Scientific Dishonesty

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There are plenty of instances of "serious" scientists who refused to accept valid research.

Sir Fred Hoyle is an excellent example - he refused to accept the theory of the "Big Bang" due to his anti-religious prejudice.

He was a hugeley respected scientist in his day but when it came down to it the "rational" atheist was unable to accept anything that threatened his established world-view.

To believe that "hard" science has no bias is to buy into the myth that because you are dealing with "pure" numbers that the Science is "pure". All Science is enquiry carried out by human beings and therefore all Science is flawed and biased.

[wooly_mammoth]

@PFH

Ideally, a scientist shouldn't let his own prejudice darken his judgement, but it does happen in the real world, I agree with that. Einstein is probably an even greater example of a scientist that refused to accept facts when they contradicted his beliefs. For example, even though he laid the foundations of quantum mechanics with his explanation of the photo-electric effect, he never considered it to be a valid physical theory since it contradicted with his belief that the world simply must be a fully deterministic system. While current evidence suggests otherwise, I guess it's sensible to realize that scientific inquiry will never provide ultimate answers to any questions and that our knowledge (at least in the foreseeable future) will constantly change and improve, provided we don't blow ourselves back into the Dark Ages.

@Fisherking

Just to touch a bit more on the cold fusion problem. To my limited knowledge on the subject, the problem has been turned inside out for a long time by many independent groups. For it to work in the way Pons & Fleishmann suggest doesn't make sense due to the fact that in room temperature conditions, the energy and length scales at which electromagnetic and nuclear forces manifest are by many orders of magnitude different. Unless our entire background of physical knowledge is completely wrong (unlikely), I don't think that turning research down in this field is completely unjustifiable. There's no reason to waste even more resources in a direction for which you have some pretty compelling counter-arguments. At the same time, there has been some considerable progress made in the field of plasma fusion, so I guess it makes sense to fund research that at least holds some promise for useful results in the future.

[Fisherking]

@wooly_mammoth
I am not going to give you a catalog of the data proving that the effect is real. There is evidence if you choose to pursue it. The scientists were inquiring and asking for physicists to examine the phenomenon they discovered. They were chemists and could not explain what they found.
The branch of physics to which the phenomenon applies was one with little research since its discovery. Namely weak force physics.

The discovery was made by chemists asking physicists to verify. The physicists not being chemists botched the job and there were also problems replicating due to quality of the Palladium Lattice electrodes used.

There was no theory to explain what was occurring. It was a discovery that needed repetition and theory to explain what had occurred.

Instead there was a vendetta launched and the scientists were accused of fraud. It was decided by consensus.

[wooly_mammoth]

To my knowledge, the topic was given an extremely serious scientific scrutiny. The excess heat detected in some experiments (not only the original one) can easily be explained by standard solid-state heat transfer theory. Nuclear energy scales are about a million times larger than molecular & atomic energies in ordinary solids, and the length scale at which nuclear forces manifest are about a hundred thousand times smaller than the typical lattice constant in an ordinary metal (i.e., the separation distance between nuclei in the lattice). You need those energies and length scales for a reasonable chance that two nuclei will fuse. These are well established and basic facts of nuclear physics. Since there is no other experiment so far to suggest other scales at which the phenomenon takes place, it seems a bit unreasonable that they change only in this particular situation. So, as far as empirical evidence and established theories go, in order to trigger nuclear reactions you need to operate at those length & energy scales, but some people claim to be doing that indirectly from the electromagnetic scale only in this particular circumstance and no other. Which is weird. Furthermore, assuming that it is indeed nuclear fusion we are speaking about there, one simple question that comes to mind is, where is all the gamma radiation that should be emitted? We see gamma rays coming from stars when hydrogen fuses into helium over there, why don't we see it in such experiments?

These are just a few of the many very sensible questions that have been asked and to which no clear answer was ever given. For some reason, people like to assume that politics and conspiracies are involved, but I think that if you sit down and do a proper analysis of the subject, you discover that this particular phenomenon doesn't happen in this particular context, given the laws of physics in this Universe.

@Gilrandir

The very unserious (to my perception at least) philosophers are actually debating if mathematics is a science or not, heh. Meanwhile, we would still be in prehistory without it (just think of your existence without having the ability to count things). Otherwise I agree with what you mean by that.

[Fisherking]

@wooly_mammoth

I think you just inadvertently, proved the point I was making.

For some reason, people like to assume that politics and conspiracies are involved, but I think that if you sit down and do a proper analysis of the subject, you discover that this particular phenomenon doesn't happen in this particular context, given the laws of physics in this Universe.

The use of conspiracies is an attempt to justify your own bias an draw attention to what must be crackpot ideas.

Bias exists. Politics often intrude on world views and intrudes in to data. That was what the article showed.

Science is investigation. We are attempting to explain the laws of the Universe. They are not all known nor proven. Most of science deals in theory, not law.

Closed-mindedness and dogmatic adherence to the established order retard exploration not enhance it.

As for the short shrift you give philosophy, it was philosophy that gave us the principals of reason and the scientific method of research. It is also, to an extent, ignoring the philosophy behind it that helps introduce the very bias we are discussing.

[wooly_mammoth]

So, if you investigate something thoroughly and it doesn't work, it doesn't work because it doesn't work or because politicians are scheming behind our backs day & night? I mean, in the particular example we are discussing, having the thing work would mean that pretty much everything that is currently known about electromagnetism, atomic & molecular physics and nuclear forces is completely and utterly wrong. Which isn't impossible, mind you, but it sounds reasonably unlikely.

[Fisherking]

So, if you investigate something thoroughly and it doesn't work, it doesn't work because it doesn't work or because politicians are scheming behind our backs day & night? I mean, in the particular example we are discussing, having the thing work would mean that pretty much everything that is currently known about electromagnetism, atomic & molecular physics and nuclear forces is completely and utterly wrong. Which isn't impossible, mind you, but it sounds reasonably unlikely.

This is a red herring. As you well know.

There are any number of variables to consider. If you are still speaking of Pons and Fleischmann, the effect has been replicated and there is more than one method of achieving results.

It was not the fact that several labs failed to reproduce the effect. As I said there was no theory attached to what they reported. I do recall at least on lab reporting a reaction but of much lesser significance to the original.

It was more the reaction. They were held up to ridicule. To what scientific purpose?
Show me where ridicule fits into the scientific method. Show me where votes of consensus fits into the scientific method.

It is not the only example, naturally. There are any number of once suppressed theories which are today in the mainstream. Yet even so, some may yet be miss-proven or revised and other theories take their place. To think otherwise is to arrest development.

[Gilrandir]

As for the short shrift you give philosophy, it was philosophy that gave us the principals of reason and the scientific method of research.

I'm afraid this is all credit philosophy can claim. In 2500 years it is too little a harvest. So it is as good as extinct.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Judging from the first few replies, I initially just wanted a quick post so I could get thanked by Papewaio. But then I read everything...

Psychology isn't even a science. Sciences are things like physics, chemistry or engineering. Psychology, philosophy and other such nonsense is just having some random nobodies talking willy-nilly about nothing, as is the case of everyone involved in the article above.

Engineering isn't a science. The vast majority of engineering "knowledge" has been and probably continues to be, haphazard trial and error where something goes wrong, bridges collapse, people die and we find some fix that ends up getting explained in detail by physicists.

The entire United States electrical system is built off of the bodies of civilians, electrical workers and dogs who ended up being inadvertent test subjects on how to make a safe electrical system. Today's comfort is possible because of completely uncontrolled "experiments" performed when some poor Irishman in 1880s New York touched the wrong wire and 1,000 New Yorkers watched his skin fry before their very eyes.

Also, you don't understand what Philosophy does at all.

These are very gross generalizations. I would say they are applicable to nonsense fields (I don't mean to offend anyone, but that's how I see it and I like to speak plainly) like psychology or social "sciences". In fields like physics, chemistry or engineering and technology development (I see technology development as much of a science as fundamental research), a peer-reviewed and reputable journal will never accept a letter dealing with empirical data unless the source of the data is specified and it is an equally reputable one. A large part of the scientific community dedicates their careers to making sure that the numbers other use in their research are correct.

What the above article describes about Psychology, is not that much different from science. Peer Review in science fails much more often then you would expect...

I'm afraid this is all credit philosophy can claim. In 2500 years it is too little a harvest. So it is as good as extinct.

Again, how much philosophy have you read? What distinguishes between science and pseudo-science? Is String Theory science? Is multi-verse theory? Why does a sizable portion of the scientific community seem to trust either of these ideas, when at this juncture they cannot be empirically tested and thus are completely unfalsifiable? If String Theory can be derived mathematically (but not seen empirically) as an branch of the Standard Model, which does have empirical evidence to support it, does that lend a lot, a little or no credibility to the notion of strings?

I don't know why I get so upset when people trash Philosophy. It just seems to Orwellian to be a champion of TRUTH THRU SCIENCE and then lead this anti-intellectual campaign against philosophy. Science rests on assumed answers to philosophical questions that are actually still open, and somehow it has deluded itself into thinking it has done away with philosophy entirely.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ironically, the latter (namely political science aka politology) has more influence on the modern world than some "serious" sciences, mathematics, for instance.

Yet since this enquiry is FOR human beings and only about the things humans CAN EXPERIENCE, it seems to be quite adequate for all purposes humans may have in mind.

Yes, Scientific Enquiry is eminently useful, as is logic. However, so is Newtonian Physics.

Newtonian Physics is also, technically, wrong.

I'm afraid this is all credit philosophy can claim. In 2500 years it is too little a harvest. So it is as good as extinct.

Philosophy is there to give you an answer late at night when you finally realise you can't prove that 1+1 =2.

Actual example.

Now, with my tongue entirely out of my cheekpad, I would say that the actual purpose of philosophy is to guard against the Socratic fallacy - the belief being an expert in something gives you the right or qualifications to speak on any and every topic.

[Gilrandir]

These are very gross generalizations. I would say they are applicable to nonsense fields (I don't mean to offend anyone, but that's how I see it and I like to speak plainly) like psychology or social "sciences".

Ironically, the latter (namely political science aka politology) has more influence on the modern world than some "serious" sciences, mathematics, for instance.

All Science is enquiry carried out by human beings and therefore all Science is flawed and biased.

Yet since this enquiry is FOR human beings and only about the things humans CAN EXPERIENCE, it seems to be quite adequate for all purposes humans may have in mind.