BS: Bogus science--warning signs

Subject: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 07:59 PM

nice little article about a screening process for radical claims...with examples.

I suppose those who have *seen* flying saucers or get psychic readings from dead pets..(yeah, I saw THAT on TV just yesterday)...will just argue that 'their' case is different or that we "just haven't looked hard enough yet", but perhaps this list will help some think about the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 08:29 PM

But I have a sneaky feeling that you could come up with some examples of scientific developments, that are universally accepted today, which would have raised quite a number of those "warning signs." And stuff that is now totally discredited, which, in its day, would have passed with flying colours.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Sam L
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 10:45 PM

Blue light. I think some time ago, in the 1800's, blue light made everything grow better, and cured everything. Makers of blue glass did very well, and you can still see some old blue glazed sun porches sometimes. There's a cool book called Banvard's Folley by Paul Collins that examines some forgotten big errors of science, and some other things that just didn't work out. Extremely fun and well written book if you're an utter dork like me.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 10:53 PM

Very true, McGrath. Read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Many major breakthroughs in science were originally felt to be "ridiculous" or "clearly impossible" because they challenged the then-prevailing paradigm.

When I was in medical school, we were told, "Ten years from now, half of what you learn here will turn out to be wrong. The only problem is, we can't tell you which half." For example, I was taught that duodenal ulcers were caused by excessive stomach acid, and the best treatment was milk and antacids and a bland diet. Now we know (for the time being, anyway!) that ulcer disease is caused by a bacterium, Helicobacter pylori, and treatment should include antibiotics.

There was a time, not too long ago when case studies--what that author scoffs at as "anecdotes"--were considered a useful and reliable form of medical research. And the "double blind controlled study" doesn't always give you the right answer--it often depends on whether you're asking the right question. The problem with those "rules" is that we don't know which ones are going to prove useful, and which will turn out to be junk. Ain't life interesting!

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 11:11 PM

My method is: try direct experience (if possible). It will teach you more than any amount of speculation, but don't expect that what it does teach you will mean anything to someone who doesn't wish to give it any consideration, due to their own preconceived prejudice against it.

This can apply to just about anything under the sun.

There is a certain type of personality that derives a sense of emotional security from familiar, established values. That type will almost always attack or debunk new or "radical" ideas. Call it the archconservative approach to reality.

There is another type of personality that is fascinated by new or radical ideas, because it finds them exciting, and it wants to be "in the know" and set apart from the common "herd", so to speak. That type will leap onto any radical or offbeat bandwagon it comes across. Call it the liberal-radical approach to reality.

Those two types of personalities detest one another, and squabble constantly. They each consider the other to be an idiot, and themselves to be eminently reasonable and sensible.

Obviously, the trick here is...don't go to extremes...and remain open to considering the merits of both sides. The truth generally lies somewhere between the two extremes.

I get the impression, Bill, that your article was written by someone suffering from the first attitude I described above...the archconservative approach to reality.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 11:54 PM

Far more frightening things are in the offing (last 45years) within the aerospace industry. And it is not bogus.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Troll
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 11:56 PM

There is an interesting book called "Junk Science". Read it sometime.
L.H., I agree that it is best to keep an open mind. But not so open that you could drive a truck through it. There is stuff out there that defies rational explaination.
We know that accupuncture works, but we still don't know why. With all the evidence in it's favor, there are still those who refuse to accept it.
Therapeutic touch is hocum and has been proven so in a simple test designed by an 11-year-old girl, yet there are those who still swear that it's a valid treatment technique.
Peoples is de cwaziest kind of monkeys.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 01:08 AM

Troll, tell me more about this 11-year-old girl's test. I haven't heard about it. I'm not sure how I feel about therapeutic touch per se, but I do have some knowledge of and experience with chi, or qi, and related phenomena.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Peg
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 01:45 AM

therapeutic touch? meaning what? massage? reiki?
energy work DOES have an effect, I have experienced it myself and have seen it work for many people...

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: wysiwyg
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 02:04 AM

Mark, I had a lot of doubts about chi until I started doing (and then teaching) tai chi in the water, which is usually called ai chi. There is one move I do where I feel the water moving particularly powerfully against and around me, as a result of hand movements to gather up and then share/disperse/dispense/bestow the abundance of energy. I can easily extrapolate from that sensation to consider the reality of energy waves. Water moves in patterned waves; air moves in measurable currents; why not spiritual energy?

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: harvey andrews
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 06:16 AM

"There is a certain type of personality that derives a sense of emotional security from familiar, established values. That type will almost always attack or debunk new or "radical" ideas. Call it the archconservative approach to reality.

There is another type of personality that is fascinated by new or radical ideas, because it finds them exciting, and it wants to be "in the know" and set apart from the common "herd", so to speak. That type will leap onto any radical or offbeat bandwagon it comes across. Call it the liberal-radical approach to reality.

Those two types of personalities detest one another, and squabble constantly. They each consider the other to be an idiot, and themselves to be eminently reasonable and sensible."

Now, there's a big part of me that sees the Emperor has no clothes. Seeing the Virgin Mary in a fencepost or the koran in some vegetable has me laughing and crying with frustration at the stupidity/cupidity of the human race. But I'm also fascinated by new ideas, willing things off the wall to be provable,looking all the time to be "in the know"
Am I schizophrenic?

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 06:31 AM

Well there's this guy called Harvey, and there's this guy called Andrew...

I like what Walt Whitman said about not being too consistent:

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then, I contradict myself.
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 08:15 AM

Mark, I think a lot of people still believe that acid causes duodenal ulcers simply because 1) it's become folklore, and 2) the bit about H. pylori never has received much media attention. There also have to be a few valid studies conducted to prove a conclusion because sample sizes are often skewed because they're too small to be reliable. Also, occasionally something mucks up the results, such as an aftertaste letting subjects know if they were receiving the drug.

Little Hawk, YES - there are two opposite 'bandwagon' approaches - pro and anti. I think the reason people automatically join one side or the other has a lot to do with the amount of thinking involved in judging each individual issue. The vast majority of human beings will question all sorts of things - except what they think they already know.

Troll, regarding the open mind thing, it's not what gets through there that's ever a problem, it's what I decide to keep. Sure, drive a truck through, but if it runs on water, it's gonna keep going out the other side. Maybe some people err by not letting new ideas in, and others never shovel out the debris.

Harvey, I'd consider you normal^[*], but I do the same thing you do - believe in logic but dream of possibilities and hope they're true. I think the scientists who make the radical breakthroughs must do the same.


^[*] Normal in this sense meaning "not nuts enough to be locked up or avoided at parties."

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 08:35 AM

Jeri: " a lot of people still believe that acid causes duodenal ulcers simply because 1) it's become folklore"
No, a lot of people still believe that acid causes duodenal ulcers simply because it was put forward as the medical establishment's viewpoint. If the establishment have now changed their viewpoint that is not a good enough reason for the layman to accept the change. The 'experts' have accepted they were wrong before, why should people accept that their new version is any more accurate?

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 09:05 AM

Folklore: 1. the traditional beliefs, legends, sayings, customs, etc. of a people. 2. the study of these

"...why should people accept that their new version is any more accurate?"
Why should people accept any new ideas?
People should investigate available evidence proving or disproving the idea, or take into consideration a lack of evidence.
Evaluate same and decide if you have enough to make a conclusion. Make your conclusions based on your own personal judgement if you feel you can.
Re-evaluate conclusions when new evidence or insight becomes available.

There are people who believe the earth is flat or that the guy living next door to them is a vampire. On a personal level, it doesn't matter. (Well, not unless they they start sharpening stakes.) On a public, scientific level, it takes a bunch of respected smart people whose conclusions, as a group, are perhaps more reliable than any one individual's. And it STILL comes down to them being more likely to be correct, not guaranteed to be correct.

I believe most of the changes in scientific conclusions over the years have come about because of new evidence and not because people have made errors in evaluating previously available evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 10:33 AM

If you are going to invoke the concept of folklore, you should know that the contemporary study of folklore includes the folklore of corporate business, the folklfore of science, etc. Some people prefer to call these contemporary forms of folklore 'urban legend' or 'urban myth'. Scientists and other linear rationalist thinker types are in no way immune to creating, believing, and perpetuating their own folklore.

BTW, I was diagnosed with a duodenal ulcer (had the wretched scope test and everything). The biopsy (or whatever they call cutting off a piece of the ulcer to test it) didn't show even a trace of h. pylori in my case. But they treated me with extremely powerful antibiotics and acid suppressant "just to be safe". A perfect example of the medical industry's adherence to the current 'folk cure' on offer for duodenal ulcer, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST,Crazy Little Woman
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 10:49 AM

Thanks, Bill D., for posting the link to the article. I read it and found it intelligent.

Little Hawk, I found your remarks interesting and helpful, too.

Y'all, I think smoking cigarettes has a lot to do with ulcers. Look into it if you are concerned about ulcers.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 11:01 AM

It's the job of science to automatically reject concepts that violate established laws--it's the job of proponents of these concepts to prove them. I remember something about Occam's Razor...

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 11:23 AM

WYSIWYG-The reason most people, including myself, are hesitant to accept the idea of "spiritual energy" is that there have been no reliable experiments showing its source, its medium of travel, or its method of interaction. It makes a wonderful philosophical concept, and meditation/exercise techniques based on it work very well, but there is no direct evidence as far as I have seen.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 11:42 AM

Guest, thanks for elaborating on the concept of folklore as it applies to science - that's EXACTLY what I was talking about.

We're never going to eliminate the human tendency to believe, but I do think we should eliminate as much personal bias as possible when we pass on what we call 'facts'.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 11:54 AM

Click here for a scholarly review of Therapeutic Touch by the National Standard and the Harvard Medical School. You can search for other modalities such as Reiki there too.

Forum Lurker, I certainly hope that scientific investigation of energetic healing methods continues and that public understanding of them grows. I have discovered through direct experience that these methods can be very helpful - or very dangerous - depending on the knowledge/abilities/intentions of the practitioners themselves.

When these "mysterious", subtle yet tangible "spiritual" energetic techniques prove themselves powerful enough to speed the healing of common ailments and injuries (I've witnessed this as a Reiki practitioner), yet dangerous enough to cause serious health problems in the hands of the unscrupulous (I've unfortunately suffered through this too), one can no longer consider them to be merely a "wonderful philosophical concepts". Science needs to catch up with practice, it seems.

There's plenty of fraud/abuse of these methods out there - and I'm hoping that improved scientific understanding/knowledge of them will reduce the risks involved.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 11:55 AM

If you believe the medicine is going to work it might. If you don't, it probably won't. That's the basis for setting up double-blind trials - but since they would normally the people invooved not being at all confident that it is going to work, you'd expect to get reduced effects either way.

Do they do double-double-blind experiments? That would be where the results included some from people getting placebos, where they (and the administrators) believed it was the real stuff, and others where it was the real stuff, but everyone thought it wasn't? Though no doubt that would be unethical.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Stewart
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 12:06 PM

Bob Park, the author of the article and Physics Professor at the University of Maryland, has a weekly column entitled "What's New" on the American Physical Society's web page CLICK HERE where he debunks a lot of the "junk science" and also some outrageous things our government is doing that defy rational scientific analysis. It's always interesting reading, often with a touch of humor, such as his closing line - "Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the American Physical Society or the University, but they should be."

Cheers, S. in Seattle

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 12:23 PM

I find the professional skeptic types to be pretty close minded and generally conservative though Forum Lurker. For instance, if you are a chronic or acute pain sufferer, why would you refuse massage therapy treatment, and insist a number of conventional scientific studies "prove" first that massage therapy greatly relieves chronic and acute pain for many people. No one method will work for everyone, and the reason for that (according to the scientific rationalist types) seems to have more to do with a person's belief system than the actual efficacy of the treatment method. If you believe a treatment method is legitimate, it often does work for you. If you don't believe a treatment method is legitimate, it often doesn't work for you.

Therapeutic methods like massage therapy seem to be working much more effectively, with only positive side effects, than pain killer medications for many people nowadays. But because the present health care system is dominated by the pharmaceutical industry, no insurance companies will cover the cost of massage therapy for pain and it's related stress relief and reduction. The reason why it isn't covered and widely prescribed is because of the pharmaceutical industry lobbyists, insisting that it never be allowed to be offered by the conventional medical industry, because a whole lot of people will stop taking the pain killer drugs, which have a lot of negative side effects, including addiction.

I have a friend who suffers from chronic pain in her neck and upper back from disabilities from a car accident about 10 years ago. She went off the pain medication about two years afterward--because she was a complete and utter mess physically, emotionally, mentally. Now she uses massage therapy, regular exercises done specifically for her injury, and others to keep generally fit. She quit smoking at the same time too (smoking is a terrible addiction problem, which really runs down your body's systems). She is like a wholly different person than she was while being treated conventionally.

When people wake up and smell the coffee, and see that they have been sold a bill of goods because someone is making a healthy profit from it, many of us automatically become suspicious of so-called science and scientific experts, like doctors who bought into the pharmaceutical industry as the "best treatment" for patients. Another excellent example is the ways that so-called science has been used to justify the environmental degradation of the planet.

Just why are alternative energies considered to be such a joke by conventional standards? When the military industrial establishment is crawling with scientists and engineers who really should know better? The joke is on us--the fossil fuels are going to be mostly gone or in such small supply in less than a generation, the fossil fuel related industries will bankrupt the western democracies. Where is the wisdom in that conventional thinking? The only reason why we all need cars today is because a whole lot of money was made by a tiny elite group of wealthy industrialists who absolutely did not have society's best interests in mind when the entire US economic infrastructure was built to support the combustion engine and the use of fossil fuels.

This isn't about hocus pocus or alien abductions. This is about conventional thinking, and the constraints conventional thinking puts upon our multi-sensory awareness as human beings. Try jogging in rush hour in any major urban area in the world. Do you need "legitimate science" to dictate to you what is and isn't good for you, by telling you after years of "legitimate scientific studies" that your body will be impaired by doing it, and that you will lose much of the benefit of regular exercise to the effects of gulping poisonous air and ingesting it into your body?

Or can you trust your body's multi-sensory awareness enough because jogging in rush hour traffic just makes you feel like shit, despite the instant gratification exercise buzz your brain gets from the adrenaline rush?

Personally, I'm always suspicious of articles like the one linked to, which try and make an argument for conventional, academic scientific rationalism, by debunking paranormal silliness, or religious fanatacism. Scientific rationalism is the folklore that brought us nuclear power plants in our neighborhoods with the caveat that there is "no danger to the public" and the little purple pills driving up the cost of health care so no one but the wealthy can afford to get necessary care. Research and development is now the largest chunk of many "privatized" corporate controlled universities and government agencies charged with doing the scientific work. Problem is, they aren't using our tax dollars to do scientific work for the public interest and good of society. Oh no. They are doing scientific work which benefits the corporate and political elite, and refuse--and I mean absolutely refuse, to do research which benefits the public good. Case in point--the AIDs epidemic.

Scientific rationalism is one of the main engines that drives the justifications used by the corporate and political elites' hold on power, and their control of our economy. In a true democracy based upon free market economics, the economy equally belongs to the workers, management, and the consumer, not just corporate executives and their proxy academic and political elites. The problems we face today as a society are rooted in that balance being destroyed by "privatization" and abandoning a public service model for governing society, for a corporate, profit driven model for governing society. And guess what? The corporate model is an extremely inefficient and overly expensive way to provide government and public services, like health care, housing, transportation, and education.

The ridiculously high cost and inefficient delivery of those services is living proof of just how stupid our society has been to buy into the right wing elite's "privatized corporate model" for governing society. Governing society and ruling the world aren't the same thing, actually. The right wing elite (and I do include the Democratic Party mainstream and their business and academic allies in that elite) has co-opted and taken over the former, and used it as both means and justification for the latter. And scientific rationalism has been a central intellectual tenet of that takeover.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 12:23 PM

Well, Harvey, there are a number of rather unusual things I do believe in...and also quite a few that I don't. Maybe I'm schizophrenic too? :-) If someone sees the Virgin Mary in something, that's their experience, not mine. Why should I worry about it? Why should I try to persuade them to deny their own experience, which may have some useful significance for them alone?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 12:24 PM

daylia-I'm not saying that it's ineffective. I'm saying that no credible theories as to WHY it is effective, when it is, exist. It's all very well and good to say that it works, but until we know why, you can't call it science. The "energy fields" constantly referred to have not been shown to exist, unless they mean the electric field produced as a byproduct of the nervous system. Any physicist can show you that the interaction between two bioelectric fields is not strong enough, or controllable enough, to have the effects purported.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 12:29 PM

GUEST of 12:33-I don't insist that someone prove to me how massage works, because it's a simple physical cause and effect. "Therapeutic touch," on the other hand, doesn't have any basis that I can believe in at the present time.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 12:34 PM

What modern science needs is to find a more powerful and efficacious placebo!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 12:40 PM

well, I am glad to see the article has stirred up so much interesting debate....I took it as only a general approach, and ONE way to begin sorting out fact from "the will to believe"...as Dick Greenhaus implied, Occams Razor is not given it's due enough lately.

The human mind is a wondrous thing, and can, as the Red Queen said, "believe 12 impossible things before breakfast". As to what IS impossible, it is hard to say, but it is well NOT to invest too much of one's soul (whatever that is,) in new ideas before they have survived some careful testing...(yeah, yeah, LH, I'm sure that does show me as personality type #1..*grin*)

I know how hypnosis 'can' cause a blister to form on a person's arm if they are convinced they have been touched by a hot poker instead of a stick, and I know how fasting in the desert can cause the mind to KNOW it has seen visions.....and I also am sure that there is much yet to discover about the universe. I just like to sort thru those 'discoveries' with a critical eye and be swept away on tides of hype.

Thanks all, for the varied comments....I think I'll go back and re-read them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Peg
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 12:49 PM

the notion that something does not exist until it can be scientifically "proven" is, when you think about it for a moment, preposterous...

One might as well decide that emotions don't exist, or ideas, or dreams; for surely they can't be measured with any sort of empirical certainty...

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 12:59 PM

Peg...that's not exactly the point. Almost everyone DOES report having dreams, and the brain waves DURING dreaming can be measured. And 'ideas' are not a 'thing', it is just a common descriptive word for a common experience we all share. I see your point, but those are not the best examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 01:02 PM

It is the belief in the supremacy of scientific rationalism and private corporate governance, that is the placebo we've been given, and swallowed hook, line, and sinker as a society.

We desperately need to restore some balance, which includes acceptance of philosphy and poetry and faith and belief and knowledge and awareness of ourselves, which isn't driven and dictated by imposed "conventional" theologies, ideologies, scientific studies, or academic doctrines.

There are a lot of alternative therapies being used without any scientific basis rooted in studies, or approved by the FDA. I have much less problem with those which use physical touch being used by people who are making a free choice (even if their decision to make that choice is ill-informed), than with drugs being used without any scientific basis rooted in studies, like thalidomide, which was prescribed by many doctors and given to pregnant women to treat morning sickness, without any scientific basis and without any approval by the FDA.

That article's disingenuousness really pissed me off, because it made the following statement:

"In 1993, however, with the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. the situation began to change. The case involved Bendectin, the only morning-sickness medication ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It had been used by millions of women, and more than 30 published studies had found no evidence that it caused birth defects. Yet eight so-called experts were willing to testify, in exchange for a fee from the Daubert family, that Bendectin might indeed cause birth defects."

Thalidomide isn't even mentioned. Now, given the context of what resulted from the widespread prescribing of a much-heralded, yet untested drug to pregnant women by doctors who bought the pharmaceutical industry's claims the way poor country folk once bought snake oil from the medicine show doctors, is shameful. This article makes it sound as if there is no rational, reasonable reason for people to be skeptical about the prescribing of a medication to pregnant women, which claims to treat morning sickness with no negative side effects. That is morally indefensible "scientific" manipulativeness in the extreme, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST,The O'Meara
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 01:21 PM

"Most people should hardly ever be very definite about much of anything." (I don't remember who said that first, but it wasn't me.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Raedwulf
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 01:24 PM

Just because you can't measure it, don't mean it ain't there!

Hawk hits pretty much dead centre. The problem with science is that it's replaced religion. And yes, it's just as blinkered & pig ignorant, at times, as religion ever was. There are are always people with a vested interest in maintaining the system.

There was a series on BBC2 in 1994 called Heretics that dealt with controversial scientific theories. It ran to 6 progs, I think. There was a guy who claimed ultra high doses of vitamins would protect you from cancer (both he & his wife died from cancer notwithstanding...) & another that tried to link race with IQ.

The one that always sticks in my mind, though, was the very first prog. This featured a French scientist who had a theory as to the efficacy of homeopathic medicine. He recruited an independent & thoroughly sceptical statistician to double check his methodolgy & trials, & to design new trials to test the theory. All the trials appeared to prove that his theory was correct.

The 'experts' (including the then editor of Nature magazine, a highly prestigious science mag) rubbished him mercilessly in the programme. They didn't have any counter-arguments as to why or how his trials produced the results they did. They just said that his research either must be wrong, or that he'd 'cheated'... Was it only me that smelt something fishy? Try this link for a balanced article on the series. The quote that struck me was "The sense of self-superiority of the critics in
many instances was in striking contrast to the humility, integrity
and sincerity manifested by... [the scientists]"

There are plenty of 'scientists' with narrowly rational minds who cannot accept a challenge that might dislodge them from their comfortable little niches in the existing order. There are an equally large number of 'treeshakers' who would take great delight from the notoriety to be gained by successfully challenging the existing order. I'm suspicious of both sides. Shades of Martin Luther, no?

From personal experience, I had a blackout a few years ago. I was offered an entirely non-medical explanation for it. Nevertheless, I went to the Doc's (as I was advised by the person who offered me the non-medical explanation). They couldn't find anything wrong with me, but on mentioning the NM theory, the response was instant - "Oh, forget that medieval, superstitious nonsense!"

The doctors never could offer me a reason as to why I suddenly keeled over that day...

Just because you can't measure it, don't mean it ain't there!

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 01:25 PM

"When science ignores history, the result is usually disastrous."

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 01:50 PM

It is extremely important to notice that "all true data" and "science" are two very distinct sets. They do seem to intersect somewhat. The blessing of the word "scientific" is given to a process for increasing the intersection between those two sets. But there a re plenty of data in the set called "science" which are pure malarkey, and there are even more data, Horatio, in the set of "true data" that science hasn't even come close to. Its great merit and virtue is that it intends to try.

It is very easy to use "bogus science" as a label for data which is perfectly true but hasn't made the hoops into scientific recognition.

But bear in mind, too, that scientific recognition, like all data, is an artifact of human thought, not an external reality.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Mark Clark
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 02:33 PM

Bill, Thanks for this thread and the article, I'm enjoying it a great deal. And thanks to Stewart for the link to Dr. Park's daily column at APS. I can see I'm going to like this author. Among his archives I found the following.

2. MISSILE DEFENSE: PENTAGON SEEKS WAIVER FROM REQUIRED TESTING.
In April 2000, the APS Council stated: "The United States should not make a deployment decision relative to the planned National Missile Defense system unless that system is shown – through analysis and intercept tests – to be effective against the types of offensive countermeasures that an attacker could reasonably be expected to deploy with its long-range missiles." In fact, a law designed to prevent deployment of weapon systems that don't work was passed in 1983 after Ronald Reagan announced his Strategic Defense Initiative. Now the Bush administration is proposing to exempt the Pentagon's controversial missile defense from testing. The request is in the 2004 budget. I called my friend Puff Panegyric at the Missile Defense Agency. "You've got to admit the law makes sense," I said. "Maybe it did in 1983," Puff sneered, "but North Korea has made the world a more dangerous place. We don't have the luxury of waiting until things work. There are leaders of some countries who would like nothing better than to start a war." "I see your point Puff."

And, just to be overly pedantic, Bill, I think it was the White Queen in “Through the Looking Glass” who said, “…I often believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

LH, I like your idea of personality types. I still recall the virtual rage in which Carl Sagan attacked the work of Velikovsky when most scientists simply ignored it. Sagan devoted most of a “Cosmos” episode to debunking a guy most people at that time had completely forgotten.

As far as “proving” things we can't experientially verify goes, mainstream physicists and cosmologists have long ago moved beyond theories that would seem like “common sense” to a layman. It is commonly accepted by scientists that the entire universe was either a singularity—having no dimension whatever—or had a combined size smaller than a single proton. Every atom and particle that is discovered seems to be largely empty save for a few much smaller particles that, in turn, are largely empty save for a few tiny particles. If I remember correctly, the latest “indivisible” particle, a superstring, is a two dimensional abstraction having no mass.

“ ‘Curiouser and curiouser!’ cried Alice.”

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Metchosin
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 02:58 PM

agreed O'Meara. I recall a disagreement with a friend in the early 60's, during my misspent youth, where most of my waking moments were submerged in science fiction novels. I told him that perhaps one day I would be able to realign the molecules in my body to fit between the spaces of the molecules in the walls, and in turn walk right through them.

He, who eventually went on to be a moulder of young minds as a teacher, considered me, probably correctly, to be insane or stupid, however, his opposing arguement was that everything that could be invented, had been already.*BG*

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 02:58 PM

Gee--and they say that chiropractic is unproven! Seems to me that it is easier to find out whether the knee bones connected to the head bone -- by far -- than it is to demonstrate that the universe's combined otal actual mass is smaller than a proton.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 04:04 PM

Dr. Ray Hyman is a professor of psychology at the University of Oregon where he taught the psychology of belief and self-deception. He is a CSICOP Fellow and has been involved with CSICOP since its formation in 1976. CSICOP stands for Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal, and they are the publishers of Skeptical Inquirer Magazine. There is an entire movement of these idiots, obsessed with "debunking" and "education" of the masses to not believe anything that isn't officially sanctioned by, well...them.

I have a serious problem with these sorts of people, who act as science missionaries, out to convert us from our own stupidity and gullibility about what these obsessed nutcases have branded "pseudoscience". The original article linked to, sounded the warning bells for me for a number of reasons.

First, which I mentioned above, was the disingenuous and manipulative way the author suggested the courts should not have allowed the drug industry's "solid science" supporting the use of the drug Bendectin to be challenged by "experts" who weren't sanctioned by the drug industry.

The second warning bell set off by this article was #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. 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 report 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."

Well, that one sounded the "missionary skeptic" alarm bell for me.

Getting back to Dr. Hyman, who also is a member of "Oregonians for Rationality" (yes, they are for real), he was quoted in a fairly recent article in the Skeptical Inquirer saying:

"That gets into another thing, which is, what skeptics' target should be. There are some, such as Martin Gardner, who say it is useless to try to reach the extreme believer, that we should focus on people who haven't committed themselves and who honestly want to know both sides. Others say, no, that we should be targeting skeptics. We need to immunize them against falling to the other side; basically, that we should be preaching to the converted. Although most skeptics and skeptics' groups don't articulate their goals.

Another task is deciding what to do and how. When CSICOP first formed in 1976 it called itself a "committee for the scientific investigation." Some thought we should do experiments. But experiments are very costly and difficult conduct. Even getting to the public is very costly. Here is what I think should be done. It is much cheaper to get to public opinion-makers, such as journalists and teachers. If you can convince a journalist to use your story, he will multiply your efforts many times over. CSICOP does a lot of good when the press picks up one of its stories. Teachers, also, multiply your efforts. We should focus on getting to teachers in school systems and science museums. Skeptics need to think about costs and what can be done for very little money."

Where I sit, that sort of thing is known as propagandizing, not science.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 04:15 PM

And BTW, I bring up this "leader" of the missionary cult of the skeptic movement, because it is my belief that psychology is probably the biggest pseudoscience of them all.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 04:19 PM

Guest:

The sort of science which Gardner and company promote is extremely hard science; for example this notion that being able to improve the signal to noise ratio is a requirement is not part of traditional scientific method, which calls only for replicability and empircal verification by others -- in material science it is a good test to require that the same experiment can be done with the same results in a different place and time by different people (of course that means it really is NOT the same experiment, obviously, but we'll over look that part).

While this is fine for material science it is absolutely absurd to try to impose these standards on a field of phenomena as little understood as life, awareness, and "para"psychological things. It is a self-defeating, self-referential loop that essentially argues that all phenomena of life are molecular, therefore awareness is molecular, and all molecular phenomena are replicable and therefore the standards of physics experiments apply to experiements in -- for example -- remote viewing or precognition. The discontinuity in the phenomena sets are just not taken into account.

This sort of steam-roller cogntiive process is also typical of knee-jerk thinking at both ends of the political spectrum.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 04:25 PM

"...in material science it is a good test to require that the same experiment can be done with the same results in a different place and time by different people (of course that means it really is NOT the same experiment, obviously, but we'll over look that part)"

Amos, why should anyone overlook the fact that one of the primary tenets of "provable" science is fallible?

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST,celtaddict
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 05:00 PM

The late great Carl Sagan wrote an excellent article discussing how one who lacks a background in a particular science can still apply rigorous thinking to recognize what was probably valid and what was not. There are of course many phenomena that fall outside the realm of "science" but for analyzing the areas that lend themselves to study by scientific method, his method made great sense.
It was probably in his last book "Small Blue Dot" but I will check when I am home.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST,celtaddict
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 05:04 PM

Carl Sagan: Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 05:40 PM

Ah, Carl Sagan, the great skeptic missionary cult's greatest evangelizer.

I'm glad y'all keep bringing the Billy Graham of the pop science world into the conversation, because it was people just like Carl Sagan the saying "When science ignores history, the result is usually disastrous." was coined to describe.

Take the great skeptic missionary cult's obsession with "debunking" astrology, for instance, while leaving his own "superstitious" religion (Judaism) out of the equation? Why is the mythology attached to the heavens in need of debunking, but the mythology of religion not? Carl Sagan surely had his own mythology of the heavens as an astronomer. And part of that mythology is rooted in a profound denial in his science's roots in what we erroneously call "astrology" today.

Sagan's "Demon Haunted World" is the bible for the missionary nutcases I describe above. For a more balanced view, celtaddict, I suggest you try reading Anthony Aveni's "Conversing with the Planets: How Science and Myth Invented the Cosmos" and his "Skywatchers, Shamans and Kings: Astronomy and the Archaeology of Power". He is an extremely popular academic too--an anthropologist.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 05:42 PM

Sometimes you can solve a mystery simply by looking HARD at a person's eyes when they're explaining something.

Two of the most entertaining mystery/hoax/whatevers of my lifetime have been the Kennedy assasination and the alien "crash" at Roswell N.M.

Both have been the subject of numerous books, pamphlets, documentaries, and never-ending speculation. In both situations, the "true believers" accuse the Government of massive cover-ups, and the rest paint the "true believers as nutbars and star trek freaks! Almost no one is un-opinionated in these issues.

I love this kind of thing the way some folks love crossword puzzles....because I don't CARE which side is right. I'm naturally curious, and I have no hidden agenda (that I know of), so all the reading and "figuring" was simply fun.

A couple of incidents happened in the last five years or so that really swung me around to a particular point of view though, and since I'm such a strong believer in the adage that "most people can't lie convincingly on TV"......but they seldom get caught.

I mean, did ANYONE believe Bill Clinton's sexual denials, or think that George Bush really understood complex politics? Not too many I think.

So when the American military (was it the Air Force?) FINALLY decided to have their well-briefed expert face the press, in order to put the whole "Roswell thing" to rest........and the FIRST question was pertaining to

Area 51

The Military guy said "What's that? I'm not familiar with that term".

Game, set and match. The military sure IS familar with that term (whether they believe it exists or not) and their spokesman knew he'd blown it VERY early into the press conference. I guess he just thought it would take a bit for the Press to get warmed up, and they caught him off guard. For about twenty seconds he looked devastated, and then recovered.......but I'm sure that SOME folks picked up on it. What happened, we'll probably never know.....but SOMETHING happened.

Same with the Kennedy/Warren Commision stuff. I saw both Gerald Ford and Arlen Spector on the Larry King show, and among the softball questions were a couple to each about the truthfulness of the Warren report. Ford brushed off one of the most hotly argued issues in the country's history with barely a shrug and a chuckle. ("Those whacky conspiracy theorists eh"?)

Spector, on HIS appearance, never even TRIED to explain (to a whole new generation) his completely bogus "magic bullet" theory. Larry never pushed him at all. It was in their eyes....there was SOME agreement. Once again, I still don't know what happened...but it was more than we were told.

The ultimate 'junk science', watchin' 'em closely.....but I like it.

Cheers

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Sam L
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 05:43 PM

An experiment can be repeated in respect to the factors one considers significant, beforehand, so a repetition at another time and place is only provisionally the same. Another way of doubting is to ask how many repetitions of an experiment are necesary to prove a cause and effect relationship.

All of science depends on the idea of cause and effect, but that principle itself can't be tested, since you would have to start at the beginning of time and test until the end.

   The ancient Greeks used paralax to test whether the earth moved in space, and found that it didn't. It was a valid experiment. The shifts were too tiny, and the Greeks could not imagine themselves so tiny in a universe so vast.

It's fun to doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Mark Clark
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 05:45 PM

As I'm composing this post, I'm also watching Robert Krulwich interview Stephen Wolfram on C-SPAN2. Dr. Wolfram is discussing his newest book “A New Kind of Science.” I think C-SPAN archives these programs if you'd like to watch later. I can see I'm going to have to buy a copy of this book.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: mack/misophist
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 06:00 PM

Fred Miller:

You are correct, with one exception. Quantum theory works statistically. If there's a cause and effect relationship, no one's found it yet. That's what Einstein meant when he said 'I don't believe God plays dice with the universe'.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 06:00 PM

In addition to the Sagan book, grab a copy of

Michael Shermer'sThe Borderlands of Science: Where Sense Meets Nonsense Oxford, 2001.

Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man W.W. Norton, 1996

THIS SITE may be of interest as well.

Have fun-

Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 06:06 PM

Chaos theory, control theory, cellular automata, complexity theory...all are a science believer's ways of attempting to explain why THEIR way of imposing order on our chaos. Are we to accept that a scientist's explanation of the universe is superior to an anthropologist's or historian's way of imposing order on our chaos through their studies?

Is a scientist's explanation of the universe superior to or more right than a theologian's or an existentialist philospher's?

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 06:15 PM

You're missing the point, guest whichever- science is a method, not an 'explanation'. And yes, not all methods are equally valid, or conclusions equally verifiable.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 06:18 PM

GUEST of 6:06-An explanation of the universe is better if it is more likely to be true. I don't know about you, but I find it easier to reconcile string theory, bizarre as it might be at times, than the notion that some omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity created the universe, then allowed or caused it to become filled with suffering. Existentialism doesn't even have a point as far as I can see; if I feel good and bad emotions as a result of actions that take place in the world, what does it matter whether, in some abstraction of the universe, those actions "really" occurred?

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST,Lurker's assistant
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 06:47 PM

Ah, well, you could benefit by reading "Conversations With God" by Neale Donald Walsh, Forum Lurker. It would neatly and sensibly answer every question you have posed or suggested...and not in any way invalidate science or common sense while doing it. Check your local bookstore or library, and try volume 1 first. If you don't, don't blame me for not trying.

It's all a question of your own free will. You can use it any way you want to...if you want to.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 06:52 PM

Yeah, y'all might want to travel on over here, too (meant strictly as some gentle funnin' there Mark):

That fancy ass science book Mark was talking about reviewed here

Fractals are way cooler than cellular automatons IMO, and I like them best. Here is a lovely one (hope this works):

Lovely fractals

I think it is important to remember that M C Escher had no formal training in math or science, yet he continues to blow the minds of mathematicians and scientists both, even today. Here is one of my favorite Escher pieces:

The Second Day of Creation

Just makes you think. Another book I like to recommend for folks who like books that just make them think (rather than insist the universe is THEIR WAY) is one by a couple of new agey 'new science' sorts of academic guys, called "Seven Life Lessons of Chaos: Spiritual Wisdom from the Science of Change". I loved it. It's by John Briggs (an English prof) and F. David Peat (a PhD in physics from University of Liverpool). The latter even has a website:

'nother one of them 'New Science' kinds of guys

These days, I also am recommending "Goddess of the Americas: Writings on the Virgin of Guadalupe" edited by Ana Castillo. Another one of thos "just makes you think" sorts of books. Here is one little poetic piece from it, for the season, by Miriam Sagan (a poet, no relation):

Passover

Jews must be everywhere
Even in La Puebla, New Mexico
Where we pass Good Friday pilgrims
Wearing Walkmans
Dusty along the highway.
It's Shabbos, the two sets of candles
Adorn the tables
Set with sea shells
Seder means: the order
In which things happen
Egypt means: narrows
For plagues we dip our fingers in the wine
Hail kills your tomato plants
You quarrel
With a neighbor about a wall
A friend is unexpectedly in jail
Baby cries in the emergency room
Homeless men sleep in the arroyo
Stumble across Paseo to the liquor store
So drink four cups of wine
It's only the second time this year
Jews must get drunk
And lie down with our shoes off
On comfortable couches.
The children are playing in the dusk
My daughter feeds a large white horse
A bunch of golden apples
Desert smells like the sea
Of sand and wind and something else
Clean, and scoured
Miriam's Well
Springs within
Green oasis that must
Reappear within our hearts
Voices singing slightly off-key
This source of water
Follows us
Despite our exile, wandering.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 08:14 PM

This is a fascinating thread. Thanks, guys.

"I believe most of the changes in scientific conclusions over the years have come about because of new evidence and not because people have made errors in evaluating previously available evidence." Jeri Agreed. However, the LAST word is a difficult concept.

"Y'all, I think smoking cigarettes has a lot to do with ulcers. Look into it if you are concerned about ulcers." Crazy Little Woman. Agreed, partly. I was a smoker; I developed an ulcer. My mother never smoked a day in her life; she had to have part of her ulcer-raddled stomach removed.

"The reason most people, including myself, are hesitant to accept the idea of "spiritual energy" is that there have been no reliable experiments showing its source, its medium of travel, or its method of interaction. Forum Lurker Look to the hands, Forum Lurker. There's an easy way to establish that there are some kinds of energy we have not accepted. Have someone hold up his/her hand and you match the action, palm to palm, from a few feet away. You will very soon discover that you feel a definite heat. Now back off, and do it again. A friend and I discovered we could 'feel' each other's hands from across the room.

"I know how hypnosis 'can' cause a blister to form on a person's arm if they are convinced they have been touched by a hot poker instead of a stick, and I know how fasting in the desert can cause the mind to KNOW it has seen visions.....and I also am sure that there is much yet to discover about the universe. Bill D That reminds me of reading: "After a spouse's or other dear one's death, a commonly reported hallucination is hearing the other's voice or catching a glimpse of the other." My question: If it's so "commonly reported", who is to say it's an hallucination?

"the notion that something does not exist until it can be scientifically "proven" is, when you think about it for a moment, preposterous..." Peg Thanks. Exactly.

"It is the belief in the supremacy of scientific rationalism and private corporate governance, that is the placebo we've been given, and swallowed hook, line, and sinker as a society." Guest I tend to agree, Guest. Reminds me of when my mother used to deplore the 'new age' thinking that goes beyond or outside the boundaries of what she could accept. She felt that it was a 'sign of the times' and said it was an example of what the Bible warned against, that there would be deceivers and deceptions. I asked her once how she could be sure that it was not instead an example of something else the Bible prophesied (sp?), that there will be dreamers and those who see visions. How could she be sure that the last 500 years were not the falling off years and these were not the rebirth of spirituality?

""Conversations With God" by Neale Donald Walsh," Lurker's Assistant Agreed. They are fascinating books. I don't understand how the phenomenon works, LA, but there appears to be some element, whether it's spirit or wishful deluded thinking, that seems to put the 'still' person into a connection beyond. I'd like to hear from others who have done it. And I'd suggest that those who are not willing to try it hold off and let others describe it. :)

Rick, I would love to hear more discussion on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 08:52 PM

Ebbie-I've done that many times, doing mirroring exercises, and never felt a thing. If you do, it could be psychosomatic, or there could be a real force at work-we don't know, and I refuse to accept the existence of something that can neither be rationally explained nor demonstrated to me. At the moment, therapeutic touch is something of that sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Skeptic
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 11:56 PM

Guest

Your comment
"I find the professional skeptic types to be pretty close minded and generally conservative"

brings to mind a comment I made on a similar thread a few years back which is to suggest that you need to start hanging around with a better class of skeptics.

The nuclear power illustration seems to validate my suggestion. Scientists were/are very aware of the dangers of nuclear power. Some of them chose, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, make the claims you mentioned. The media (not exactly a credible source for the current state of science at any time) followed the approved "line'

Even competent scientists make errors. Look at Edward Teller and the silliness of the nuclear powered laser proposed for Reagan's SDI. It wasn't that good a theory to begin with and Teller greatly underestimated the engineering obstacles (he had a history of doing that). After $30 billion dollars that was demonstrated although a number of scientists had been making the claim all along. As the whole thing was classified, the truth came out years later. I believe the government built Dr. Teller a new Laboratory as a reward. Which speaks to human nature. The failure was not of science but of individuals.

The core problem for both sides seems to me to be that the definition of just what "science" is and isn't clearly understood by scientists themselves, let alone the rest of us.

The repeated attack of "skeptical missionaries" seems to be both diversionary and a special case of ad hominem attack. And while groups like CSICOP do rely on scienctific methodology, they are hardly the guardians of the gate. I think you'll find that the statictical studies were actually meta-statistical studies that concluded that scientific validation of ESP had not been demonstrated by a number of studies. The conclusion that ESP doesn't exist has not been proven. (After all how do you ever really prove a negative?).

I tend to agree with you about Psychology. At least the non-clinically based kind.

Peg

'The notion that something does not exist until it can be scientifically "proven" is, when you think about it for a moment, preposterous..."


It certainly is and most scientists I know would agree. As one commented, way back in the 20's when quantum mechanics was in its infancy, the theory required that certain quantum particles had to exist. They were not detected until the late 30's and their existence did a lot to validate the theory.

On the other hand, as Amos says, there is the possibility of a greater reality, beyond science. There may be. If so, it is outside the rules of science and trying to reconcile the two is probably futile.

There are some things that science accepts as real, as fact, that cannot be proven directly but whose existence can be inferred based on indirect evidence, a predictive theory that explains facts that are known, that is consistent with what is known about other branches of science.

Do you really know any scientists who don't think emotions are real? I suppose such do exist but doubt that belief is rooted in science. It suggests a different agenda..

Raedwulf

"The problem with science is that it's replaced religion."

Are you sure you (and maybe some others) aren't mixing philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism?

Science may have indeed become some people's religion but that speaks to human nature rather than to science. Just as the refusal of scientists to accept new ideas, to break out of the existing paradigm does. Physics had a hard time accepting chaos theory (in part because the early developers were mathematicians. That the theory explained more than a few phenomena didn't seem to matter. Eventually the preponderance of evidence mounted to the point that most scientists accept it.

"Just because you can't measure it, don't mean it ain't there!"

As a practicing skeptic I've also learned that it there is an absolute refusal to try and "measure" it, (in the sense of trying to see how it fits in with all the other things we know- or think we know anyway) there is likewise a pretty high probability that it ain't there.

The problem seems to be to define just what science is. And isn't. Clearly there is a strong human tendency preserve a cherished body of knowledge and a concomitant reluctance to embrace ideas from the "tree shakers".

Yet the burden would seem to be on the "tree shakers" (assuming they want to play in the methodological sandbox) to demonstrate their claims, not only within the specific area but in the larger body of scientific knowledge. As Carl Sagan suggested, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. From those making the claim.

Well, I seemed to have jumped around more than I meant so if confused who asserted what, my apologies in advance.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Mark Clark
Date: 20 Apr 03 - 12:17 AM

GUEST 19 Apr 03 - 06:52, Thanks for the entertaining spoof of Wolfram, I enjoyed it. I missed the first part of the Krulwich interview but what I got was that “A New Kind of Science” proposes that only a small number of simple rules are needed to randomly generate the entire universe as we know it. I don't know whether Wolfram's thesis is accepted in academic circles—he seems to have violated the first of Park's seven indicators at a minimum—but the notion isn't much stranger than what is canonical.

      - Mark

            “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.”

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 03 - 12:56 AM

"...proposes that only a small number of simple rules are needed..."

Which is what left him wide open for parody and disdain. Only a small number of rules are needed to explain the universe, but he took 1200 pages to say it?

I mean COME ON! 1200 pages? His editor should have been shot.

How can anyone seriously suggest that a man who writes a book that is 1200 pages long, is a master of critical thinking? A master of verbal diarrhea is more like it.

I'll wait for the abridged version on tape, thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 03 - 01:10 AM

Skeptic, at the neighborhood intersection of free and critical thinking, I find the skeptic movement to be the bully of the block.

Why are skeptics so desperate to prove people they disagree with wrong, anyway? The discipline of science hasn't exactly cornered the market on truth, much less fact.

I think the reason why an entire industry of professional skeptics has cropped up in the last decade or so, is to protect the authority of the political and corporate elite, plain and simple. This whole skeptic dynamic operates exactly like Fox News and right wing talk radio, and uses the very same tactics to discredit "the enemy". Skeptic histrionics are not my idea of "fair and balanced" critical, intellectual thought--far from it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 03 - 01:42 AM

There is a factual issue with measurement vis-a-vis existence, Peg, but it has to do with those phenomena that occur ouside the realm of normal, measurable event-time. How long does an idea take? How wide is a vision? How many people does a new idea reach in the first day of its life? On how many frequencies? Where is a creative postulated truth located?

Lots of problems with measurement in these realms, and yet, according to some schools of thought, these are the very well-springs of hypotheses, theories, new experimental schema, and new paradigms.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Skeptic
Date: 20 Apr 03 - 10:42 PM

GGuest,

If you are trying to say that there are people who claim to be skeptics and aren't, then we have no disagreement. Are you attacking them or the idea of skepticism itself?

If the idea, the goal (for want of a better word)is to look at the idea being proposed in a fairly specific way. There is (or should be) no hidden agenda - just a desire to determine whether the idea stands on it's on merits (generally as it relates to the scientific method and the body of knowledge generate by same) or not. When it moves beyond that, you edge over into show biz where another logical fallacy comes in to play - that of style over substance.


People who claim to be skeptics and aim their attack at the individual rather than the claim may call themselves skeptics but clearly aren't. Their claim, to restate, invalidates them.

Now this may be purely a matter of semantics but reading (and re-reading) it's not entirely clear what point you want to make and about who you are making them.

My confusion may come because, to me, critical thinking and skepticism are the same thing. You seem to feel that if someone claims to be a skeptic, then they are one, despite evidence to the contrary? Skepticism questions (or should) everything, including its own nature.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: mack/misophist
Date: 20 Apr 03 - 10:56 PM

Mark Clark:

Thanks. I could have sworn Bill said "Entiae non sunt multiplicandur."

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Mark Clark
Date: 20 Apr 03 - 11:55 PM

I think shooting Wolfram's editor might involve suicide on Wolfram's part. His book is published through his own publishing company so there was no one in a position to advise him. There are several more interesting proposals than Wolfram's for the origin of our universe and several of them require a random quantum gravitational event to kick off the process.

Misophist, Bill said a lot of things, some of which got him in trouble with Pope John XXII resulting in his excommunication.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: pavane
Date: 21 Apr 03 - 09:36 AM

The scientific method is a well-established method for examining hypotheses with a view to selecting the most likely explanation which fits the currently known facts.

It should NOT automatically reject anything, and new evidence should always result in a review. There are rules to the game!

Science should NOT be confused with technology, which is the practical application of the results of the method.

Theory of gravity (Newton, Einstein or quantum/superstring) = science
Man on the moon = technology

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 03 - 11:01 AM

Is a scientist's explanation of the universe superior to or more right than a theologian's or an existentialist philospher's?

As a matter of fact, yes. Explanations of domains of existence are presentations of data. The data is workable to the degree it correpsonds with the territory. It is unworkablke to the degree it calls up territory that isn't there, inserts arbitraries, fails to predict what can be found in the territory, or adds complexity that is unnecessary to the explanation. Injecting opinions into a body of data makes it more complex.

Finally, data is as valuable as it is useful in some sphere, whether practical or aesthetic. Large chunks of authoritarian data have been handed down through the centuries by theologians which have no real use. Existential philosophers are useful in unseating arbitrary or authoritarian moral codes, but not too much beyond that.

Newton's first three laws of motion, incomplete though they were, have produced more human benefit than all of Camus and Sartre together.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: mack/misophist
Date: 21 Apr 03 - 11:02 AM

Perhaps part of the problem here has been caused by "false-ifyability" (SP?). Most researchers won't comment on any question that isn't falsifyible. ie. able to be presented in a form that is capable of being proven false. This tends to upset the psychics and that ilk.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: TIA
Date: 22 Apr 03 - 08:29 AM

Oh my, so much to respond to here.

Difference between religion and science: science is self-correcting. Someone pointed out above that scientists held as fact many nutty notions over the years - true, but what ultimately proved them nutty was science done by other scientists! That's the way science works. Nothing is held sacred. Everything is open to doubt. A wise person (Feynman?) said "all good scientific theories are born scorned and die disproven".

True scientists do not reflexively defend their cozy niches: there is no surer route to fame (and more importantly funding!) than overturning an established theory or proving the existence of a previously unkown phenomenon. But since science is competetive and nothing is believed based only on claims, you've got to demonstrate the phenomenon, and other people at other places have to be able to reproduce it.

Science cannot say anything about non-testable (non-falsifiable) claims or ideas. So science and religion often deal with separate issues (Stephen Jay Gould called this "non-overlapping magisteria"). some religious claims are testable, and this is where the sparks fly!

I could listen to others (and expound myself) on this one all day. Great thread Bill D.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Apr 03 - 08:40 AM

Do they do double-double-blind experiments? That would be where the results included some from people getting placebos, where they (and the administrators)
believed it was the real stuff, and others where it was the real stuff, but everyone thought it wasn't? (McGrath)
Yes, they do, though less often than the usual placebo control experiments. If in such a group (they believe they get a placebos but get the 'real thing', whatever that is in that context) the effect is larger that in the usual placebo control group that is taken as a strong indication that the effect is more than mere placebo action.

Troll, tell me more about this 11-year-old girl's test. I haven't heard about it.. (Mark Cohen)
If I am not mistaken this questions has not been answered yet: the original article was Emily Rosa, et al., "A Close Look at Therapeutic Touch." The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Vol 279, #13, 1998-APR-1

I have the impression that some of you don't see the within-science focus of Park's argument. It is true, he is also concerned about what he terms pseudoscience and junk science. These happen outside of science and use scientific jargon with little or no evidence. He is more concerned with what he terms pathological science (and freudulent science) when within science researchers "are inclined to see what they expect to see" and fool themselves.

Nobody (well, nearly) within science is seriously concerned about crackpots who think that UFOs come from the inner of the earth controlled by still surviving Nazis or other stuff. The real concern starts when something within science goes wrong (N-rays, polywater, cold fusion,...) and large amounts of money and brain power are spent uselessly.

Park has provided a useful detection kit for bad science (and, as a collateral benefit, for pseudoscience as well) and bad science includes a couple of things you have mentioned.

It's a method of gaining knowledge, like 'personal experience' is, just a bit more reliable than that.

And, since there are so many new things discovered by science, any scientist claiming that things do not exist until they can be scientifically proven would only earn the laughter of her colleagues. Usually, most scientists subscribe to the idea that there is an outside real world that also exists even if we do not think about it...

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Apr 03 - 08:46 AM

freudulent science

An anecdote to that slip.
One day, Sigmund F, listened to a talk by a young colleague and he later went to him and said: "A very fine talk, but I heard you mispronounce my name as 'Sigmund Fraud': I've been greatly abused by that slip."

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Grab
Date: 22 Apr 03 - 09:04 AM

Wysiwyg, just because you can observe movement of waves in water, there is no guarantee that "spiritual energy" does that too (or even that spiritual energy exists - you fancy tracing it down?)

To give a nice example, 19th century bogus science was very keen on the phlogiston, which they thought was some substance contained within things which caused them to burn. It's a nice theory. Oil burns, and once the oil's used up, the flame stops and there's no more oil left. Similarly, set fire to a bit of wood, and the wood burns. Eventually all that's left is ash, the wood stops burning, and there's less left than when we started, so the phlogiston has obviously all gone. Except we all know that it actually doesn't work like that, and when a piece of kit was invented to weigh all the results of the burning, including the carbon dioxide, scientists proved it.

I'm sure you see the point. The fact that one system works a particular way does *not* mean that anything else works the same way, no matter how intuitive it seems. In fact, as with phlogiston, the thing you're theorising about doesn't even have to exist.

As far as Guest 6:06's question of "Is a scientist's explanation of the universe superior to or more right than a theologian's or an existentialist philospher's?": Firstly, "superior to" is a loaded term. An explanation can either be closer to the truth or further from the truth, and the explanation that is closer to the truth is indeed "superior", but it doesn't make the scientist "superior" to the theologian or philosopher.

As regards whether a scientist's explanation is closer to the facts than a theologian's, I'd have to say yes, it is. We have some lovely data for this as well - think Copernicus and Galileo. Theologians derived an Earth-centric universe from 1000 years of Bible study. Scientists derived a Sun-centric solar system from a few tens of years study with telescopes. As regards the philosopher, I believe philosophy concerns itself with how people behave (or how they should behave) and makes no effort to explain the physical processes underlying that. The philosopher may therefore have the superior explanation for predicting crowd movement, but they cannot extrapolate that to movement of planets.

Also remember that philosophy is subject to the scientific method as well, insofar as philosophers are free to analyse their colleagues' theories, point out flaws, and come up with their own explanation which they think fits the facts better. In the same way as astronomy tries to rationalise what makes stars move, philosophy tries to rationalise what makes people move. So any philosophical theory is ultimately capable of being tested and found to be flawed when compared to the real world. Freud's philosophy of feminine sexual dysfunction is a good example of this, being comprehensively debunked by Hite and others by following the scientific method.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 22 Apr 03 - 10:51 AM

Actually, Grab, phlogiston was disproved in a much easier fashion. The theory required heat to be the result of released phlogiston. A scientist (can't remember the name) showed that a grindstone produced heat from friction. This would make phlogiston a non-conserved substance (i.e., it could be made or destroyed), which diproved the theory. Just like falling speed being dependent on weight, phlogiston required only a little common sense to refute.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Grab
Date: 22 Apr 03 - 01:56 PM

Thanks for the info, FL. As you say, it just needs common sense. Therein rather lies the problem... ;-/

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 03 - 12:12 AM

Excuse me, but I think phlogiston died out well before the nineteenth century. I could be misremembering, but didn't it give way first to the caloric theory and then later to the molecular motion basis of heat well before the Victorian era?

If I'm wrong I will be delighted to admit it. But I think it was Lavoisier who led themigration from phlogiston to caloric, around 1760-80. And Dalton, who led the path to the atomic theory of heat around , what--1830?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 23 Apr 03 - 04:34 AM

FL -

Junk science proof. Any grindstone that produces heat also produces sparks. Evidence that the phlogiston is there, just as in the flame when coal burns - it's just very dense. Proof denied.

At least that's what they said then, during the peer review.

"Common sense" is not the answer there.

For the most part, despite some valiant attempts at addressing the question, it is apparent that ours is a community that effectively excludes science and scientists. One or two contributors have come close enough to be highly suspect (and should guard their hindsides); but for the most part the discussion of science has foundered on the attempt to put it in non-scientific language. Unfortunately this doesn't work very well, and on the other side of it, scientific language would be largely incomprehensible to most of us.

Please continue - but be advised that the scientific jargon for what's happening here is "fighting feathers."

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 23 Apr 03 - 08:40 AM

The idea that motion created heat was also tested by measuring the temperature of water above and below a waterfall. The water had gained several degrees in the fall. Besides, not all friction produces sparks-rub your hands together. Heat? yes. Flame? no.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Apr 03 - 02:12 PM

for a good lesson in how difficult even simple science is to get 'right', and why bogus science is so easy to pass of as reputable, try entering the phrase "wooden cutting boards" with the added term 'plastic' into Google........you will see article after article first noting, then debunking, then reinstating , the idea that wooden cutting boards are 'safer' than plastic regarding retention of bacteria.

There are just SO many varibles involved, and SO many preconceived opinions about what should be the right answer, that you can read for 20 minutes and still wonder if you know the answer.

I really appreciate TIA's post above, which noted that science (properly done) is self correcting....the difference being that many non-scientific areas (religion, psychic research..etc) works with very different rules, and tends to NOT look hard for evidence that would contradict their positions. Why?
   Well, it is my own very personal hunch that the more 'esoteric' disciplines are simply more interesting and fun for many. True, careful, disciplined science can be tedious and boring, whereas religion, astrology (and also psychic research and more mainstream science like looking for 'cold fusion') gets attention and wild speculation and provides a certain comfort & solace.

If I were able to start my education all over again, I'd like to study the thought processes, with emphasis on the human mind's ability to "Gerrymander" data and lie to itself about it's own motives and decision making. Perhaps there IS way somehow to help people remain open-minded, without sacrificing careful procedure and strict definitions of 'proof'.

(come to think of it, I suspect that there is a lot of equivocating over what "open-minded" means...does it mean "willing to suspend judgement", or "willing to accept stuff that is hard to prove scientifically"...or something else entirely?)

anyway, in spite of fighting a cold and not feeling like being in the middle of this thread constantly (as in 'cant think clearly), I am quite enjoying the comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 03 - 12:01 AM

Science is a cultural artifact. The following excerpt is from this article by Maurizio Iaccarino , worth chewing on for a bit.

A

---

Science and culture

Western science could learn a thing or two from the way science is done in other cultures

Maurizio Iaccarino

Maurizio Iaccarino is Secretary General of the UNESCO/ICSU World Conference on Science and at the Institute of Genetics and Biophysics, CNR, in Naples, Italy. e-mail: [e-mail]


What we understand today as being 'modern science' is in fact not that modern, but was born nearly half a millennium ago at the time of the Renaissance in Europe. But even if we think of great Renaissance thinkers, such as Galileo Galilei, Leonardo da Vinci or Sir Isaac Newton, as the first 'true scientists', we should not forget that all civilizations throughout history have produced and accumulated knowledge to understand and explain the world, a process that was often accompanied or stimulated by technological development. Indeed, the explosion of knowledge during the Renaissance was sparked by a reawakened interest in the writings of Greek, Roman and Arab philosophers and scholars—the word 'Renaissance' implying a renewed interest in classical culture and knowledge. But regardless of the various cultures and civilizations that have influenced science, what is common to all scientists is that they study natural phenomena, with an appropriate set of rules, to make generalizations and predictions about nature.

Science is part of culture, and how ... science is done largely depends on the culture in which it is practised

---

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Apr 03 - 04:46 AM

Iaccarion (and Amos) are right in reminding us that the foundation for modern science comes from Greece (or Greek living abroad like Archimedes) and from the Arab scholars like Alhazen who carried on or at the very least preserved the writings that otherwise might have been lost

The main reason in my eyes for the revolution during the Renaissance was the near complete reliance upon factual data (often gathered in experiments) for deciding questions. Scientists from then on have learned to ask their questions in a way that they can (in principle) be decided by data (experiments). Questions that cannot be decided by data are not tackled by science. One tricky (and the most creative) part of the method is to find a way to ask such questions. And a highlight in a scientific career is if you find a way to ask an experimentally decidable question on a field which until then was thought not to be amenable to science.

This revolution in thought was then (and still is today) difficult to accept for people who are not used to decide questions this way. Whenever scientific results have been in contradiction to beliefs or even tenets of faith there has been a clash. For instance, some aborigine in Australia whose religion tells them that they have been there right from the beginning of the world don't like scientist to tell them that this is not true.

This clash in world views has been described in a still amusing parody by Bacon:

HORSE'S TEETH

In the year of our Lord 1432, there arose a grievous quarrel among
the brethren over the number of teeth in the mouth of a horse. For
thirteen days the disputation raged without ceasing. All the
ancient books and chronicles were fetched out, and wonderful and
ponderous erudition such as was never before heard of in this
region was made manifest. At the beginning of the fourteenth day,
a youthful friar of goodly bearing asked his learned superiors for
permission to add a word, and straightway, to the wonderment of the
disputants, whose deep wisdom he sore vexed, he beseeched them to
unbend in a manner coarse and unheard-of and to look in the open
mouth of a horse and find answer to their questionings. At this,
their dignity being grievously hurt, they waxed exceeding wroth;
and, joining in a mighty uproar, they flew upon him and smote him,
hip and thigh, and cast him out forthwith. For, said they, surely
Satan hath tempted this bold neophyte to declare unholy and
unheard-of ways of finding truth, contrary to all the teachings of
the fathers. After many days more of grievous strife, the dove of
peace sat on the assembly, and they as one man declaring the
problem to be an everlasting mystery because of a grievous dearth
of historical and theological evidence thereof, so ordered the same
writ down.

                (Francis Bacon, 1592)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 03 - 08:19 AM

Man, Wolfgang, don't that story just sum it right up!! It's a daisy!

Thanks,


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: TIA
Date: 24 Apr 03 - 08:45 AM

IMO, the best description of what makes good science is from Feynman.

Full text here:

Feynman on Science

If you read this, make sure you stick with it to the rats in a maze story (it's not too long).

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 03 - 11:53 AM

TIA:

That one is a gem. Thank you very much for the link to it. MAd emy day!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: mack/misophist
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 10:46 AM

If what you want is a simple, easy to use definition of science, JBS Haldane had a good one: "If you can't predict with it, it's not science". Of course, he also said "The Lord loved beetles more than anything else because he made more of them than anything else". That puts us in perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 11:07 AM

"If you can't predict with it, it's not science".

That implies pretty baldly that if it's science you can predict with it. I'm not sure that's a global truism. 'Course this is awful broad dicta we're talking about, not exactly high precision statements.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: mack/misophist
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 11:19 AM

I think what he meant was that science is a method of moving from the general to the particular and for generating physical laws. One should also remember that he was trained as a chemist. I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: TIA
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 12:17 PM

I think Haldane meant the bald, global truism that Amos mentions. But by prediction, he probably didn't mean long-term, detailed accurate predictions (e.g. weather forecasts). Instead he meant that for a theory to be scientific, you must be able to fill in the blanks in the following sentence:

"If __________ is correct, then we should be able to find or demonstrate that ____________ exists or occurs."

for example,

"If Einsteins general theory of relativity is correct, then we should be able to detect gravitational frame-dragging."

Hmm. I suppose this is exactly the moving to the particular based on the general that misophist states above.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 01:51 PM

Right. I am just adding that there is a lot more to the process of "science" than the final propositions and theorems with which one predicts phenomena. And there are other tests, explicit and implicit. For example, a new scientific datum has to align with past scientific experience. And it should if possible not call on factors that are not needed, but cleave to elegance.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: TIA
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 01:54 PM

Well said Amos, Occam would agree!

(psst - I think everyone else has dropped out by now)