Tag: science

ESR makes some excellent points here:

I’ve seen a lot of “scientific” panics ginned up from nonexistent or scanty evidence over the last several decades. There’s a pattern to these episodes, a characteristic stench that becomes recognizable after a while. I’ll describe some of the indicia, which I’ve culled from episodes like the Alar scare, the ozone-hole brouhaha, the AIDS panic (are you old enough to remember when it was predicted to become endemic among heterosexuals in the U.S.?), acid rain, and even the great global cooling flap of 1975.

So. Here is a non-exclusive list of seven eight symptoms to watch out for:

Science by press release. It’s never, ever a good sign when ‘scientists’ announce dramatic results before publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. When this happens, we generally find out later that they were either self-deluded or functioning as political animals rather than scientists. This generalizes a bit; one should also be suspicious of, for example, science first broadcast by congressional testimony or talk-show circuit.

Rhetoric that mixes science with the tropes of eschatological panic. When the argument for theory X slides from “theory X is supported by evidence” to “a terrible catastrophe looms over us if theory X is true, therefore we cannot risk disbelieving it”, you can be pretty sure that X is junk science. Consciously or unconsciously, advocates who say these sorts of things are trying to panic the herd into stampeding rather than focusing on the quality of the evidence for theory X.

Rhetoric that mixes science with the tropes of moral panic. When the argument for theory X slides from “theory X is supported by evidence” to “only bad/sinful/uncaring people disbelieve theory X”, you can be even more sure that theory X is junk science. Consciously or unconsciously, advocates who say these sorts of things are trying to induce a state of preference falsification in which people are peer-pressured to publicly affirm a belief in theory X in spite of private doubts.

Consignment of failed predictions to the memory hole. It’s a sign of sound science when advocates for theory X publicly acknowledge failed predictions and explain why they think they can now make better ones. Conversely, it’s a sign of junk science when they try to bury failed predictions and deny they ever made them.

AGW/CC was obviously bogus from the very start, which is why it has been so laughably easy to predict the failures of its models and anticipate its scandals. It is interesting to note how many other aspects of science are easily shown to be junk science this way, beginning with TE(p)NSBMGDaGF and including other notorious non-sciences such as string theory and macroeconomics.

This quote in the comments was particularly apt: “Prediction is everything, and it must work more than once. Explaining everything after the fact is merely making up complicated stories.”

An illuminating admission in the contemplation of a potential explanation for all that missing “dark matter”:

You probably want to put on your skeptical goggles and set them to maximum for this one. An Italian mathematician has come up with some complex formulae that can, with remarkable similarity, mimic the rotation curves of spiral galaxies without the need for dark matter.

Currently, these galactic rotation curves represent key evidence for the existence of dark matter – since the outer stars of spinning galaxies often move around a galactic disk so fast that they should fly off into intergalactic space – unless there is an additional ‘invisible’ mass present in the galaxy to gravitationally hold them in their orbits….

Conceptually the idea makes little sense. Positioning gravitationally significant mass outside of the orbit of stars might draw them out into wider orbits, but it’s difficult to see why this would add to their orbital velocity. Drawing an object into a wider orbit should result in it taking longer to orbit the galaxy since it will have more circumference to cover. What we generally see in spiral galaxies is that the outer stars orbit the galaxy within much the same time period as more inward stars.

But although the proposed mechanism seems a little implausible, what is remarkable about Carati’s claim is that the math apparently deliver galactic rotation curves that closely fit the observed values of at least four known galaxies. Indeed, the math delivers an extraordinarily close fit.

For me the most interesting thing isn’t the idea itself, about which I have no opinion, it is the way the Slashdot submitter described it: “As usual, these are extraordinary claims that divert from the consensus, so keep a healthy skepticism.”

This permits us to infer something that we have previously observed on many occasions: scientists and science fetishists do not maintain a healthy skepticism about claims that concur with the consensus. And the fascinating thing is that it is quite easy to factually demonstrate that scientists place more and blinder faith in the various scientific consensuses than religious people do in the tenets of their various faiths. Once more, we are given evidence that the false claims of atheists who subscribe to the cult of science are based on psychological projection.

Speaking of which, I found this Slashdot comment to be amusing: “The creationists trail real science and keep changing their story, but never, ever, ever admit error. What they believe is always the absolute truth and always has been and if you remember having hours long arguments with them over something which they now believe to be the case but didn’t then, your memory is faulty!”

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it! As for dark matter, at this point, logic dictates that it most likely will turn out to be a spectacular example of the classic theoretical epicycles to which scientists have been increasingly given ever since medieval astronomers noticed that the observed planetary orbits didn’t correspond well with their Ptolamaic theories.

UPDATE: Fascinating to see that physicists now appear to be making the same mistake as economists: “Not sure about the summary, but the paper is extremely simple. I’ll summarize it: It is commonly assumed that galaxies are evenly distributed. This would mean that if you picked any galaxy at random, you could pick other galaxies whose gravitational pull totally balanced out the effect of the first one. So, overall, no distant galaxy would ever affect anything. What is observed is that galaxies are NOT evenly distributed. There is, indeed, left-over gravitational pull.”

And that, my dear and Dread Ilk, is precisely why anyone schooled in picking apart the flaws of one discipline is actually very well suited to pick apart the flaws of another discipline, even when he knows virtually nothing about that other discipline. Human error tends to follow readily identifiable patterns.

The rabid “vaccinate everyone for everything” crowd likes to mock the vaccine realists as “anti-vaxxers” and “anti-science”, but the dishonesty and hollowness of their position is exposed every time the facts about vaccination manage to leak out into the mainstream:

Natasha Bita, a journalist for The Australian has just won a Walkley Award (the Australian equivalent of a Pulitzer Prize) for an in-depth article series on the CSL Afluria flu vaccine, a shot that caused convulsions in one percent of Australian infants who received it.

To put this vaccine scandal in perspective, the CDC states that ‘seizures can occur after vaccination,’ 33% of infants who have a first seizure will have more seizures and 10% of infants who have one seizure can develop epilepsy. According to the Merck Manual (the largest-selling medical textbook), seizures are a symptom of encephalitis, which the Merck Manual defines as a vaccine adverse reaction. Vaccine-induced encephalitis can leave a spectrum of permanent brain damage in its wake – post-encephalitic syndrome (aka epilepsy and autism). In other words, kids that have convulsions from Afluria can have lifelong neurological disabilities.

Incredibly, the defective CSL flu vaccine Afluria is still on the market in the US: FDA-approved and CDC-recommended. The only concession US vaccine authorities have made to this Afluria scandal is to raise the recommended age for this vaccine, but even that feeble response is colored by a direction to give Afluria to young kids anyway if no other flu vaccine is available.

One thing that few American pro-vaxxers understand is the extent to which their pro-vaccine enthusiasm is viewed as lunacy by the rest of the medical world. For example, the US vaccine schedule involves 2.4 times more vaccines before the age of two than the UK schedule. In the period in which infectious diseases were all but eliminated, children received ONE-FIFTH as many vaccines as they do now. It is profoundly and shamefully dishonest to pretend that it is in any way necessary to give FIVE TIMES MORE vaccines to children in order to accomplish what was already accomplished with a much more limited vaccine schedule.

What the irrational pro-vaxxers fail to realize, in their futile and stupid attempts to launch deceptive, emotion-based attacks on those who demonstrably know more about the relevant facts of the matter than they do, is that their efforts are counterproductive. Instead of engaging in reasoned discussion, they simply point and shriek like the global warming crowd. Not only are they completely unconvincing, but they are losing, as vaccination rates continue to fall.

When intelligent and concerned parents are told they are stupid and anti-science when they are merely asking intelligent and relevant questions instead of having their questions answered in a respectful manner, they are not going to obediently fall in line and get their kid injected. Instead, they are quite correctly going to conclude that there is no chance in Hell that they are going to pay any attention to what the hysterical pro-vaxxers say in the future.

Most pro-vaxxers simply haven’t thought through the costs and benefits to the average family. Nor have they ever considered that many families that don’t adhere to the vaccine schedule are doing so with the medical approval of their pediatricians who have seen one of their children have an adverse reaction. Once you’ve seen one child collapse unconscious or have a seizure, how completely and utterly stupid do you have to be to blindly proceed with the recommended vaccine schedule with that child or any of your other children?

Some vaccines make sense. Others don’t. That is the reality that the pro-vaxxers will have to get their heads around before anyone in the vaccine reality camp will pay any attention whatsoever to their emotion-laden rantings. Consider this: the fact that children need water in order to live is not a rational basis for drowning them on behalf of their health.

And just to be clear, I think it makes sense to vaccinate for tetanus, polio, and after the age of four, measles. It may make sense to vaccinate for some influenzas if a sufficiently deadly variant were to arise and begin spreading. But it makes no sense to vaccinate against most of the other diseases which are so seldom fatal and are so easily treated without hospitalization. I am not an “anti-vaxxer”, I am simply a vaccine realist. If the rabid vaxxers were as genuinely concerned about saving lives as they claim, they would occupy themselves with banning automobiles, not injecting children with various toxic substances.

Steve Sailer contemplates a potential problem in human progress:

In general, the 19th Century British were just more effectual at dog breeding than are moderns. I strongly doubt that they had better techniques. They just had better goals. For example, the reporter goes to visit a man who has been breeding a healthier English bulldog for 40 years, but nobody much cares.

That reminds me that you occasionally read, although less often now than a decade ago, of somebody claiming that genetic engineering of humans will, Real Soon Now, change everything. I pretty much asserted that back in the 1990s.

Well, maybe, but leaving aside all the technical questions and consider this: humans have near-complete control over dog breeding today, and yet we are lousier at it than a century ago.

What Sailer clearly fails to keep in mind here is that the decline of canine breeding results can be blamed upon the democratization of dog breeders and the insidious pressures of the free market. Naturally, the breeders have oriented themselves towards the lowest common denominator, which is not necessarily the most efficient, effective, or objectively desirable by any scientific standard.

The new eugenics will not be left in the hands of interested amateurs, but will instead be based upon a sound foundation of genetic science and guided by scientific technocrats making wise, science-based decisions. What could possibly go wrong?

The second neutrino experiment appears to confirm the previous result:

One of the most staggering results in physics – that neutrinos may go faster than light – has not gone away with two further weeks of observations. The researchers behind the jaw-dropping finding are now confident enough in the result that they are submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal.

“The measurement seems robust,” says Luca Stanco of the National Institute of Nuclear Physics in Padua, Italy. “We have received many criticisms, and most of them have been washed out.”

Stanco is a member of the OPERA collaboration, which shocked the world in September with the announcement that the ghostly subatomic particles had arrived at the Gran Sasso mine in Italy about 60 nanoseconds faster than light speed from the CERN particle accelerator near Geneva, Switzerland, 730 kilometres away. Theorists have been struggling to reconcile the September result with the laws of physics. Einstein’s theory of special relativity posits that nothing can travel faster than light, and many physicists believe the result could disappear in a puff of particles.

The result also unsettled those within the OPERA collaboration. Stanco was one of 15 team members who did not sign the original preprint of the paper because they thought the results were too preliminary.

One of the main concerns was that it was difficult to link individual neutrino hits at Gran Sasso to the particles that left CERN. To double check, the team ran a second set of measurements with tighter bunches of particles from 21 October to 6 November.

In that time, they observed 20 new neutrino hits – a piddling number compared with the 16,000 hits in the original experiment. But Stanco says the tighter particle bunches made those hits easier to track and time: “So they are very powerful, these 20 events.”
More checks

The team also rechecked their statistical analysis, confirming that the error on their measurements was indeed 10 nanoseconds. Some team members, including Stanco, had worried that the true error was larger. What they found was “absolutely compatible” with the original announcement, he says.

Fascinating stuff. It’s tremendously amusing to see all the physicists pooh-poohing the reports and producing literally dozens of why what has reportedly happened couldn’t possibly have happened. It would appear supraluminal neutrinos are the Tim Tebow of the physics world. Anyhow, if there are subsequent confirmations of faster-than-light speed and the scientific consensus of the physics world mutates once more, I have little doubt that the atheists of the future will be one day be arguing that the Bible is wrong because it implies nothing can move faster than light. They’ve done this with both Ptolemy’s geocentric theory and the Flat Earth theory, so there is no reason to believe they won’t eventually blame Einstein’s mistakes on God as well.

The experiments also serve to substantiate my critique of the “extraordinary claims” argument. Traveling faster than light is every bit as extraordinary a claim as the existence of the supernatural; it is actually more extraordinary because claims are far less frequently made for it. And yet, the experiment has been repeated once, will be peer reviewed, and will probably be replicated once or twice in the relatively near future.

If this is “extraordinary evidence”, then science is in much worse shape than either the science critics or the science fetishists imagine.

But let’s not forget the most important factor here: supraluminal speed is just cool.

And neither are many other pseudoscientific fields with scientific pretensions. Because the credibility of science depends upon its replicability, it naturally follows that any “scientist” who does not release his data for independent review and replication is not doing science:

In a recent survey, two-thirds of Dutch research psychologists said they did not make their raw data available for other researchers to see.

Then they are witch-doctors, propagandists, and grant-seekers, not scientists. Some years ago, I wrote about the need for Open Science. But the more that I think about it, that is redundant. Because if it isn’t open, it isn’t science. To paraphrase the OpenScience Project, if you’re going to do science, you have to release the computer code too.

“Our view is that it is not healthy for scientific papers to be supported by computations that cannot be reproduced except by a few employees at a commercial software developer. Should this kind of work even be considered Science? It may be research, and it may be important, but unless enough details of the experimental methodology are made available so that it can be subjected to true reproducibility tests by skeptics, it isn’t Science.”

This was also amusing to note in light of my contention that most scientists are completely untrained in statistics.

“Also common is a self-serving statistical sloppiness. In an analysis published this year, Dr. Wicherts and Marjan Bakker, also at the University of Amsterdam, searched a random sample of 281 psychology papers for statistical errors. They found that about half of the papers in high-end journals contained some statistical error.”

The fundamental flaw in the common, but erroneous idea that science is an intrinsically superior form of obtaining knowledge is that it relies upon the same human element that various other forms of knowledge do. Notice that the amount of detected scientific fraud appears to be increasing as electronic communications provide greater access to non-scientists, and that even in this case, where the whistleblowing was done by scientists, it was not done as part of the scientific process.

Diederik Stapel was suspended from his position at Tilburg University in the Netherlands in September after three junior researchers reported that they suspected scientific misconduct in a study that claimed eating meat made people more aggressive. Soon after being confronted with the accusations, Stapel reportedly told university officials that some of his papers contained falsified data. The university launched an investigation, as did the University of Groningen and the University of Amsterdam, where Stapel had worked previously. The Tilburg commission today released an interim report (in Dutch), which includes preliminary results from all three investigations. The investigators found “several dozens of publications” in which fictitious data has been used. Fourteen of the 21 Ph.D. theses Stapel supervised are also tainted, the committee concluded.

Stapel issued a statement today in which he apologizes to his colleagues and says he “failed as a scientist” and is ashamed of his actions. He has cooperated to an extent by identifying papers with suspect data, according to university officials. The investigation by the three universities is ongoing and should ultimately investigate more than 150 papers that Stapel has published since 2004, including a paper earlier this year in Science on the influence of a messy environment on prejudice. “People are in shock,” says Gerben van Kleef, a social psychologist at the University of Amsterdam, who did not work directly with Stapel. “Everybody wonders how this could have happened and at this proportion.”

Stapel’s work encompassed a broad range of attention-catching topics, including the influence of power on moral thinking and the reaction of psychologists to a plagiarism scandal. The committee, which interviewed dozens of Stapel’s former students, postdoctoral researchers, co-authors, and colleagues, found that Stapel alone was responsible for the fraud. The panel reported that he would discuss in detail experimental designs, including drafting questionnaires, and would then claim to conduct the experiments at high schools and universities with which he had special arrangements. The experiments, however, never took place, the universities concluded. Stapel made up the data sets, which he then gave the student or collaborator for analysis, investigators allege. In other instances, the report says, he told colleagues that he had an old data set lying around that he hadn’t yet had a chance to analyze. When Stapel did conduct actual experiments, the committee found evidence that he manipulated the results.

Many of Stapel’s students graduated without having ever run an experiment, the report says. Stapel told them that their time was better spent analyzing data and writing. The commission writes that Stapel was “lord of the data” in his collaborations. It says colleagues or students who asked to see raw data were given excuses or even threatened and insulted.

Now, keep in mind that science fetishists often claim that science is intrinsically superior because scientific evidence theoretically can be replicated. But this argument is fundamentally flawed; no one argues that eyewitness testimony that theoretically could be confirmed by physical evidence is intrinsically superior to eyewitness evidence that cannot be independently confirmed in the absence of actually bothering to verify the testimony.

Clearly, a bright line needs to be delineated between scientific evidence that has been independently replicated by experiment, scientific evidence that could be independently replicated but has not been, and scientific evidence that cannot be independently replicated by experiment. And furthermore, it is necessary to stop giving the latter two types of scientific evidence, or more properly, potential scientific evidence, the same level of credence that is given to actual scientific evidence that has been reliably and independently replicated.