Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Junk Science Alert!
The Chronicle of Higher Education ^ | 1/31/03 | ROBERT L. PARK

Posted on 03/12/2003 9:21:09 AM PST by gomaaa

The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science By ROBERT L. PARK

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is investing close to a million dollars in an obscure Russian scientist's antigravity machine, although it has failed every test and would violate the most fundamental laws of nature. The Patent and Trademark Office recently issued Patent 6,362,718 for a physically impossible motionless electromagnetic generator, which is supposed to snatch free energy from a vacuum. And major power companies have sunk tens of millions of dollars into a scheme to produce energy by putting hydrogen atoms into a state below their ground state, a feat equivalent to mounting an expedition to explore the region south of the South Pole.

There is, alas, no scientific claim so preposterous that a scientist cannot be found to vouch for it. And many such claims end up in a court of law after they have cost some gullible person or corporation a lot of money. How are juries to evaluate them?

Before 1993, court cases that hinged on the validity of scientific claims were usually decided simply by which expert witness the jury found more credible. Expert testimony often consisted of tortured theoretical speculation with little or no supporting evidence. Jurors were bamboozled by technical gibberish they could not hope to follow, delivered by experts whose credentials they could not evaluate.

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.

In ruling that such testimony was not credible because of lack of supporting evidence, the court instructed federal judges to serve as "gatekeepers," screening juries from testimony based on scientific nonsense. Recognizing that judges are not scientists, the court invited judges to experiment with ways to fulfill their gatekeeper responsibility.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer encouraged trial judges to appoint independent experts to help them. He noted that courts can turn to scientific organizations, like the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, to identify neutral experts who could preview questionable scientific testimony and advise a judge on whether a jury should be exposed to it. Judges are still concerned about meeting their responsibilities under the Daubert decision, and a group of them asked me how to recognize questionable scientific claims. What are the warning signs?

I have identified seven indicators that a scientific claim lies well outside the bounds of rational scientific discourse. Of course, they are only warning signs -- even a claim with several of the signs could be legitimate.

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists.

One notorious example is the claim made in 1989 by two chemists from the University of Utah, B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, that they had discovered cold fusion -- a way to produce nuclear fusion without expensive equipment. Scientists did not learn of the claim until they read reports of a news conference. Moreover, the announcement dealt largely with the economic potential of the discovery and was devoid of the sort of details that might have enabled other scientists to judge the strength of the claim or to repeat the experiment. (Ian Wilmut's announcement that he had successfully cloned a sheep was just as public as Pons and Fleischmann's claim, but in the case of cloning, abundant scientific details allowed scientists to judge the work's validity.)

Some scientific claims avoid even the scrutiny of reporters by appearing in paid commercial advertisements. A health-food company marketed a dietary supplement called Vitamin O in full-page newspaper ads. Vitamin O turned out to be ordinary saltwater.

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government. Claims that the oil companies are frustrating the invention of an automobile that runs on water, for instance, are a sure sign that the idea of such a car is baloney. In the case of cold fusion, Pons and Fleischmann blamed their cold reception on physicists who were protecting their own research in hot fusion.

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.

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal. If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. Because anecdotes have a very strong emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of science. The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test, by means of which we know what works and what doesn't. Contrary to the saying, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote."

5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries. There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth.

Ancient folk wisdom, rediscovered or repackaged, is unlikely to match the output of modern scientific laboratories.

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.

I began this list of warning signs to help federal judges detect scientific nonsense. But as I finished the list, I realized that in our increasingly technological society, spotting voodoo science is a skill that every citizen should develop.

Robert L. Park is a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and the director of public information for the American Physical Society. He is the author of Voodoo Science: The Road From Foolishness to Fraud (Oxford University Press, 2002).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://chronicle.com Section: The Chronicle Review Volume 49, Issue 21, Page B20


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: antigravitymachine; crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-139 next last
To: gomaaa
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.

This specific part is bogus. Almost all new theories face stiff resistance from the old school. I agree with the part about companies buying up patents to suppress inventions like "water-powered" cars, etc.

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.

Well, this would rule out all breakthrough physical theories. For example, quantum mechanics certainly required new laws and significant changes to existing laws.

Of course, I'm a junk scientist! I believe that QM is the worst physics theories in history. Ask a QM proponent about the size and shape of a "photon". Ask them to describe how a photon and electron physically interact. For a theory that's purportedly so accurate that it can describe nature to 12 places, these should be easy questions to answer. Instead, all you'll get a sophisticated version of "sh-t happens".

If you want a hard and fast rule to determine whether a new theory is junk science or not, see if that theory requires or predicts instantaneous-action-at-a-distance (IAAAD). If it does, then the theory is completely junk science. QM predicts IAAAD and people are actually claiming to see it in action in recent experiments. Junk!

21 posted on 03/12/2003 9:56:33 AM PST by mikegi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; *crevo_list; RadioAstronomer; Scully; Piltdown_Woman; ...
Junk science ping.

[This ping list is for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be added (or dropped), let me know via freepmail.]

22 posted on 03/12/2003 10:00:50 AM PST by PatrickHenry (The universe is made for life, therefore ID. Life can't arise naturally, therefore ID.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: gomaaa
Park is often inaccurate, interested only in selling his book
and Clintonism and antiscience, rather than science.

Perhaps it is from the tree that hit him.

23 posted on 03/12/2003 10:09:22 AM PST by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
And equally valid: just because someone thinks something is possible, doesn't necessarily make it so.
24 posted on 03/12/2003 10:09:35 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BartMan1
ping for science
25 posted on 03/12/2003 10:17:52 AM PST by IncPen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mikegi
QM predicts IAAAD and people are actually claiming to see it in action in recent experiments.

No. QM predicts no such thing, nor has it been seen.

26 posted on 03/12/2003 10:19:47 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
For us nonscientific minded, could you post a layman's example of IAAAD?
27 posted on 03/12/2003 10:23:52 AM PST by CharacterCounts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RoughDobermann
"Everything that can be invented has been invented." -- Charles H. Duell

Duell was commissioner of the U S Patent Office in 1899.

28 posted on 03/12/2003 10:27:19 AM PST by Telit Likitis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
the PTO might grant a design patent for the shape of a magnet without granting a patent for a ZPE machine in its entirety.

The author of the article is dead wrong on (at least) one point. I've read the entire patent in question, and it says quite plainly that the device converts magnetic energy to electricty, with the magnetic energy comning from a permanent magnet, and the permanent magnet becoming de-magnetized (or less magnetized) in the process.

You are also correct, design patents are available, but design patents are only enforcible for the ornamental aspect of an object, and are not useflu to protect any functional value.

29 posted on 03/12/2003 10:32:25 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gomaaa
Einstein was a lowly patent clerk who worked largely alone and suddenly turned physics on its head. Then again he did have a good physics education and published first in a good journal.

Worth repeating.

30 posted on 03/12/2003 10:41:46 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
No. QM predicts no such thing, nor has it been seen.

Well, what in the heck are all these QM nonlocal experiments claiming? Please explain it to me.

31 posted on 03/12/2003 10:42:28 AM PST by mikegi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gomaaa
bump...back for later reading...
32 posted on 03/12/2003 10:43:23 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
the device converts magnetic energy to electricty, with the magnetic energy comning from a permanent magnet, and the permanent magnet becoming de-magnetized (or less magnetized) in the process.

Thanks for reading the patent and commenting. That part, the conversion of energy to another form of energy is okay, although whether this particular operation would be commercially useful seems doubtful. A physicist might do that in the lab to measure some magnetic phenomenon. But remagnetizing the permanent magnet would be necessary to repeat the cycle. Lots of things have been patented that didn't turn out to be particularly useful. I was thinking of another magnetic machine 25 years ago where the patent was for the design of one of the magnets, not for the whole machine. Certain people are attracted to magnets, perhhaps an excess of iron in the blood.

33 posted on 03/12/2003 10:44:17 AM PST by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts: Proofs establish links)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
IAAAD (Instantaneous Action At A Distance) would be some mechanism for transmiting a signal (or energy or mass) at a speed greater than that of light.

There are non-material things that move faster than light, but no signal can be sent with these. An example would be a (very bright) flashlight beam swinging in a solar system sized arc. The locus of the light spot would travel faster than light, but the photons moving from the flashlight to the spot would not.
34 posted on 03/12/2003 10:44:21 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Bacon Man; Hap
Verrry interesting!
35 posted on 03/12/2003 10:47:52 AM PST by Xenalyte (I may not agree with your bumper sticker, but I'll defend to the death your right to stick it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Thank you.
36 posted on 03/12/2003 10:51:33 AM PST by CharacterCounts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mikegi
1. Almost all new theories face stiff resistance from the old school.

2. Well, this would rule out all breakthrough physical theories. For example, quantum mechanics certainly required new laws and significant changes to existing laws.

3. If you want a hard and fast rule to determine whether a new theory is junk science or not, see if that theory requires or predicts instantaneous-action-at-a-distance (IAAAD). If it does, then the theory is completely junk science.

4. I agree with the part about companies buying up patents to suppress inventions like "water-powered" cars, etc.

Point one pretty much contradicts point two. QM was accepted in a matter of years, despite it's weirdness. I guess you have Einstein on your side in point three, but then he is the one who gave us EIR to test the hypothesis, and QM passed the test. You would be correct to say that "action-at-a-distance" does not allow information to travel faster than light. That would be junk science. As for point four, classic quackery.

37 posted on 03/12/2003 10:53:13 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mikegi
Physicist could explain it much better. What happens is that correlations are different in QM than in the ordinary Boolean algebraic interpertations of probability theory.

For example, one might put either the Spade Ace or Heart Queen in a sealed mayonaise jar and place it on the steps of Funk and Wagnalls; the other card would be placed in sealed envelope and given to Price Waterhouse to place in a NASA launched space probe. If the mayonaise is later opened and has the Ace, one can be sure the probe has the Queen. One knows something about things far away, but there has been no information transmission.

Similar things happen with entangles states in QM. It's more complicated as the measurements are not as simply described as looking at a card.
38 posted on 03/12/2003 10:53:42 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
I think he's referring to quantum entanglement. Which still doesn't allow information to be sent faster than light.
39 posted on 03/12/2003 10:55:00 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: js1138
QM was accepted quickly because it explained so many results: atomic spectra, radioactive decay, light diffraction, black-body radiation, photoelectric effect, and the periodic table, to name a few.
40 posted on 03/12/2003 10:55:35 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-139 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson