> 1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. The
> integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose
> new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus,
> scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them
> initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result
> directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work
> is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists.
>
> One notorious example is the claim made in 1989 by two chemists from
> the University of Utah, B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, that
> they had discovered cold fusion -- a way to produce nuclear fusion
> without expensive equipment. Scientists did not learn of the claim
> until they read re****ts of a news conference.
I saw them demonstrate it the first time on TV, and the machine was
fla****ng, as if something was happening. Maybe the machine stopped
fla****ng
later.
Moreover, the
> announcement dealt largely with the economic potential of the discovery
> and was devoid of the sort of details that might have enabled other
> scientists to judge the strength of the claim or to repeat the
> experiment.
Or to steal the invention, and patent it on an end run-around.
(Ian Wilmut's announcement that he had successfully cloned
> a sheep was just as public as Pons and Fleischmann's claim, but in the
> case of cloning, abundant scientific details allowed scientists to
> judge the work's validity.)
Very valid work, Dr. Frankenstein!
>
> Some scientific claims avoid even the scrutiny of re****ters by
> appearing in paid commercial advertisements. A health-food company
> marketed a dietary supplement called Vitamin O in full-page newspaper
> ads. Vitamin O turned out to be ordinary saltwater.
I thought O meant Oxygen?
>
> 2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to
> suppress his or her work. The idea is that the establishment will
> presumably stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might ****ft the
> balance of wealth and power in society. Often, the discoverer describes
> mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes
> industry and government.
No, the government wouldn't do that. The proof is you've never heard
about the government censoring any patents, have you?
Claims that the oil companies are frustrating
> the invention of an automobile that runs on water, for instance, are a
> sure sign that the idea of such a car is baloney.
Absolutely. The oil moguls would welcome with open arms an automobile
that runs on water. Why waste valuable oil? Who needs oil stock dividends?
You can always work in a fast food restaurant.
In the case of cold
> fusion, Pons and Fleischmann blamed their cold reception on physicists
> who were protecting their own research in hot fusion.
>
> 3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of
> detection. Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer,
> or the Loch Ness monster.
I'
ve seen clear photographs of both - don't know if the photos were fake or
not, though.
All scientific measurements must contend with
> some level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the
> signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect
> is probably not real and the work is not science.
>
> Thousands of published papers in para-psychology, for example, claim to
> re****t verified instances of telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition.
> But those effects show up only in tortured analyses of statistics. The
> researchers can find no way to boost the signal, which suggests that it
> isn't really there.
Right - like the graviton, the neutrino, and the Higg's particle. Who
says they're really there? Probably just crazy scientists.
>
> 4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal. If modern science has learned
> anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence.
> Because anecdotes have a very strong emotional impact, they serve to
> keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of science. The most
> im****tant discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics,
> it is the randomized double-blind test, by means of which we know what
> works and what doesn't. Contrary to the saying, "data" is not the
> plural of "anecdote."
That's what I like about TV ads by drug companies. They never stoop to
testimonials.
>
> 5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for
> centuries. There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands
> of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout
> the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed
> miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what
> is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth.
>
> Ancient folk wisdom, rediscovered or repackaged, is unlikely to match
> the output of modern scientific laboratories.
But willow bark works better than aspirin! Niacin is better than
Lipitor!
And noone can synthesize honey or chocolate. Honey has antibiotic
properties; dark chocolate is possibly the strongest anti-oxidant.
>
> 6. The discoverer has worked in isolation. The image of a lone genius
> who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a
> revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction
> films, but it is hard to find examples in real life.
How about Nikola Tesla? Keely? Isaac Newton?
Scientific
> breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many
> scientists.
All hail the Ho-Hum Crowd!
>
> 7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an
> observation. A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary
> result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change
> existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an
> observation, it is almost certainly wrong.
I knew it! The Earth is still flat! and Gravity acts instantaneously!
>
> I began this list of warning signs to help federal judges detect
> scientific nonsense. But as I finished the list, I realized that in our
> increasingly technological society, spotting voodoo science is a skill
> that every citizen should develop.
Anyone who is not a PhD practices Voodoo.
>
> Robert L. Park is a professor of physics at the University of Maryland
> at College Park and the director of public information for the American
> Physical Society. He is the author of Voodoo Science: The Road From
> Foolishness to Fraud (Oxford University Press, 2002).
>
> http://chronicle.com
> Section: The Chronicle Review
> Volume 49, Issue 21, Page B20
>
|
