Scientific Dishonesty

[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.

[Husar]

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.

That seems correct to me.

[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.

[Montmorency]

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

Moreover, you can't demonstrate the necessity of proof, or even the possibility of proof in itself.

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

Of course, to give a purpose for philosophy is to saddle down with a number of philosophical premises. For example, Ray Brassier takes a similar position to yours by determining that the purpose of philosophy is to "impede stupidity".

[Gilrandir]

Again, how much philosophy have you read?

I had philosophy at the University and studied it for a year after which had an exam. Plus I took an exam in philosophy manadatory as a part of post-graduate studies (the so-called candidate's minimum - since a person who gets his first post-graduate degree in Ukraine is called a candidate of sciences). So I have read some. Of course, it wasn't my major, nor my field of further studies (or interests), yet I may conclude that philosophers of yore posed some questions and then they (and all generations of others after them up till nowadays) tried to answer. They did offer the answers, but all of them were unproved (or indeed unprovable), so it is just chewing the same gum for two and a half millenia.

What distinguishes between science and pseudo-science?

I have given my vision of the difference, but I can reiterate: the absence of palpable results of the age-long studies which "the science" may offer urbi et orbi.

Is String Theory science? Is multi-verse theory?

Being unaware of either I would refrain from making any statement.

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

The best proof of anything is practice. You don't have to wait until late at night to put one apple beside another and start counting them together. If one starts ruminating about it for so long, he must be drunk. A supposition: could the first philosophers have been toss pots?

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.

If you mean me - well, could be an appropriate warning. But most people (including - or especially - the ones on these boards) indulge in doing what philosophy is so vehemently against. So it kind of becomes one more proof that it is a science (almost) no one has a use for.

If yours is a universal statement, then a sceptic would remark: "Ok, I will try to bear it in mind, but is this all philosophy is there for - to tell the people to mind their Ps and Qs? One doesn't need a whole science to teach others just a most general tenet."

[Montmorency]

I'll reprint part of a relevant piece that basically organizes the confusion of the various perspectives presented here:

The ‘Death of Philosophy’ is something that circulates through arterial underbelly of culture with quite some regularity, a theme periodically goosed whenever high-profile scientific figures bother to express their attitudes on the subject. Scholars in the humanities react the same way stakeholders in any institution react when their authority and privilege are called into question: they muster rationalizations, counterarguments, and pejoratives. They rally troops with whooping war-cries of “positivism” or “scientism,” list all the fields of inquiry where science holds no sway, and within short order the whole question of whether philosophy is dead begins to look very philosophical, and the debate itself becomes evidence that philosophy is alive and well—in some respects at least.

The problem with this pattern, of course, is that the terms like ‘philosophy’ or ‘science’ are so overdetermined that no one ends up talking about the same thing. For physicists like Stephen Hawking or Lawrence Krauss or Neil deGrasse Tyson, the death of philosophy is obvious insofar as the institution has become almost entirely irrelevant to their debates. There are other debates, they understand, debates where scientists are the hapless ones, but they see the process of science as an inexorable, and yes, imperialistic one. More and more debates fall within its purview as the technical capacities of science improve. They presume the institution of philosophy will become irrelevant to more and more debates as this process continues. For them, philosophy has always been something to chase away. Since the presence of philosophers in a given domain of inquiry reliably indicates scientific ignorance to important features of that domain, the relevance of philosophers is directly related to the maturity of a science.

They have history on their side.

There will always be speculation—science is our only reliable provender of theoretical cognition, after all. The question of the death of philosophy cannot be the question of the death of theoretical speculation. The death of philosophy as I see it is the death of a particular institution, a discourse anchored in the tradition of using intentional idioms and metacognitive deliverances to provide theoretical solutions. I think science is killing that philosophy as we speak.