Energy/Math Discussion

[Cex]

It does seem to be a big problem these days as I have heard of more then one such case in the past year. It really makes you wonder how much of this stuff is completely fabricated.

I don't think that it's a big problem as such - the cases are fairly few, and don't stand up to moderately careful scrutiny by someone who knows what they're talking about. By the very nature of research, you're always going to get questionable papers - it's what fuels scientific debate, the quest to discover workable new theories first. People publish papers that turn out to be incorrect every day.

It does, however, highlight that modern physics and mathematics is becoming so specialised that you often have to be an expert in the field to make head or tail of it.

I'm not sure how much it's a modern problem though - when Einstein's GR was published, you hear that there were only a dozen or so people in the world who understood it. Now I'm not sure how true that is; I suspect there were more; but today GR is something that's lectured to 3rd year physicists and mathematicians. Thousands of students graduate every year with a working knowledge of Einstein's Relativity. What was once the cutting edge of physics is now undergraduate material. I suspect that the same will happen with current cutting edge research - I could definitely see subjects such as String Theory, M-Theory etc being taught at undergrad level when/if they become accepted.

 

[yougene]

It's probably a relatively very rare occurance but it is also likely that there are still papers and research out there by seemingly trusted sources that are completely(or partially) fabricated. The scientific process is setup to check for such things but even the ones that are caught still manage to do damage.

 

[PGTips]

It does seem to be a big problem these days as I have heard of more then one such case in the past year. It really makes you wonder how much of this stuff is completely fabricated.

The more popular an idea, the more people will look at it, the more it will be tested, scrutinised and checked. If a system has an obvious flaw, then it shouldn't take too long for something to be noticed.

As Cex says, over time what was once the realm of the top few is broken down, digested and explained to others, and it becomes accessable to many more.

when Einstein's GR was published, you hear that there were only a dozen or so people in the world who understood it.

A reporter once said to Eddington "I hear Relativity is so complicated that only 3 people in the world understand it." Eddington sat in thought for a moment and replied "I'm trying to think of the 3rd person"

Its come a long long way since then. The qualative ideas are known to millions, even if its just something passing like "space-time warping" uttered by Data on Star Trek or reading "Elegant Universe". Quantatively tens of thousands of people a year graduate with a working understanding.

Just because most people feel compelled to respond to bullshit, while ignoring the more constructive posts, doesn't mean the thread should be closed in my opinion.

I've been attempting to do both

It's probably a relatively very rare occurance but it is also likely that there are still papers and research out there by seemingly trusted sources that are completely(or partially) fabricated. The scientific process is setup to check for such things but even the ones that are caught still manage to do damage.

While a few do "slip through the net" a lot of the papers you hear about in the news are more the result of someone circumventing the peer review process and just releasing it to the media, not giving it enough time for decent peer review, or the media wipping up a storm in a teacup. Things like the MMR vaccine research which has caused mass drops in the uptake in the UK (sub 80% in many regions), which was the result of 1 paper with dodgy statistical analysis at best. The media latched on and went to town on it, ignoring over 1000 studies which showed no problem. Now, despite the original researcher retracting his claim, people still don't want the combined jab for their kids

One contributing factor is funding. Much as the pursuit of knowledge is a good one, often if it isn't profitable in some way, noones going to pay for it, and so when its close to funding renewal day its not unknown for a group or two to "spice up" their findings a little. In an ideal world, they wouldn't have the pressure to perform, after all, if you knew you were going to get results, half the time its pointless doing an experiment, but they've got to put bread on the table so they make some noise

 

[Cex]

It's probably a relatively very rare occurance but it is also likely that there are still papers and research out there by seemingly trusted sources that are completely(or partially) fabricated. The scientific process is setup to check for such things but even the ones that are caught still manage to do damage.

But as soon as someone comes to read that paper in order to further their own research, the fraud will be revealed. You simply can't base your work on fabricated research - you'll come up with all kinds of contradictions. Thus, the only fabricated work still out there is work that has never been built upon, and as such it might as well not be there anyway. It's not a barrier to progress at all, but merely shows how obtuse much of modern scientific research has become.

Hell, a hundred years ago I imagine that a talented undergrad could read a research-level paper and get a vague notion of what's going on. When I look at a research paper now I'm lucky to get past the abstract.

Edit: Alpha's MMR example is a good example of 'dodgy ' research doing some serious damage. I was thinking more along the mathematics/physics line - I don't really know how prevalent the problem is in biology or biochemistry, but I suspect that the consequences of fabricated research would be more serious as there's more potential for immediate investment in new research in the biological sciences, particularly in biochemistry, where papers are often completely out of date in less than five years.

Edit2: That was a very badly constructed sentence :/

 

[yougene]

But as soon as someone comes to read that paper in order to further their own research, the fraud will be revealed. You simply can't base your work on fabricated research - you'll come up with all kinds of contradictions. Thus, the only fabricated work still out there is work that has never been built upon, and as such it might as well not be there anyway. It's not a barrier to progress at all, but merely shows how obtuse much of modern scientific research has become.

Generally speaking that might be the case, but like all systems this one is compromisable as well. For example an experiment could be designed to be prohibitively expensive to reproduce. If you got several "scientists" to collaborate and "reproduce" the results of such a prohibitively expensive "experiment" then it may be VERY believable and hard to disprove to even the most knowledgeable scientist. Sure this might seem like alot of work and resources to pull off but there are many think tanks out there that are more then willing to pump their time and money into such "research."


When it comes down to it Science is used as another tool to control the masses not unlike religion.

 

[thursday]

Generally speaking that might be the case, but like all systems this one is compromisable as well. For example an experiment could be designed to be prohibitively expensive to reproduce. If you got several "scientists" to collaborate and "reproduce" the results of such a prohibitively expensive "experiment" then it may be VERY believable and hard to disprove to even the most knowledgeable scientist. Sure this might seem like alot of work and resources to pull off but there are many think tanks out there that are more then willing to pump their time and money into such "research."

why are scientists, experiment, and reproduce, in quotes?

yes, a lot of scientific experiments require very expensive equipment and are hard to conduct, but that's why researchers apply for grants to fund their experiments. anyone with enough talent, has the credentials, and has proven himself to conduct his work with academic integrity will be able to obtain grants for further research on whatever field of study they focus on.

scientists aren't stupid, the scientific process as well as the academic peer review process are designed to account for the possibility of false reports or inaccurate data. i don't think you really understand how this process works. in order for any scientific model or theory to be accepted it has to be reviewed by a very large number of highly trained and experienced researchers. it doesn't matter how expensive the experiment is, the theory still has to make sense to other scientists for it to be accepted. and usually radical theories are not accepted until the results have been repeatedly reproduced by many groups of researchers. and all it takes is for one person to produce contradictory data for a widely-accepted theory to come into question.

also, any think tanks that pay scientists to come up with pre-determined results would quickly lose its credibility in academic circles, and the researchers paid off to perform basically academic/scientific fraud would be ostricized by the community and would probably have their careers ruined. just look at all the anti-global warming "studies" out there that are funded by pr groups of the commercial industries implicated by the theory of global warming. sure it may convince some weak minded idiots who know nothing about climatology/chemistry/meteorology, but the general concensus of the scientific community has not been swayed by such propaganda efforts. no matter how much money you put into deceiving people, you can't deceive empirical experimentation. science uses logic and rationale to discern truth from fallacy, which is the best tool we have for building accurate knowledge. a good scientist also knows to be constantly skeptical and to never place too much "faith" in any single study, or to even be over-confident in what they accept as true. in science, nothing is every considered an absolute fact. if new evidence arrises which contradicts some basic tenet of popular scientific models then the whole system will be re-thought and revised to account for such information.

if you think getting people to question their assumptions and to exercise rational thought is trying to "control the masses," then what do you propose we ditch science in favor of? mythology?

 

[PGTips]

For example an experiment could be designed to be prohibitively expensive to reproduce.

Given enough time, eventually technology would advance to make almost any experiment within the realm of most people.

100 years ago "particle accelerators" didn't exist. Now we're on in every TV and CRT monitor (the cathode tube). 120 years ago noone knew the electron existed, now we've thousands of ways of showing its existance. Okay, I doubt we'll have quark probes in our own homes in 100 years, but the technology to build them will be within the reach of more companies/groups.

When it comes down to it Science is used as another tool to control the masses not unlike religion.

I tend to agree with Thursday, perhaps you are missing some train of thought somewhere. Science says "Nothing is absolute, test predictions you don't agree with. Back up arguments with data." It wants to better itself and provides a tool for people to expand their understanding of the universe in an obviously applicable way. Religion says "Don't question things, don't bring about new thought, the current way is fine".

I would say those 2 ideologies are quite different.

 

[yougene]

why are scientists, experiment, and reproduce, in quotes?

Because anyone participating in such activities is going against the good nature of science, and isn't really doing any science(although it is very easy to associate it with science).

scientists aren't stupid, the scientific process as well as the academic peer review process are designed to account for the possibility of false reports or inaccurate data. i don't think you really understand how this process works. in order for any scientific model or theory to be accepted it has to be reviewed by a very large number of highly trained and experienced researchers.

Yes, and yet still I have heard of at least one account where a fraudulent study had made its way into a reputable scientific journal(I believe it was Nature).

also, any think tanks that pay scientists to come up with pre-determined results would quickly lose its credibility in academic circles, and the researchers paid off to perform basically academic/scientific fraud would be ostricized by the community and would probably have their careers ruined. just look at all the anti-global warming "studies" out there that are funded by pr groups of the commercial industries implicated by the theory of global warming.

How do we really know how many scientists are being payed off by PR groups?

sure it may convince some weak minded idiots who know nothing about climatology/chemistry/meteorology, but the general concensus of the scientific community has not been swayed by such propaganda efforts. no matter how much money you put into deceiving people, you can't deceive empirical experimentation.

Problem is convincing "weak minded idiots" does alot of damage to society. The fact that so many people are so confident in science without really understanding the its workings only makes it that much easier to do damage. It possibility of flooding the science community with bogus empirical experimentation still exists, although an unlikely one.

if you think getting people to question their assumptions and to exercise rational thought is trying to "control the masses," then what do you propose we ditch science in favor of? mythology?

No need to get defensive Thursday, I'm not attacking your precious science. No need to ditch science it works well. However presenting science as this infallible source of truth has conditioned alot of people to believe anything put out by "science." The scientific community so far hasn't done a sufficient job educating the masses about it's own shortfalls and how it is used by outside influences for their own purposes so all it has really caused is for people to not use rational thought when presented with "science" information.

 

[yougene]

Given enough time, eventually technology would advance to make almost any experiment within the realm of most people.

maybe, but bogus science can still be misleading in the short term, which is often enough.

I tend to agree with Thursday, perhaps you are missing some train of thought somewhere.

So what are you implying, that the scientific process is infallible?

Science says "Nothing is absolute, test predictions you don't agree with. Back up arguments with data." It wants to better itself and provides a tool for people to expand their understanding of the universe in an obviously applicable way.

Science doesn't say anything, it is a tool. Some scientists will use science as a platform for the pursuit of truth. Others will use it as a platform for the pursuit of power. Much like religion...

Religion says "Don't question things, don't bring about new thought, the current way is fine".

That's a bit over generalizing isn't it? You fail to make a distinction between the religions that teach to question everything and the ones that teach you to question nothing.

That would be like me failing to make a distinction between the scientific community and think tanks.

Why the double standard?

 

[thursday]

Because anyone participating in such activities is going against the good nature of science, and isn't really doing any science(although it is very easy to associate it with science).

so then this isn't a criticism of science now is it, it's just a criticism of people who lack scruples which the scientific process and the academic community seems to manage much better than say religious authorities or other opponents of science.

Yes, and yet still I have heard of at least one account where a fraudulent study had made its way into a reputable scientific journal(I believe it was Nature).

well, if you have evidence that disproves the validty of that study then you should share it with the rest of the world.

How do we really know how many scientists are being payed off by PR groups?

we don't need to know how many, we only need to scrutinize each study individually--see who funded the study, see who are involved with the study and the history of their academic careers, and look at the data that is being proposed and how it compares to other data.

Problem is convincing "weak minded idiots" does alot of damage to society. The fact that so many people are so confident in science without really understanding the its workings only makes it that much easier to do damage. It possibility of flooding the science community with bogus empirical experimentation still exists, although an unlikely one.

for example? i see much more damage being done by creationists, anti-abortionists, homophobic christian fundamentalists, etc. more than scientifically supported beliefs have caused.

No need to get defensive Thursday, I'm not attacking your precious science. No need to ditch science it works well. However presenting science as this infallible source of truth has conditioned alot of people to believe anything put out by "science." The scientific community so far hasn't done a sufficient job educating the masses about it's own shortfalls and how it is used by outside influences for their own purposes so all it has really caused is for people to not use rational thought when presented with "science" information.

i wasn't getting defensive, i was calling you out on your non-sequitor argument. if science is just a tool to control the masses, then it should definitely be discarded, so why are you waffling now?

 

[yougene]

so then this isn't a criticism of science now is it, it's just a criticism of people who lack scruples which the scientific process and the academic community seems to manage much better than say religious authorities or other opponents of science.

It is a criticism of people and the image of science that is portrayed. Depends on on what religions you are talking about and the purpose of those religious authorities. For the religious authorities whose goal is to stay in power, they do a good job dealing with what they got. As for the religious gurus who seek truth, they can smell bullshit from a mile away as well as any guru scientists.

well, if you have evidence that disproves the validty of that study then you should share it with the rest of the world.

No need, it was in the news not that long ago.

we don't need to know how many, we only need to scrutinize each study individually--see who funded the study, see who are involved with the study and the history of their academic careers, and look at the data that is being proposed and how it compares to other data.

That would work in most cases, but not all. Sometimes there is a change of heart. Sometimes it's impossible to follow a trail of money.

for example? i see much more damage being done by creationists, anti-abortionists, homophobic christian fundamentalists, etc. more than scientifically supported beliefs have caused.

I'm not attacking beliefs supported by the scientific community. I'm attacking the use of science as a platform for propaganda(which the fundamentalists seem to get good use of).

i wasn't getting defensive, i was calling you out on your non-sequitor argument. if science is just a tool to control the masses, then it should definitely be discarded, so why are you waffling now?

No, you were getting defensive, it is fairly obvious as you are trying to over simplify and misrepresent what I am saying. Science is not just a tool to control the masses, I never said that and you know it. However, indirectly that is one of its uses.

 

[thursday]

No need, it was in the news not that long ago.

oh... right. ofcourse. well, it'd be nice if you'd give us some details about this incident or atleast what subject matter the paper was pertaining to.

That would work in most cases, but not all. Sometimes there is a change of heart. Sometimes it's impossible to follow a trail of money.

research which obscures its sources and funding usually aren't taken too seriously in the scientific community. openness and transparency are basic principles in scientific research.

I'm not attacking beliefs supported by the scientific community. I'm attacking the use of science as a platform for propaganda(which the fundamentalists seem to get good use of).

for example?

No, you were getting defensive, it is fairly obvious as you are trying to over simplify and misrepresent what I am saying. Science is not just a tool to control the masses, I never said that and you know it. However, indirectly that is one of its uses.

dude, i directly quoted what i was responding to. you said: "When it comes down to it Science is used as another tool to control the masses not unlike religion." so if you really think that science just comes down to another tool to control the masses, then shouldn't it be discarded as a means of building knowledge objectively--which is what most people consider science to be. you still haven't given any examples or even any linear arguments as how science can be used to control the masses. seems like you're the only one getting defensive here. i haven't attacked you in any way, i'm just questioning you about the beliefs you've expressed and asking you to elaborate on them.

 

[yougene]

oh... right. ofcourse. well, it'd be nice if you'd give us some details about this incident or atleast what subject matter the paper was pertaining to.

http://www.blauen-institut.ch/Tx/tM/tM2/tm0552.html

http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/04/13/1723206.shtml?tid=133&tid=146&tid=14

research which obscures its sources and funding usually aren't Taken too seriously in the scientific community. openness and transparency are basic principles in scientific research.

It's not that hard to setup a corporate front, or any other kind of front for that matter.

for example?

For example PR studies. As far as the average citizen is concerned he/she doesn't know really know what a think tank is, or even that one of their studies differ in nature from a scientific study.

dude, i directly quoted what i was responding to. you said: "When it comes down to it Science is used as another tool to control the masses not unlike religion." so if you really think that science just comes down to another tool to control the masses, then shouldn't it be discarded as a means of building knowledge objectively--which is what most people consider science to be.

And how did you go about interpreting my sentence as saying that science's sole purpose is to control the masses? It's made pretty evident that science as a tool has multiple uses.

you still haven't given any examples or even any linear arguments as how science can be used to control the masses. seems like you're the only one getting defensive here. i haven't attacked you in any way, i'm just questioning you about the beliefs you've expressed and asking you to elaborate on them.

Sure.... Dude.

 

[thursday]

http://www.blauen-institut.ch/Tx/tM/tM2/tm0552.html

http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/04/13/1723206.shtml?tid=133&tid=146&tid=14

uhh... did you even read those two articles before you posted them? the first one talks about a controversial paper published in Nature which has recieved a lot of undue criticism which seems to stem from a FUD campaign by corporations in the agricultural industry. the article actually published in Nature was not a fraudulent study, nor was it funded by hidden corporate interests. only the influx of criticisms found on a listserv seem to have insidious intentions. do you know what a listserv is? do know the difference between a scientific journal and a mailing list?

the second article from /. also has nothing to do with this discussion. i had actually read that article last month when it appeared on the frontpage of /., and if you had bothered to RTFA you'd know that the article's authors were trying to expose scams like WMSCI, which are fake scientific conferences held purely for profit and that aren't even organized by legitimate academic/research institutions. this is the problem with living in a capitalist society more than anything. i dont think anyone in academia or the scientific community even takes these "scientific conferences" seriously.

It's not that hard to setup a corporate front, or any other kind of front for that matter.

a corporate front? it's usually corporations who are the ones buying research to sway public opinion. a coprorate front wouldn't really hide their motives that well. real scientific research comes from academic institutions and other organizations that have no reason to falsify data. why would JPL want to make up data about their research? why would Berkeley or MIT want to control the masses? how would someone who wanted to control the masses create a fake academic institution to disseminate their misinformation and at the same time be reputable within the scientific community? all you're doing is making groundless claims that betray your own lack of understanding of how academia works. and at the same time, you're not giving enough credit to people who are out there curing diseases, building new technologies, explaining natural phenomenons with new scientific models, etc.

For example PR studies. As far as the average citizen is concerned he/she doesn't know really know what a think tank is, or even that one of their studies differ in nature from a scientific study.

i think most people know what think tank is. think tanks don't dictate public opinion or even the general consensus within the scientific community. they're usually contracted by the government or private industries to conduct studies that for policy making. so this brings up the question, do you know what a think tank is?

And how did you go about interpreting my sentence as saying that science's sole purpose is to control the masses? It's made pretty evident that science as a tool has multiple uses.

yea, and those uses typically involve using the scientific process to advance mankind, not for controlling the masses.

 

[yougene]

uhh... did you even read those two articles before you posted them? the first one talks about a controversial paper published in Nature which has recieved a lot of undue criticism which seems to stem from a FUD campaign by corporations in the agricultural industry. the article actually published in Nature was not a fraudulent study, nor was it funded by hidden corporate interests. only the influx of criticisms found on a listserv seem to have insidious intentions. do you know what a listserv is? do know the difference between a scientific journal and a mailing list?

the second article from /. also has nothing to do with this discussion. i had actually read that article last month when it appeared on the frontpage of /., and if you had bothered to RTFA you'd know that the article's authors were trying to expose scams like WMSCI, which are fake scientific conferences held purely for profit and that aren't even organized by legitimate academic/research institutions. this is the problem with living in a capitalist society more than anything. i dont think anyone in academia or the scientific community even takes these "scientific conferences" seriously.

Say what you will, I found those articles pretty informative. "Viral Marketing" is very relevant to this discussion. As for the WMSCI, who cares if they are backed by academic/research institutions. They still exist, I'm sure there are many more like them.

how would someone who wanted to control the masses create a fake academic institution to disseminate their misinformation and at the same time be reputable within the scientific community?

"Non-Profit" organization, reputation in the scientific community is not required.

all you're doing is making groundless claims that betray your own lack of understanding of how academia works. and at the same time, you're not giving enough credit to people who are out there curing diseases, building new technologies, explaining natural phenomenons with new scientific models, etc.

And all your doing is misconstruing what I'm saying, I never said anything about the scientific community. I'm talking about using the image of science to perpetuate false information.

i think most people know what think tank is. think tanks don't dictate public opinion or even the general consensus within the scientific community. they're usually contracted by the government or private industries to conduct studies that for policy making. so this brings up the question, do you know what a think tank is?

Think tanks, are basically propoganda machines. They design experiments to sway the outcome as well and write propaganda. Think tanks might not dictate public opinion but they are a MAJOR influence. I think your giving the average human too much credit....

yea, and those uses typically involve using the scientific process to advance mankind, not for controlling the masses.

True, ofcourse some would argue one is a means to the other.


Your cult like fanatic attitude toward science is obviously getting in the way of any rational discussion. No point continuing this discussion with you unless you have something worthwhile to add(unlikely).

 

[yougene]

http://www.sourcewatch.org
^Database of Think Tanks for anyone interested.

 

[thursday]

Say what you will, I found those articles pretty informative. "Viral Marketing" is very relevant to this discussion. As for the WMSCI, who cares if they are backed by academic/research institutions. They still exist, I'm sure there are many more like them.

i didn't say those articles weren't informative. they just don't support your argument in any way. you claimed that Nature published an article that was a blatantly fraudulant attempt to spread misinformation. neither of those links even come close to supporting that claim. and WMSCI isn't an academic/research institution, nor is backed by any real academic/research organizations or societies. clearly you can't tell real scientists apart from profiteering scam artists, so maybe you should hold off on your judgments about science and how the rest of the world percieves it.

"Non-Profit" organization, reputation in the scientific community is not required.

says who? whether an organization is for-profit or not does not directly contribute to their academic reputation.

And all your doing is misconstruing what I'm saying, I never said anything about the scientific community. I'm talking about using the image of science to perpetuate false information.

like what? evolution? if you aren't talking about the scientific community, then who is supposedly using "the image of science to perpetuate false information?" and what false information has science been used to perpetuate? science and the study of science are conducted by scientists in the scientific community. all scientific research undergo a rigorous peer-review process that is an ongoing process to ensure that widely accepted scientific models are accurate. so how can this process of empricial testing perpetuate false information? science is the practice of skepticism and logical deduction, so even though human error is inevitably, science is the best method we have to acertaining truth with minimal errors.

Think tanks, are basically propoganda machines. They design experiments to sway the outcome as well and write propaganda. Think tanks might not dictate public opinion but they are a MAJOR influence. I think your giving the average human too much credit....

there are different kinds of think tanks out there. many of them have made positive contributions to our society although some do appear to have ulterior motives depending on their sponsors. i'm not giving the average person too much credit, i just don't think you're the position to judge people as too dumb to differentiate real science from pseudo-science. and whether most people can differentiate between the two or not does not say anything about the state of the modern scientific community or their contributions to our society.

True, ofcourse some would argue one is a means to the other.

scientists aren't typically fascists or totalitarian dictators so they advance humanity through building knowledge--how does that attempt to control the masses?

Your cult like fanatic attitude toward science is obviously getting in the way of any rational discussion. No point continuing this discussion with you unless you have something worthwhile to add(unlikely).

right. i guess anyone who disagrees with you and consistently exposes flaws in your reasoning is a fanatic. clearly you're the level-headed one by resorting to ad hominem attacks...

 

[Cex]

Although I'm taking a stance diametrically opposed to yougene's, I feel compelled to post the following. I mentioned earlier that two 'scientists' had succesfully published several nonsense papers in scientific journals, and had even earned PhDs from them. Whether they actually got the PhDs via this work is uncertain - at least to me - but it seems obvious that they did in fact manage to get the bogus papers published in reputable scientific journals. This link is to the website of respected physicist John Baez, the leading opponent of the Bogdanov brothers:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanoff/

Interesting reading

 

[gloggawogga]

Anybody who thinks science doesn't get misused as tool for swaying the masses simply needs to look at recreational and prescription drug research, or just read this. It takes money to do scientific research, and as long as it does, those who have money have the power to take scientific research in one direction or another. Money also controls the media, so those who have money influence what scientific research gets reported to the masses.

 

[ebola?]

'Tis true.
I probably wouldn't be doing research right now if it weren't for the fact that we're tricking the national institute of health into thinking our research will help people with ADD (well, some of it actually might).

ebola