A cold eye on a hot young physicist

Baltimore Sun ^ | June 9, 2002 | Michael Stroh

[Cincinatus' Wife]

In four short years Jan Hendrik Schon went from scientific nobody to one of the most talked-about young physicists in the world. His competitors had any number of reasons to be impressed.

There was his jump from a little-known German university to Bell Labs in New Jersey, one of the most storied research centers in the world. There was his seemingly tireless ability to crank out scientific papers - 76 with his name since 2000, a pace that leaves many physicists in awe.

[Physicist]

ps: if you don't beleive the dogma argument, look at the masters and johnson sudies.

Physics and psychology are not the same thing. (And I defy you to come up with a greater understatement.)

[Bommer]

Fraud in science is rare.

Good. Lets talk Global Warming!

[Physicist]

Good. Lets talk Global Warming!

Alright, let's. Do you have evidence that data have been faked?

[fporretto]

In my years in research, I came to understand that, though powerful when applied, the peer review and replication procedure, like all other procedures, has certain limits. One of those limits is the difficulty of promulgating a result that undermines the credibility of a widely respected figure. Another is the low likelihood that certain experiments will be thought worth trying to reproduce.

Much progress in the sciences is made possible only by death: the death of senior authority figures who resolutely resist accepting certain new discoveries and revelations, and who, by reason of their weight in their field, can inhibit others from investigating those discoveries. Mavericks who manage to catch the attention of the world through unusual channels account for a smidgen more. And then there's the direct road to technology, which some unusually applicable (and potentially lucrative) discoveries can open.

Probably the best guardian of the credibility of science is the ethical attitude that almost always goes along with the drive to become a scientist: the powerful, internalized need to know the truth. Unfortunately, because of the oceans of government-directed grant money that now dominate science in America, this ethic is under a sustained and ominous assault.

Hey, it turns out this has something to do with politics after all!

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[WIMom]

A Tribute to Freepers - Summer Freepathon!


Click to support the best
conservative web site on the internet!

~OR~

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Snail mail at FreeRepublic, LLC.
PO Box 9771, Fresno, CA 93794


Let's have some fun!

Hurry before they bring out the Cheerleaders!

[PatrickHenry]

For those on the creationist (or anti-science) side of the usual debates around here, consider this -- the errors (or fraud, perhaps) in this man's work were discovered by other scientists. It was not some swami in his cave, conversing with the spirit world, who straightened everyone out.

And while I'm defending science, I want to make it clear that I'm talking about real science. I agree with many others here that the so-called "social sciences" are generally bunk.

[Erasmus]

there are a number of pseudo-scientific fields where their is no substantial and effective peer-review community and where you can publish almost anything and have it stand for years. Much of the social sciences fell into this category

Sodnagel's Law of Discipline Names:

"If it says 'Science' in the title, it isn't."

[pabianice]

Is there a guy on his team named Bellisiles?

[Greeklawyer]

Please, junk science has infested the courts.

[Sabertooth]

(And I defy you to come up with a greater understatement.)

Rosie O'Donnell is other than bootylicious.

[Diogenesis]

If you had ~Avogadro's number of people,
perhaps physics principles could be applied?

[Greeklawyer]

absolutly correct.

I agree they are completly different.
My point is to illustrate how some sacred dogmas are held protected.
Every unified field theorist is always subject to disbelieving peer review.

I once read an article about the "Utah effect"
discoveries are anounced in the media before publication.
Subsequent tests do not repeat the findings.
But, in the meantime there is time and money invested in the "discovery".

Peer review is suppossed to be stubborn by design.
It is just complicated by personal investments of ego and funding.

[VOA]

bump

[mj1234]

There might have been manipulation of data. 2 instances come to mind....replacement of temperature monitoring stations during the CARTER administration the original design was abandoned (after almost 100 years of use) to a new design Voila! temperature increases in the U.S. #2 since the 1960's antartica has had the most stable and accurate measurements taken over a continent (very little human activity) the mean temperature has DROPPED! This cannot- statistically happen if there is global warming. --For good measure take a look at Nasa and how they have "recalculated" their data of orbiting weather satellites----there is a political/economic agenda being waged by the Marxists to damage the U.S.

[Physicist]

There might have been manipulation of data. 2 instances come to mind....replacement of temperature monitoring stations during the CARTER administration the original design was abandoned (after almost 100 years of use) to a new design Voila! temperature increases in the U.S.

There's quite a bit of evidence that the Earth was warming before the Carter administration. But more importantly, there's nothing in what you say that indicates intentional deception.

#2 since the 1960's antartica has had the most stable and accurate measurements taken over a continent (very little human activity) the mean temperature has DROPPED! This cannot- statistically happen if there is global warming.

What climate model are you basing that statistical claim on? It's not in the least obvious to me; the Earth's atmosphere is not a thermos bottle. Furthermore, if you are claiming that some of the data are faked and can't be trusted, why do you trust those data?

--For good measure take a look at Nasa and how they have "recalculated" their data of orbiting weather satellites----there is a political/economic agenda being waged by the Marxists to damage the U.S.

Do you know how many people would have to be in on such a deception? It's like the O.J. defense claims times ten thousand.

There is an agenda lurking behind much of the global warming talk, but it's overwhelmingly subconscious, and all of it has to do not with the data themselves, but with the interpretation of the data. The data do indicate that the Earth is warmer now than it was 100 years ago, but whether that can be attributed to human action depends chiefly on where your sympathies lie. The opinions of many of the scientists involved may suck carbon monoxide, but that has nothing to do with any sort of fraud.

[ned13]

This was featured in Chemical and Engineering News a couple of weeks ago. They showed both sets of graphs that were in question and both published separately in PNAS and I believe Science (I will have to find my issue to make sure). These two graphs were not remarkedly similar but exactly the same. I could not even reproduce something like this if the conditions were the same much less if the conditions were opposite which is what he was indicating. It is unfortuntate that this has happened to Bell Labs. I still have a lot of respect for the work that they have done however, in my opinion this data was fabricated, copied, whatever you want to call it.

[RightWhale]

if you don't beleive the dogma argument, look at the masters and johnson sudies

There's more like that. The professor who interviewed UFO contactees. That stuff isn't science. If we can't use our expertise acquired through years and years of time spent learning mathematics, it isn't science.

[genefromjersey]

"Fraud in science is rare ."

This astonishing statement is followed by paragraph after paragraph of (now) known fraudulent submissions by "revered" scientists over a 100 year period.

[maxwell]

seemingly tireless ability to crank out scientific papers - 76 with his name since 2000, a pace that leaves many physicists in awe.

Holy friggin' CRAP. I only got two.

Well it's fairly trivial to get your John Henry on any number of papers. Whether you sat down and did the research and analysis and composition yourself, that's another story.