Junk Science

[DrRocket]

There appears to be a resurgence in junk science, typically characterized by attacks on mainstream scientists amid claims that major pillars of science are completely wrong and that the mainstream conspires against those who possess the true knowledge. The proponents of junk science are often glib, seem to talk in terms of advanced scientific terms but in reality don't understand what they are saying, and weave intricate stories and try to place the burden of proof on others to show that they are wrong. That is not how science works. When a new idea is proposed the onus is on the proposer to show that the new idea is correct.

It is relatively easy for a junk scientist to produce enough fog to confuse a layman -- con men do that all the time. The best defense against being fooled is to have enough knowledge and experience to recognize the signs of a scientific con job. Ideally that means understanding the subject well enough to know when someone is blowing smoke. There are clear signs to those with sufficient background. Those with less background might do well to learn a bit about how to "smell a rat" from those who do have the background. The University of Pittsburg has a web site that provides links to scientific information and in particular includes a section on recognzing junk science. For those who wish to take advantage of that site here is the link:

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~reupfom/mat ... #debunking

For a nice critique of bad science related to theoretical physics, Gerhard 'tHooft has written a nice essay. 'tHooft is one of the more notable Nobel Laureates. 'tHooft did pioneering work as a graduate student, his thesis showing the renormalizability of the electroweak theory. He is also the inventor of the holographic principle which is receiving a lot of attention in theoretical circles. Basically they don't come any smarter than 'tHooft. Here is a link to his essay:

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theoristbad.html

It is worth stating clearly that freedom of speech guarantees everyone the right to voice their opinion, scientific or otherwise. It does NOT guarantee that anyone else should pay attentiojn to that opinion. Some opinions are simply worthless. It is your duty to yourself to be able to recognize which opinions are worthy of consideration.

 

[derekmcd]

You think it is bad here? You should visit the comments under the 'science' tab of SDC articles. Some of the stuff is pure comedy. What's funny is not what they actually post, but it funny that they actually believe what they are typing. Education of the sciences has taken a turn for the worse in our public schools.

 

[drwayne]

I would like to postulate that the more time someone spends trying to convince audiences on web sites
that they are correct about a topic, the less likely that they are to actually be correct.



I had a "conversation" a couple of years ago with a person who professed to be an expert on fusion and
fission, yet when asked about the BE/A curve, they stated that it had nothing of importance to say about
fusion and fission. This sort of thing sets off a neon sign that "I have no idea what I am talking about".
(Eventually, when the individual realized that his "glib" statement was way off base, be fell back on
another woo philosophy - that the BE/A curve was based on existing theories, which of course were
all wrong, and I was just clinging to them because of fondness)

That is why such individuals avoid dealing with, and impugn existing or historical experts in the fields that
they profess having insights into - the fascade of epertise that they put forth is so easily pierced. That
is also why they tend to proliferate in the more arcane regions of science - it enables their technobabble
to go undiscovered for longer.

Wayne

 

[MeteorWayne]

A somewhat relevant excerpt from Wayne Hale's blog.

Read the whole thing here:

http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog

Education is one of the most important topics to Americans. As a nation we devote huge resources to educating our children, local school boards and state government last year spent over $800 billion on education. At the federal level, the Department of Education’s budget last year was just over $57 billion. This represents substantially more money than the nation spent on national defense in all its aspects including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, national intelligence, and the department of homeland security.

In fact, the national average secondary schooling expenditure per child in the United States is third in the world, behind only Switzerland and Finland and well ahead of Germany, Japan, South Korea, and China.

Yet, by all objective measures, American students are significantly lagging in almost every area to their foreign counterparts. Math, Science, even language testing scores lag significantly behind other modern industrialized nations.

Equally troubling is the decline in college graduates in engineering, mathematics, and science. Over the last decade there has been a steady decay of graduates in these fields so that compared with the previous decade, the United States has 100,000 fewer graduates in these fields. Compared with other countries we are doing even worse. When normalized to the population of the country, every industrialized modern nation graduates more science, engineering, and mathematics students than the United States. Our biggest economic competitors are graduating the most: China, Japan, India, South Korea. American innovation and creativity has long been the fire that stoked the engine of our economy. As we graduate fewer people who have the wherewithal to create new products and services, America can only expect economic decline.
So what are we to do about this as a nation? History can provide some relevance. During the 20th century, there were two significant periods of growth in the training of American engineers, mathematicians, and scientists. The first was World War II and its immediate aftermath. Certainly we would rather not expand our capability based on a war, and the circumstances of the GI bill may not be applicable. The other period of expansion was shortly after Sputnik and the decline started with the end of Apollo. Is there a lesson here?

 

[michaelmozina]

If there is a lesson, I suppose the lesson is that fear and greed can be a powerful motivators.

I suspect that the next big leap in technology will occur as the result of the commercialization of space. China and Russia have already committed themselves to a presence in space. Competition seems to be a good thing, and already commercial ventures are begging to gain momentum here in the US. I think America now manufactures something like $200 billion a year in spacecraft, missiles and airplanes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30229507/

That number will mostly likely continue to grow over the next few decades and we should be prepared for that growth by increasing our focus on engineering with an emphasis on making our nation energy independent, and maintaining a strong presence in space. That's my two cent's worth anyway.

 

[michaelmozina]

There appears to be a resurgence in junk science, typically characterized by attacks on mainstream scientists amid claims that major pillars of science are completely wrong and that the mainstream conspires against those who possess the true knowledge.

Keep in mind that can work both ways. The mainstream often acts as though it has everything "figured out" down to the last few centimeters and 100K years, when in fact it hasn't got a clue about some relatively important aspects of how our own solar system functions. Astronomy as a field of science is bound to be scrutinized by skeptics, just like every other branch of science. That is typically a good thing.

The proponents of junk science are often glib, seem to talk in terms of advanced scientific terms but in reality don't understand what they are saying, and weave intricate stories and try to place the burden of proof on others to show that they are wrong.

Wouldn't that be true of mainstream theories as well?

That is not how science works. When a new idea is proposed the onus is on the proposer to show that the new idea is correct.

How was that actually done for mainstream beliefs? I guess the notion of "onus of responsibility" tends to be somewhat subjective, don't you think?

It is relatively easy for a junk scientist to produce enough fog to confuse a layman -- con men do that all the time. The best defense against being fooled is to have enough knowledge and experience to recognize the signs of a scientific con job. Ideally that means understanding the subject well enough to know when someone is blowing smoke. There are clear signs to those with sufficient background. Those with less background might do well to learn a bit about how to "smell a rat" from those who do have the background. The University of Pittsburg has a web site that provides links to scientific information and in particular includes a section on recognzing junk science. For those who wish to take advantage of that site here is the link:

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~reupfom/mat ... #debunking

From one of your first links....

http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm

The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation. The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation. A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.

Both of these clear "signs" can certainly be applied to the theory of inflation and number seven applies to "dark energy", and SUSY brands of "dark matter" theory too. I guess it all depends on how one subjectively chooses to interpret these various "signs".

It is worth stating clearly that freedom of speech guarantees everyone the right to voice their opinion, scientific or otherwise. It does NOT guarantee that anyone else should pay attentiojn to that opinion. Some opinions are simply worthless. It is your duty to yourself to be able to recognize which opinions are worthy of consideration.

Worthless ideas tend to never show up in controlled experiments. The ones that work usually eventually find their way into a useful consumer product of some sort.

 

[kg]

Worthless ideas tend to never show up in controlled experiments. The ones that work usually eventually find their way into a useful consumer product of some sort.

Yes, this is true. You can find all kinds of products (anti-aging creams, diet pills, male enhancement pills etc...) that are scientifically proven to work but never show up in controlled experiments!