The Dangers Of Junk Science

Your view has merit but fails to recognize one fact. The peer review process is biased and has an agenda.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The bias is that the "peers" are inclined to rip to shit any research in their field that fails to meet the minimum standard of scientific discovery. Therefore, one is expected to thoroughly cover all their bases prior to publication.

What would the agenda be?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do some googleing. See how many papers by qualified physicists which presents experiments which advocates cold fusion results or finds disagreement with relativity which are rejected without review because they are taken at face value as being invalid.

This is a dangerous and unscientific position and shows an agenda. Advance the status quo, don't make waves. Any paper should only be rejected for specific proveable cause or error and not because it slaps the face of modern science.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If the evidence presented by the data were sufficient, would not the work speak for itself? Cold fusion is an area that probably gets the bad rap it deserves due to the extremely bad science that Pons and Fleischmann conducted.

You say science is concerned with the "status quo" and dislikes "waves" and that papers are rejected on that basis alone. I'd like to see you demonstrate that this is the case beyond a few cases. All I see is your criticism of the peer review process without validating citation.

 

You are free to believe as you choose. The facts however are that there are many good experimentors with quality credentials and excellent histories, that are now called quacks, crackpots, etc, after having done an experiment and gotten results leading them to question relativity.

Ronald Hatch is an example. A developer of GPS has turned against SRT because of how GPS functions, and is now basically black balled and ridiculed. But his point is physically absolutely valid as evidenced by GPS.

 

I think you missed the main point of my post. Studies can be biased without any indication of it if you know what you are doing. The only thing that can stop this is to have other people conduct their own experiments. However doing so costs money, and the people conducting such verification experiments stand to gain absolutely nothing from it. Add to this the fact that they won't want to do it to begin with if the initial experiment "looks" unbiased, AND the fact that new experiments will probably start with the assumption that the first experiment came to the correct conclusion (which means either you are likely to have to accept the results of the first experiment even if they are untrue due to not being able to obtain a certain confidence level that the experiment was bogus, or you are going to have to up the sample size to ensure this doesn't happen which means more money..) then you realize that more often than not no verification is going to be done.

The points you added about the scientists being able to have their buddies "review" their work when noone knows they are in cahoots, and other related tactics merely serve to emphasize my point. If people are motivated to circumvent the system they will be able to.

Calling technology a product of science is a bit of a stretch. Someone would have built computers and the notion would have become widespread without the institution of science. If you can make something cool and that people actually want, the object in question is proof of the validity of your claims and reasoning.

The advantage science is supposed to provide is to allow us to collect raw information and save it and build off of it. Its not irrational to call science useless in situations where large amounts of bias exist. Rather it is irrational to develop such an attachment to the concept in situations where it just flat out doesn't work.

The philosophy of science really isn't that great. It ignores the fact that we live life from a first person perspective, and that we don't have a mental link to some majestic scientific body of knowledge. Rather things that science has supposedly proven are just pieces of paper to us. I can write a piece of paper to look like a research report and give it to someone for crying out loud. Its just a matter of how far someone wants to go to decieve you.

I remember the most rediculous claim I ever heard was one made by Quine. He said that the pursuit of epistemology (theory of knowledge) should be given up in favor of taking on authority of psychology what reasoning processes were reliable. Nevermind the fact that epistemology is how people caim to the conclusion that the scientific method has value, or that its used by psychologists to determine what generalizations are ok to make from their experiments, or the fact that if we need more information than common experience contains then we can just have psychologists gather it and make use of it ourselves.

It seems the more people become infatuated with the idea of science, the more their reasoning ability goes downhill.

 

I don't for a minute suggest that science, scientists, or the scientific method are infallible. After all, we're talking about humans who are the main driving force and humans are fallible.

Nor do I suggest that science is by nature unbiased. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that bias is a large part of science, since it is the bias that a particular researcher has about a hypothesis that drives him to try and prove (or disprove) it.

But I would suggest that most of science is conducted with bias in mind and with an understanding that it can and often will influence the outcome of a research design if not accounted for.

I would also suggest that many research designs fall victim to biases that aren't immediately seen, even by a rigorous peer review. But later (months, years... even decades) review and research can improve upon earlier attempts and often these earlier attempts are very useful. In the past, archaeologists, for instance, used to concentrate their efforts on excavating monumental architecture and the most grandiose sites used by the elite of a given civilization and then they drew their conclusions about the civilization based on these excavations.

Modern archaeologists, however, focus more frequently on the periphery sites inhabited by the common people -the non-elite. This gives them a better understanding of the civilization since the elite minority aren't a representation of the majority non-elite.

Is science or the scientific method as it's currently employed (along with the peer review process) perfect? Not at all. But let me ask you this question: what is a better method of discovery? How can science be improved? Should it be abandoned because there's a risk of bias?

 

My main concern is that the average person develops a logical level of skepticism of scientific claims and does not take scientific claims on any type of false authority. Also that they do not fall prey to the naive ways of looking at reality that science education proposes- that a theory is only useful if it has been "prooven" and that proof is a simple concept.

Do I think science could be improved? Well yes and no. I suppose it can always be made harder for people to inflict their bias. You might come up with some system where scientists employed by your competitors get to be present at your experiments, and have a nuetral FDA member present as well. Yes if better standards are developed they could go back and decide that earlier experiments need to be redone to verify under the new standards. But in the end bias could overcome anything.. People can be bribed, or everyone involved might just agree on something that the general public would not agree with. So they just use any method possible to decieve them.

So what is an alternative? If philosophy could be sorted out, then many discoveries made by science could be communicated to people in terms of their own first person experience. In many cases this is the same as the scientific method. For instance you might have learned something in physics by inference from your everyday experience or by purposely conducting an expirement to directly test what you wanted to know. If you see it for yourself and realize that it goes with everything you have experienced up to date then thats as sure as you can probably ever get about something.

There is a case where contemporary science differs from this view: Psychology... Psychology wants to develop theories of consiousness and people's behavior in terms of 3rd person experimental data when 1st person "experimental data" is abundunt and free for everyone. Theres plenty of information already it just needs to be sorted out.

Then in cases where people are pursuing research of something that doesn't concern anyone but the people researching it, then those scientist's theories will be based on THEIR first person experience. If they produce some profound piece of technology people don't need to know how it works to determine its value.

In the few cases where people's common experience provides no insight into the topic in question (like quantum physics) but for some reason scientists still want people to understand the theories regarding it, then your right something close to the science we have is probably the best method possible. But there is still a few changes to be made. Namely scientific claims to the community at large should not just be an opinion with a phd attached and a claim that it is scientificly founded. It should be the experimental results, combined with a clearly communicated suggestion regarding how to interpret the results. People can then evaluate the data for themselves (using the suggested interpretation if they come to the same conclusion), and just hope that the results weren't fudged. If they can't understand the "suggested interpretation" then they should just throw it out because it was poorly communicated.

So to summarize
1) The more controls on experimental data the better
2) Arguments should be put int terms of someones own first person experience whenever possible
3) Scientific opions should be the data in question along with a clearly communicated suggested interpretation. Not an opinion with a phd and a claim of "scientific authenticity" attached.

 

According to USA Today, NASA is suspending all shuttle launches until the problem with the foam surrounding the main fuel tank can be corrected. This was the cause of the Space shuttle Columbia disaster, and has also endangered the current Discovery Mission. A peace of foam was photographed shearing off during the Discovery liftoff and astronauts are checking the shuttle for damage.

NASA has used foam to insulate the large rocket booster without incident since the beginning of the Shuttle program. Why has it become an issue only in the last few years? The answer lies in junk science and environmental hysteria.

According to Greg Katnick, a Mechanical Systems Engineer, at NASA Kennedy Space Center. “The reason for the change in the type of foam is due to the desire of NASA to use "environmentally friendly" materials in the space program. Freon was used in the production of the previous foam. This method was eliminated in favor of foam that did not require Freon for its production. MSFC is investigating the consideration that some characteristics of the new foam may not be known for the ascent environment.”

In other words, in an effort to be more politically correct, NASA reformulated the foam in a method more pleasing to environmentalists by discontinuing the use of Freon in the production of the foam. The result has been the production of a more brittle and less stable product.

This caused the catastrophic destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia and all astronauts aboard. It has now endangered the lives of the current Discovery Crew. NASA should go back to what it knows to work best and ignore the activists. It is ironic that an organization dedicated to science would fall for the propaganda and junk science that is so prevalent in our society.

URL References:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-07-27-shuttle-inspection_x.htm

http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/space/updates/sto32.html

http://brutus1964.blogspot.com

 

So, reliance on fossil fuels has lead to the death of millions in car accidents, wars, and deaths from pollution related diseases.

 

The wish to avoid excessive damage to the natural environment did not cause the problem. NASA should have tested the new foam's properties compared to the old freon-based type. Even tree-huggers wouldn't have desired that NASA use any product that endangered the lives of the astronauts, who BTW, tend to be environmentalists, too.

 

The extreme environmentalists don't believe in the space program any way. They see as man's attempt to pollute space. Yes there are a lot of environmentalists at NASA. This probably the reason NASA felt pressured into dumping the superior Freon-based foam and went with the untested but environmentally friendly foam. It never should have been changed in the first place. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Freon. The entire Freon ban is based on junk science. There has never been a proven link to Freon and any environmental damage. Just another case of mass hysteria, but unfortunately this time it cost people their lives. But, to some on the extremes of the environmental movement there are too many people on the Earth anyway.

 

You know, if we keep at it, we'll pollute space too badly to escape. There's already enough high velocity crud in orbit to be dangerous to satellites and the like. Getting through it will be pretty rough.

We may as well look into figuring out how to coat spacehips in armor, as, according to this thread, the junk in orbit is acting something how a space battle would take place (minus the nukes).

 

Typical pseudoscientific bias in favor of corporate profiteering.

The problem with chloroflourocarbons is simple chemistry that even I can grasp (Molina and Rowland, 1974). Perhaps you should actually obtain and education that includes it, Brutus. CFCs are and have been detected at stratospheric heights in the atmosphere.

The reaction is very basic: Cl + O₃ --> O₂ + ClO

One chlorine molecule is liberated from the energy of UV striking the the CFC. The single chlorine molecule then reacts with a single atom of oxygen thus: O + ClO --> Cl + O₂

The result is a cycle of depletion of ozone since the single atoms of oxygen created by the reaction of UV + O₂ --> O + O are used in making the chlorine molecule instead of the ozone molecules in the reaction 2O + 2O₂ --> 2O₃

A report (WMO, 2002) of 250 scientists finds that restraints on production of ozone-destroying chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons had the desired effect: the concentration of the prime offender, chlorine, reached a peak, ozone began to increase in the stratosphere, and the "hole" began to shrink.

The real "bad science" here is in the form of the pseudoscientific means that corporations like Dupont will use monetary influence to create doubt among those less inclined to understand real science and how it works. People like Brutus are duped into accepting their claims, which, amazingly enough, seem only to sprout up in non-peer reviewed literature.

The peer reviewed literature is clear. CFCs are deleterious to the environment, specifically the ozone concentrations in the stratosphere that are essential in filtering UV radiation.

For each 1% drop in ozone levels, about 1% more UV-B reaches the Earth's lower atmosphere (WMO, 2002). Increases in UV-B of 6-14% have been measured at many mid and high-latitude sites over the past 20 years (WMO, 2002, McKenzie, 1999). At some sites about half of this increase can be attributed to ozone loss.

In addition, Brutus, you didn't validate your assertion that the new foam used by NASA was inferior to that produced using freon. You simply made the sloppy and haphazard comment that "This caused the catastrophic destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia." You were, however, masterful at presenting only one of the possibilities listed on the NASA Quest site by Greg Katnik in, what is undoubtedly your best attempt, in demonstrating what "good" science is about.

References:

McKenzie, R., B. Connor, G. Bodeker, "Increased Summertime UV Radiation in New Zealand in Response to Ozone Loss", Science, 285, 1709-1711, 1999.

Molina, M.J., and F.S. Rowland, "Stratospheric Sink for Chlorofluoromethanes: Chlorine Atom-Catalyzed Destruction of Ozone", Nature 249, 810-812, 1974.

WMO/UNEP, "Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002 Executive Summary", World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project, available at www.unep.ch/ozone/pdf/execsumm-sap2002.pdf

 

Ah, America ... the wonderful land where people love to sue the stuffing out of each other.

There's just so much love, y'know?

 

Skinwalker

Thank you for your comments in my blog. I wasn't sure who sent it because it said anonymous. I will go ahead and give you credit for that.

I did go over the links you sent me. It still does not prove that use of Freon or any man made CFC's do any real damage to the ozone. Volcanos such as MT. Pinatubo, and others put out more Chlorine and other gasses than mankind could produce in a thousand years and the ozone layer seems to survive that. The Earth cleans itself up pretty well. If that was not the case life never would have gotten a footing on this planet.

They have been predicting the destruction of the ozone layer for 30 years and it's still here. Yes there might be a seasonal thinning of ozone around the poles but this is a natural occurrence. Every September or so the media comes out with a story about the "Ozone Hole" opening up, then closes by December. It is not to evil humans using CFC's. Sunlight is required for the production of ozone, so it is very natural for ozone to thin during the dark months at the polls.

URL references:


URL references:

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2003-11-20-ozone-hole_x.htm

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002100/a002183/

 

What do you care about space exploration, Brutus? Jesus is gonna come and sweep us up for some pie in the sky and solid gold butt plugs for everyone. If God wanted us to go into space, we would be born with built in jet packs and spacesuits.

 

All drugs cause side effects. That's because drugs are usually designed to treat symptoms instead of the actual problem.

If they benefited from them, why did they have health problems?

Ahhh... maybe not.

How come the firsat study is wrong and the second is right despite the fact they are supposedly equally done?

What about ROYAlTIES?

Doubtful.

Promising? They just fix symptoms of our unhealthy life style. Wtf!?

Wanna list? Check this out:
- depression is the number 1 cause of sickness in the world (great part of it is due to long and stressful work hours)
- obesity and diabetes are widely common, specially in the US, due to unhealthy eating and fitness habits
- anorexia nervosa, bulimia and other eating disorders are caused by unrealistic social expectations
- heart diseases are caused by unhealthy eating and lack of fitness
- cancer is mostly caused by unhealthy eating and unhealthy exposure to the sun and to chemicals
- in poor countries, lack of hygine causes a wide series of sicknesses that are practically unexistant in rich countries
- our food (specially vegetables) is bathed in pesticides (which is basically poison)
- most fishes are full of mercury
- there's lead in the air of many cities
- we produce carbon monoxide which is lethal to us (thankfully we don't pruduce it in enough quantities)
- we cause global warming
- we produced 2.6 billion tons of CO2 in 2002 (National Geographic, August 2005) which causes global warming and lung problems all over the planet (mostly in industrial and big cities)
- our industries produce lethal stuff and just throw it in the air we breath
- psychological problems are not covered by the government (and they the number 1 cause of social problems)
- we don't know whether transgenic food is safe in the long term
- antidepressants CAUSE suicides

Plus:
Tobacco and alcohol are legal drugs and theya re worse than marijuana, which is illegal (that makes lots of sense, eh?). Countless of deaths and sicknesses are caused by those things.

Looks like we are trying to kill ourselves...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The issue is not that we don't produce enough drugs, the issue is that we poison ourselves way too much. ​

 

Spidergoat.

Yes Jusus is coming, but until he gets here I think we should explore space, study science, and learn everything about what God created for us.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You're most welcome.

Then obviously you are either incapable of comprehending their implications or so willing to subscribe your own beliefs that you ignore their meaning. The data are clear. Ozone is damaged by CFCs. The chemistry is very basic.

That's actually more pseudoscientific rhetoric from the corporate/political sources that seek to profit from continued CFC manufacture and use. Direct measurements of the stratospheric chlorine produced by El Chichon, the most important eruption of the 1980's (Mankin and Coffey, 1983), and Pinatubo, the largest volcanic eruption since 1912 (Mankin et. al., 1991) found negligible amounts of chlorine injected into the stratosphere. Volcanos contribute at most just a few percent of the chlorine found in the stratosphere.

But will it "clean itself up" well enough to allow continued biodiversity? There is only one true test of that hypothesis... we shall have to wait and see.

More evidence that you didn't read completely or perhaps comprehend the citations I provided. Indeed, I pointed out that the restrictions on CFCs have had a notable effect on the ozone levels above Antarctica in one of the citations of my previous post. The desired effect is occuring: ozone concentrations are improving. The period of CFC manufacture and use is directly correlated to the greatly diminished ozone concentrations over Antarctica.

Of course it is, yet the data suggests that this seasonal occurrence is exacerbated by the reaction of CFCs in the stratosphere. Learn the science and stop reciting the corporate rhetoric. It makes you sound foolish.

References:

Mankin, W., and M. Coffey, "Increased stratospheric hydrogen chloride in the El Chichon cloud", Science, 226:170, 1983.

Mankin, W., M. Coffey, and A. Goldman, "Airborne observations of SO2, HCl, and O3 in the stratospheric plume of the Pinatubo volcano in July 1991", Geophysical Research Letters, 19:179, 1992.