science Forums ... the list goes on ..

Cheers

Mathis's use of the term corrupt is nothing more than a piece of journalism which is typical of this totally frivolous article.
Simliarly the article on "the calculus is corrupt" refers to the mathematician Lagrange as being a cheat.
Clearly the author is attempting to demonize mainstream science and individuals to promote his own ideas rather than giving an honest assessment. It's a good example of pathological science being used in pseudoscience.

If one can argue the peer review process can result in Physics being corrupted, then logically this should be extended to science in general.
Do we really believe that medicine is corrupted because it to is peer reviewed? It's only corrupted to those who have an agenda to push.

The positives of peer review far outweigh any negative aspects. Revealing scientific fraud which is the basis of this thread is a postive example.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

I actually agree that peer review far outweighs any negative aspects. It makes clever use of human nature to correct flaws in logic - the same as mathematics.

I was attempting to point out that those who accuse the process of being corrupt, seem to be the very ones trying to corrupt it - by any and all means, as listed in my post. Your (Steven's) detection methods are a great way to quickly ascertain the presence of pathological and pseudo science distinctions - and we should all use them.

Preservation of the quality of the peer review system is paramount.

My take on Medical Science is that corrective medicine, (ie: surgery, pharmacology, etc) and detection techniques are very sound and have improved human existence. So has mass vaccination. Medical treatments based on the causes of medical 'conditions', (other than proven, bacterially & virally caused diseases), however, has a long way to go. Meta-analysis seems to frequently establish correlations but rarely, causation. Corruption has also been evident recently in a few cases impacting hundreds of thousands of patients (Avandia might go this way, the whole cholesterol causing heart disease trail has cases of corruption embedded within it, also. These statements are however - cherry picking within a huge topic. We should all remain vigilant about these influences none-the-less, especially when it pertains to personal health).

Medical Science is one of the reasons I decided to head back into mainstream Physics and Astrophysics to see how it was fairing under the 'assault on science' ... but Medical Science is another topic (not much to do with Astro !)

Cheers & Rgds.

[OneOfOne (Trevor)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

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.

Hmmm...using false names....sounds like a conspiricy to me!

[Rob_K]

Originally Posted by CraigS

My take on Medical Science is that corrective medicine, (ie: surgery, pharmacology, etc) and detection techniques are very sound and have improved human existence. So has mass vaccination. Medical treatments based on the causes of medical 'conditions', (other than proven, bacterially & virally caused diseases), however, has a long way to go. Meta-analysis seems to frequently establish correlations but rarely, causation. Corruption has also been evident recently in a few cases impacting hundreds of thousands of patients (Avandia might go this way, the whole cholesterol causing heart disease trail has cases of corruption embedded within it, also. These statements are however - cherry picking within a huge topic. We should all remain vigilant about these influences none-the-less, especially when it pertains to personal health).

"Medical science" is a pseudoscience, but it is underpinned by a large number of perfectly respectable biological sciences. We get lots of widely-accepted 'medical' pronouncements that are not backed by the underpinning biological science. It must drive the bios nuts! Doctors are technicians, not scientists, and when we let a rampant pharmaceutical industry and a strong medical profession massage the political system to leapfrog the science that's what we get I suppose. But beneath it all the good science still goes on, and will win in the end. One hopes.

Cheers -

(PS, what was the topic?)

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Rob_K

"Medical science" is a pseudoscience,

We need to be clear about what is meant by "Medical Science". I have attempted to specify the areas I have reservations about. I don't believe I'd call Medical Science a pseudoscience.

Steven's distinctions for detecting pseudoscience are:

(1) The non observation of a prediction made by science is proof that the science is wrong.
(2) An anomaly proves the science is wrong.
(3) Then there are the usual conspiracy theories against mainstream science.

Medical Science is famous for the "double blind, randomised trial" technique. Items (1) and (2) are very clearly taken into consideration throughout this process and the results are analysed thoroughly. Where Meta-Analysis is solely used however, one needs to understand parameters like 'Relative Risk Factor', in order to understand the outcomes and therefore, is subject more to interpretation.

Item (3) is also rampant in the public perception when discussing some aspects of Medical Science. There may be some evidence to support the conspiracy theories, where corruption of officials is proven, say, in court. Mostly, this is very limited in terms of cases and areas.

I would say that overall, mainstream Medical Science does not fit into the 'pseudoscience' category when one applies tests (1) and (2) above. One needs to look into the specifics of the topic in order to prove/disprove the various conspiracy theories. Most conspiracy theories I've seen come from those in the recognised pseudo science areas (eg: faith healing etc), who bear a vested interest in propagating them.

The big problem I see with the areas I have isolated in my previous post, revolves around translating the actual clinical trial results and passing these results onto the Doctors we all visit.

I do believe the latter point may be the intent behind Rob_K's post (?).
(Over to you Rob).

Cheers & Rgds.

[snas (Stuart)]

G'day all
Re: Miles Mathis. What about this little gem:

Abstract: I show that the LHC, string theory, and everything connected to postmodern physics is fatally corrupt. (That is, he knows more than all of the scientists working at CERN)

The Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva has had so many setbacks now that top physicists are claiming (seriously) that the project may be witnessing sabotage from the future.

Sabotaged from the future? Whacko!

Regards

Stuart

[renormalised (Carl)]

As far as "Miles Mathis" is concerned, everything to do with science is corrupt (which happens to be a favourite word of his/hers/it).

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

As far as "Miles Mathis" is concerned, everything to do with science is corrupt (which happens to be a favourite word of his/hers/it).

I vote for "it".

Mathis makes as much sense as sentences constructed by a random word generator.

Steven

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

I vote for "it".

Mathis makes as much sense as sentences constructed by a random word generator.

Steven

Maybe its snarXiv gone 'mustang' !!!

[Octane (Humayun)]

Perhaps Miles is Mr. Pressure.

H

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Octane

Perhaps Miles is Mr. Pressure.

H

I prove it !!
Quarks ... energy centre .. expanding pressure wave ..

I am the one.


PS: Actually, he is the perfect pseudoscientist !! He fits Steven's distinctions .... on every point .. (100% !!!)

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

I vote for "it".

Mathis makes as much sense as sentences constructed by a random word generator.

Steven

I was thinking along the same lines, although that could be construed as an insult to "its"

[avandonk]

Nearly all good scientists are used to dealing with the real world that though difficult does not go out of it's way to actively deceive. only humans with ulterior motives do this.

It is up to all of us to know enough or know someone that can explain why some drivel is exactly that. Drivel!

All the really poor science is done by charletans who tell people crap they really want to believe.

Even some executives of medical companies think that double blind tests are something to be avoided. What is worse some of the scientists are just as blind.

I can go on for hours about these idiots. One telltale indicator of a fudged double blind test. NO SIGN of THE PLACEBO EFFECT!

Bert

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by avandonk

One telltale indicator of a fudged double blind test. NO SIGN of THE PLACEBO EFFECT!

Bert

Thanks, Bert !
Yet another gem to add to our list of pseudoscience detection methods (or distinctions) !

Recapping, the list is:

(1) The non observation of a prediction made by science is proof that the science is wrong.
(2) An anomaly proves the science is wrong.
(3) Recitation of conspiracy theories against mainstream science. (Eg: the peer review process being a "boys club");

and now, Bert's contribution (many thanks, Bert):

(4) Fudged tests or data: No signs of data which may be used to disprove the pseudotheory.

The list is growing !!
More contributions welcomed.

Cheers

[avandonk]

If I saw a paper where the therapy had 100% cure rate for the so called new drug and zero cure for the placebo or sugar pills I would say fraud straight away. There is always a placebo effect and it's magnitude depends on the severity of the disease. Obviously it is easier to have a 'cure' by placebo for the common cold than for Ebola Virus.

Bert

[AstroJunk (Jonathan)]

How about adding:

(5) When an otherwise ordinary educational establishment suddenly regards itself as a global centre of excellence.

I refer to East Anglia Univesity and the climate change hockey stick.Or is that just 1, 2, 3 and 4 together!

Originally Posted by CraigS

Thanks, Bert !
Yet another gem to add to our list of pseudoscience detection methods (or distinctions) !

Recapping, the list is:

(1) The non observation of a prediction made by science is proof that the science is wrong.
(2) An anomaly proves the science is wrong.
(3) Recitation of conspiracy theories against mainstream science. (Eg: the peer review process being a "boys club");

and now, Bert's contribution (many thanks, Bert):

(4) Fudged tests or data: No signs of data which may be used to disprove the pseudotheory.

The list is growing !!
More contributions welcomed.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by AstroJunk

How about adding:

(5) When an otherwise ordinary educational establishment suddenly regards itself as a global centre of excellence.

I refer to East Anglia Univesity and the climate change hockey stick.Or is that just 1, 2, 3 and 4 together!

Nice try Astrojunk !

However, the hamsters, in their infinite wisdom, see this one as a perfect example of the Hamster's Handles on Reality, (HHR), Rule #3.1:
Reality by Concensus on a Common Denominator (Pending ratification), as follows:

”Giant Jack Russells exist because me, my mate and everyone else agrees that they do, but none of us agree on exactly what a Giant Jack Russell is”.
Credit to: Bert's Jack Russell, Steven's denomination.


Cheers

[avandonk]

I find the reference to East Anglia Univesity (sic) by astrojunk rather curious.

I do not want to hijack this thread and turn it into another global warming funfest.

I would just like to point out that ten years of emails were scrutinised by jaundiced eyes and the totality of emails that even looked like backing the denialists was three. It was the a bit like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk

Bert

[AstroJunk (Jonathan)]

Ah, trial by youtube

I wasn't trying to be controversial, I thought their lack of scientific method, peer review and general egotistical tub-thumping was beyond doubt!

Here is a less controversial example (trial by wikipedia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Meadow

The guy whose evidence alone was enough to imprison grieving mothers.