As cold fusion events demonstrate, modern science is ruled by conformity

Medicine Science ^ | August 29, 2011 | Posted by aksell

[Wonder Warthog]

"Not to mention repetitive. Kevmo adds to his record every time he regurgitates this stuff from a blog."

The "Abuse" button is right where it has always been.

[djf]

There are emerging theories that may totally change (well, majorly change) the way we look at physics.

IF - and I said IF - Brandenburgs theories on GEM are verified, we will be entering a new realm.

Anti-gravity generated by electromagnetic fields.
Faster than light travel.

The early parts of it seem to have been published in about 2000, he did alot more detail work in 2006, and has been getting peer-reviewed since then and nobody seems to be able to refute it.

As an interesting side note, he predicts the answer to the universe is not 42, it’s 42.85xxx

I am reading his book now, will have more to say when I finish it and do more web research.

[exDemMom]

With regard to medicine there’s thousands of people practicing and millions using “alternative medicine” from acupuncture to homeopathy to herbal treatments to shamanism to prayer to meditation and so on.

The reason these techniques are not as widely accepted as “mainstream” medicine is because they don’t work - at least for the vast majority of people. Were any to prove consistently effective, believe me, they would quickly gain widespread acceptance and use.

The placebo effect is a real phenomenon, and most likely accounts for the (very) limited success of those "alternative" medicines. Whenever I see someone urging people to reject evidence-based science and embrace "alternative" medicine developed on the basis of ... well, I don't know, but it makes me cringe and despair for the state of scientific education these days. I'm sure those same people disparaging the use of scientific based medicine are equally in favor of rejecting evidence if they ever get arrested and have to be put on trial...

[freedomfiter2]

The placebo effect is a real phenomenon, and most likely accounts for the (very) limited success of those “alternative” medicines.

You’re right. It also accounts for a not insignificant percent of the effects of approved medicines.

[Diogenesis]

Thank you for posting this and ignoring the ‘Luddites’.

[aruanan]

Thank you for posting this and ignoring the ‘Luddites’.

Funny, that, considering that the idea portrayed in the piece is the reigning theorem of the post-modern Luddites.

[aruanan]

Thank you for posting this and ignoring the ‘Luddites’.

The reason that people talk about the "body of knowledge" is that, like the body, there is system that serves to integrate and coordinate intellectual endeavors. The degree and efficiency with which it does it is open to question. But the idea that a body of anything should be "open to change" and "alternative this or that" would be like saying that various cancers are just alternative ways of an approach to biology that the body is trying to fight or that the body should be more open to trying different approaches to energy and resource use posed by various viruses and bacteria.

There are new and innovative ways of doing things and we see them all the time. Over the past 200 years we've seen greater and more frequent examples of this than at about any point in history. It may be that those who have a reigning theorem are reluctant to change it, but it's only natural that they would be, absent a really good reason to do so. And the reigning theorum usually does change as it comes up against a better and more efficient way of doing and explaining things. But it's unreasonable to ask that what is "established" take the attitude that anything is just as likely to be true as anything else.

[Lazamataz]

Ignorant gibberish. Stop wasting time and space.

Thank you for demonstrating the premise of this article, hinckley buzzard.

[Wonder Warthog]

"This is a caricature of medical science and science in general. There are always new ideas, models, and theories being proposed and adopted."

Well, it might exaggerate somewhat, but the problem described is very real. Medicine isn't my field, but I recall the "ulcers/H.Pylori" saga. In geology, "plate tectonics" is a good example. I'm sure there have been others in medicine and geology as well as other fields. And I've seen serious academic discussions about how science could do a better job of recognizing "outside the box" but nevertheless real discoveries. One proposal is for journals to actually reserve some small part of their space specifically to explore "fringe issues".

[Wonder Warthog]

"This is a caricature of medical science and science in general. There are always new ideas, models, and theories being proposed and adopted."

Well, it might exaggerate somewhat, but the problem described is very real. Medicine isn't my field, but I recall the "ulcers/H.Pylori" saga. In geology, "plate tectonics" is a good example. I'm sure there have been others in medicine and geology as well as other fields. And I've seen serious academic discussions about how science could do a better job of recognizing "outside the box" but nevertheless real discoveries. One proposal is for journals to actually reserve some small part of their space specifically to explore "fringe issues".

[aruanan]

One proposal is for journals to actually reserve some small part of their space specifically to explore "fringe issues".

Remember, though, that "fringe" stuff is, by its nature, virtually unlimited in scope. The better way would be for "peer review" to continue to get criticism until it becomes synonymous with CYA and then lose out to people actually looking at data.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Remember, though, that "fringe" stuff is, by its nature, virtually unlimited in scope."

I suspect that the part of the "fringe" that is actually doing serious work is a limited subset, and that any competent journal author should be able to recognize serious science vs. "garage crackpots". The thing to avoid is "topics that must be rejected at all costs".

"The better way would be for "peer review" to continue to get criticism until it becomes synonymous with CYA and then lose out to people actually looking at data.

I'm not sure I understand how this would work. Can you elaborate??

[Wonder Warthog]

Bulls-eye, Laz. LOL

[Lazamataz]

I almost wonder if hinckley buzzard wasn’t being funny and ironic on purpose. :)

[Kevmo]

Nothing new from you, just more seagulling.

Squawk!: How to Stop Making Noise and Start Getting Results [Hardcover]

http://www.amazon.com/Squawk-Making-Noise-Getting-Results/dp/0061562343

Travis Bradberry
Travis Bradberry (Author)
› Visit Amazon’s Travis Bradberry Page
Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
See search results for this author
3.9 out of 5 stars See all reviews (93 customer reviews)
93 Reviews
5 star: (32)
4 star: (34)
3 star: (14)
2 star: (10)
1 star: (3)

› See all 93 customer reviews...

---

List Price: $19.95
Price: $14.08 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
You Save: $5.87 (29%)
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

In Stock.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
Only 3 left in stock—order soon (more on the way).
Want it delivered Wednesday, September 7? Order it in the next 41 hours and 41 minutes, and choose One-Day Shipping at checkout. Details

40 new from $0.93 34 used from $0.28

---

Editorial Reviews
Review
“I’ve been talking about seagull management for years. If you want to understand how to turn it around, read Travis Bradberry’s Squawk!” (Ken Blanchard, coauthor of The One Minute Manager (R) and The One Minute Entrepreneur (TM) )

“There are several powerful leadership messages woven into this entertaining and memorable parable—teaching me when I was least prepared (and most ready) for it. I have a list of ten colleagues who will be getting a most-unexpected gift.” (Kenneth Forster, director, Global Customer Strategy, the Coca-Cola Company )

“Dr. Bradberry provides a wonderful solution with an easy-to-understand and utilize three-step model that allows you to engage your team and generate improved results. Read it, and you’ll see a positive change in your future!” (Robert Savage, COO, Taco Bell, Yum Brands )

“Squawk! is simple, yet powerful, and very entertaining. It provides a valuable illustration of how to get more from your team, and I was able to get through it in just one flight.” (Dennis Sadlowski, president and CEO, Siemens Energy and Automation )

“Squawk has a central theme I find near and dear—the tendency of managers to move so fast from problem to problem that they forget people are involved. People need time and attention, and this book is an important reminder that great management doesn’t happen on the fly.” (Stephen Lundin, coauthor of Fish! (R) and author of Cats )

“Companies are losing their top talent every day, and many of those departing do so on entrepreneurial wings. If you want to prevent this and learn to keep your flock together in friendlier skies, read this little fable and take its big lessons to heart!” (Michael E. Gerber, bestselling author of the E-Myth and Awakening the Entrepreneur Within )

“Squawk! is as profound as it is fun! A must-read for every manager.” (Ron McMillan, bestselling coauthor of Crucial Conversations, Crucial Confrontations, and Influencer )
Product Description
Unfortunately, we’ve all seen it happen. When faced with a problem, rather than working cooperatively to come up with a solution, your manager or colleagues come swooping in, squawking loudly, dump orders riddled with formulaic advice, and then take off, leaving you and everyone else to clean up the mess. Or—let’s be honest: there may have been a time (or three) when you have been guilty of doing that very thing yourself.

While this happens in every workplace worldwide more frequently than ever, it doesn’t have to. Through the story of Charlie, a seagull who doesn’t understand how his management actions are holding back his flock, Travis Bradberry, Ph.D., reveals the three virtues of great leadership that he has used to help thousands of people and organizations deal with seagull managers in the workplace and, just as important, to avoid being one themselves.

Charlie the seagull is a well-intentioned manager who, when faced with new challenges after previously leading his flock to success, fails to understand how his management style is holding back, rather than helping, his team. Through our bird’s-eye view of Charlie, overconfident Scott, quiet Maya, practical Yufan, and skinny, shy Alfred, we see them and the rest of the flock struggle to solve their problems while absorbing the three virtues of great leadership and teamwork along the way. This entertaining and illuminating fable will help make us all more productive, less prone to depositing messes on the heads of those around us, and more able to work effectively with those who continue to squawk at us every day.

[Kevmo]

Anti-gravity generated by electromagnetic fields.
***Sounds a lot like electrogravitics. It even has a keyword here on FR.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/electrogravitics/index?tab=articles

[aruanan]

I suspect that the part of the "fringe" that is actually doing serious work is a limited subset, and that any competent journal author should be able to recognize serious science vs. "garage crackpots". The thing to avoid is "topics that must be rejected at all costs".

This is what I mean. You'd have to have a review process to separate the garage crackpots from serious science. Since there is so much fringe stuff out there and since serious science that is way outside the current paradigms looks to established science at any point in history like garage crackpot stuff, you'd have to have extremely well-read editors to be able to adequately evaluate what should and shouldn't be in.

"The better way would be for "peer review" to continue to get criticism until it becomes synonymous with CYA and then lose out to people actually looking at data.

I'm not sure I understand how this would work. Can you elaborate??

This would have to just entail a shift in attitudes to the point that people would go back to sharing their results in the same way they did before what we currently call "peer review" existed. And it wasn't that long ago, historically speaking.

[Teacher317]

True science can be stand-offish to new ideas. The entire idea f the scientific model is that there are facts that you can build from.... and accepted ideas that seem to fit that model very well. It is incumbent upon the newcomer with the strange ideas to either show how these ideas fit into the accepted ideas, or how they change them. It is NOT up to the scientific community to “accept new ideas” BEFORE they are proven! Either create repeatable scientific evidence, or create a new working model... or shut up an keep working in the dark. In the end, if your ideas are valid, you’ll reap your rewards. Expecting the scientific community to accept unproven and as-yet-unprivable ideas is simply NOT science. Expecting anything else seems to indicate that your science is poor, your idea is not valid, and that you ought to be ignored.

[aquila48]

“You’re weird. I like you.”

LOL - my wife has pointed that out to me on more than one occasion.

[aquila48]

“The placebo effect is a real phenomenon, and most likely accounts for the (very) limited success of those “alternative” medicines.”

Isn’t the placebo effect “alternative” medicine? Science does not understand it well enough (yet) to make it a reliable treatment.

“Whenever I see someone urging people to reject evidence-based science and embrace “alternative” medicine developed on the basis of ... well, I don’t know, but it makes me cringe and despair for the state of scientific education these days.”

I don’t despair as long as they are the ones who suffer the consequences.

However, it’s also important to be aware of science’s very real limitations. Its realm is restricted to what’s repeatable and reproducible. It can’t deal with one-time events, or those that seem totally spurious. So “miracles”, “seers” that might predict a future event, in other words all the “paranormal” space is outside science’s scope, even though it is part of reality.