 sj |
||
|
||
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.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'. |
