PDA

View Full Version : Quack science



FutureMD
24 Feb 06,, 05:47
This is a great way to find out if a product or website is bogus.

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists.

One notorious example is the claim made in 1989 by two chemists from the University of Utah, B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, that they had discovered cold fusion -- a way to produce nuclear fusion without expensive equipment. Scientists did not learn of the claim until they read reports of a news conference. Moreover, the announcement dealt largely with the economic potential of the discovery and was devoid of the sort of details that might have enabled other scientists to judge the strength of the claim or to repeat the experiment. (Ian Wilmut's announcement that he had successfully cloned a sheep was just as public as Pons and Fleischmann's claim, but in the case of cloning, abundant scientific details allowed scientists to judge the work's validity.)

Some scientific claims avoid even the scrutiny of reporters by appearing in paid commercial advertisements. A health-food company marketed a dietary supplement called Vitamin O in full-page newspaper ads. Vitamin O turned out to be ordinary sal****er.

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government. Claims that the oil companies are frustrating the invention of an automobile that runs on water, for instance, are a sure sign that the idea of such a car is baloney. In the case of cold fusion, Pons and Fleischmann blamed their cold reception on physicists who were protecting their own research in hot fusion.

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is probably not real and the work is not science.

Thousands of published papers in para-psychology, for example, claim to report verified instances of telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition. But those effects show up only in tortured analyses of statistics. The researchers can find no way to boost the signal, which suggests that it isn't really there.

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. Because anecdotes have a very strong emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of science. The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test, by means of which we know what works and what doesn't. Contrary to the saying, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote."

5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth.

Ancient folk wisdom, rediscovered or repackaged, is unlikely to match the output of modern scientific laboratories.

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.



From the quackwatch website.

Shek
24 Feb 06,, 06:00
Oh. I thought this was going to be another global warming thread :biggrin:

FutureMD
26 Feb 06,, 06:42
As a side note, I would recommend using Wikipedia as a source for marijuana info.

dalem
26 Feb 06,, 09:26
As a side note, I would recommend using Wikipedia as a source for marijuana info.

I wouldn't use Wikipedia to wipe my butt after burrito night.

-dale

TopHatter
26 Feb 06,, 15:11
As a side note, I would recommend using Wikipedia as a source for marijuana info.

I wouldn't use Wikipedia to wipe my butt after burrito night.

You'd have to be pretty silly to use Wikipedia as a source when, say, writing a paper for your PhD. :rolleyes:

But as a quick and concise information source, I find it quite valuable.

RustyBattleship
26 Feb 06,, 18:34
Future MD wrote: "Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster."

You can have clear, up-close photos with organic samples of the Florida Skunk Ape, Fouk Monster, Bigfoot, Sasquach, Yeti, the critters in Lock Ness and Loch Mora of Scotland, the critters in Lake Champlain and Lake Okanagan in North America.

Not a single "official" scientist will accept them. They will spend more time and effort proving they are fake than they would accepting the fact that not everything larger than a new species of head louse has been discovered.

Unless -- and this is a written REQUIREMENT -- you bring in the DEAD body of one for necropsy and placement on the evolutionary charts. They don't even want a LIVE specimen as it doesn't give them the opportunity to slice and dice it for micro-minute analysis and they sit on pins and needles waiting for the poor creature to die.

So, just to satisfy them, when I'm checking out the 30 acres I own on an abandoned tabletop in Oregon, I carry a .41 magnum on my side and an M-1 Garand in the truck with armor piercing ammo. Should I ever run across Bigfoot I can drill a clean hole through him for museum "quality" display and give the "scientists" their specimen for further debate.

Vaman
26 Feb 06,, 18:42
Agree with TH there.
For quick reference wikipedia isnt bad at all. Because it is a colloborative effort, at times its also quite unbiased. But its just not an "authoritative"source.

FutureMD
26 Feb 06,, 20:07
As a side note, I would recommend using Wikipedia as a source for marijuana info.


Sorry, should be wouldn't.

FutureMD
26 Feb 06,, 20:24
Lol, I looked up the WAB on Wikipedia, and it actually has an entry.

astralis
26 Feb 06,, 21:34
quite an amusing entry, at that. it sounds like some disgruntled guy who got banned wrote it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Affairs_Board


World Affairs Board is a public Internet forum where people from all over the world can discuss a variety of topics relating to social, economic, political, and military affairs, among others. It currently has 2,700+ unique members, mostly from the United States.

However, the WAB has not gone without any criticism, as the forum is considered extremely conservative and hostile towards those with opposing viewpoints. It is moderated by six somewhat conservative moderators: Confed99, Horrido, Julie, Lunatock,Tophatter, and ZFBoxcar. together, the six 'mods' have banned numerous liberals, keeping the forum dominated by conservatives.

The WAB has also been criticized for being a poor source of factual information, especially regarding gun control, global warming, health, and domestic policy. The dominant user is M21sniper, a former US Army sniper with over ten thousand posts and the wide respect of the forum. However, he has dispatched false information on dozens, if not more, occasions.

Like any forum, the WAB has its advantages, namely the fact that it has a wide variety of users from the world over, and thus, many differing opinions.

TopHatter
26 Feb 06,, 23:04
quite an amusing entry, at that. it sounds like some disgruntled guy who got banned wrote it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Affairs_Board

It's called article vandalism and HOLY **** AM I REALLY ON WIKIPEDIA??? :eek:

I've finally made it to the big time.... :redface:

Seriously though...

That current page was changed today (2-26-06) by a single Wiki user named "MacLand". How nice for him or her. I'm wondering if just possibly maybe they are disgruntled WABer? :rolleyes:

Oops...looks like another user Reverted it back to the previous version. :eek:

FutureMD
26 Feb 06,, 23:25
Do we have any current or former users whose name has a "mac" or a "land" in it?

RustyBattleship
27 Feb 06,, 02:06
Do we have any current or former users whose name has a "mac" or a "land" in it?
Part of my name has "land" in it, but I have never submitted anything to Wikipedia. Usually I don't refer to it at all - for anything. And there's no Scottish in me so "Mac" doesn't fit anywhere on my family tree.

Also, I just punched up "World Affairs Board" on the Wikipedia that came up under Google for me. It said:

World Affairs Board is a public Internet forum where people from all over the world can discuss a variety of topics relating to social, economic, political, and military affairs, among others. It currently has 2600+ members.

That was all. Nothing deragatory there that I could see. The page does ask for expansion on the article. Also the section for the acronym WAB does not mention this forum at all.

So whahoppin here?

astralis
27 Feb 06,, 02:57
someone edited it, obviously.

Bill
27 Feb 06,, 03:51
As a side note, I would recommend using Wikipedia as a source for marijuana info.

LOL, really?

Now how would an upstanding collegiate type such as yourself know that?

:biggrin:

Bill
27 Feb 06,, 03:51
I wouldn't use Wikipedia to wipe my butt after burrito night.

-dale

I hear Wikipedia is immune to 37mm fire at any distance beyond 50 meters.

FutureMD
27 Feb 06,, 05:33
LOL, really?

Now how would an upstanding collegiate type such as yourself know that?

:biggrin:


Lol, it was a typo.

dalem
27 Feb 06,, 07:40
I hear Wikipedia is immune to 37mm fire at any distance beyond 50 meters.

:)

-dale

leib10
27 Feb 06,, 08:01
Lol

TopHatter
28 Feb 06,, 04:36
Do we have any current or former users whose name has a "mac" or a "land" in it?
No, but I'm willing to bet it was you.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?p=188827#post188827

ZFBoxcar
28 Feb 06,, 05:01
Hmm...maybe we should expand the Wikipedia entry. Anybody want to write up a review of the forum and submit it?

Parihaka
28 Feb 06,, 05:20
Hmm...maybe we should expand the Wikipedia entry. Anybody want to write up a review of the forum and submit it?
How about something like

WAB Recruitment Requirements

The current policy set by Congress and the Secretary of Defense, effective 1 October 1994 excludes trolls from combat billets in the WAB forum. The WAB program is not open to pussies. Sock puppets are encouraged to investigate alternative forums.
WAB Requirements Waivers

* Eye Sight Waiver [Requirement Detail]
* Age Waiver [Requirement Details]
* There are no waivers available for the troll, pussies or sock puppets requirements.

WAB Requirements

During the enlistment process you will be required to take the WAB Vocational Aptitude Battery (WABVAB). Your scores on these tests determine the rates for which you are eligible. You must score well enough to qualify for the WAB program, as well as the WAB source rate ("A" School) of your choice.

Your moderator can arrange for you to take a pre-WABVAB test. The pre-WABVAB will identify weaknesses in your performance and enable you to undertake remedial work, if necessary. In addition, several books are available to help you prepare for the WABVAB test. Check your high school or public library, or your local book store. Alternatively, use one of the popular web search engines and search on the following string: "World Affairs Board vocational aptitude battery."

If you score less than 5 points, you must retake the WABVAB. Take this test seriously and study for it. If you score lower again, then those lower scores will stand, so study.

The WABVAB is a series of 10 mini tests maintained by the Department of Defense. The ASVAB is made up of tests in the following subject areas:

* Word Knowledge
* Paragraph Comprehension
* Mathematics Knowledge
* Arithmetic Reasoning
* General Science
* Auto and Shop Information
* Mechanical Comprehension
* Electronics Information
* Numerical Operations
* Coding Speed
* Ability to detect trolls
* Ability to reason

Upon completing the tests, you'll receive a composite score as well as scores for each of the ten sections. These scores are used to determine the position you are best qualified for.

If you have not enlisted yet you may retake the WABVAB several times. If you take the WABVAB and score high enough to enlist but not high enough to sign up under the WAB Challenge Contract (see: waivers), study hard and plan to retake the WABVAB. Inform your moderator that you are serious about doing well on the WABVAB, so you will qualify for the WAB Challenge Contract.

Officer of Engineers
28 Feb 06,, 05:26
Ok, now you have way too much time.

Bill
28 Feb 06,, 05:57
WABVAB, LOL....OMG. :biggrin:

TopHatter
28 Feb 06,, 13:07
WABVAB, LOL....OMG. :biggrin:
Hmmm....I LIKE it! :)

Parihaka
28 Feb 06,, 21:17
Ok, now you have way too much time.
Nicked it from the Navy Seals recruitment site :redface:

Confed999
01 Mar 06,, 01:23
Nice one... :)

Julie
01 Mar 06,, 01:48
I like it as well. :redface:

Bill
01 Mar 06,, 05:24
Does this mean i need to institute a HOGVAB at my site to stay competitive?

LOL... ;)

TopHatter
01 Mar 06,, 05:42
Does this mean i need to institute a HOGVAB at my site to stay competitive?

LOL... ;)
Yep, you sure do, with this question as pass/fail: "What doesnt have to have a pointy nose and go Mach-snot to kick some serious ass?" :cool:

Julie
01 Mar 06,, 15:37
Yep, you sure do, with this question as pass/fail: "What doesnt have to have a pointy nose and go Mach-snot to kick some serious ass?" :cool:
LOL ! :biggrin:

BenRoethig
01 Mar 06,, 21:37
I hear Wikipedia is immune to 37mm fire at any distance beyond 50 meters.

You know you can change everything in there if you want. There in lies the problem.

TopHatter
01 Mar 06,, 22:25
You know you can change everything in there if you want. There in lies the problem.
They've recently put some restrictions into play, but it's been far short of what they really need, which is 100% registration for Add or Edit....among other things.

Still and all, it's the first and easiest place I look for so-called "casual" information.

As I pointed out on another thread, their Iowa-class battleship entry is very nicely done.

In addition, it's a great place to get links on subjects as well.

Parihaka
01 Mar 06,, 22:38
They've recently put some restrictions into play, but it's been far short of what they really need, which is 100% registration for Add or Edit....among other things.

Still and all, it's the first and easiest place I look for so-called "casual" information.

As I pointed out on another thread, their Iowa-class battleship entry is very nicely done.

In addition, it's a great place to get links on subjects as well.
Indeed. It's a useful start point to then cross-reference key-words from more authoritative sources.