Scientists Are Wrong All the Time, and That�s Fantastic

[shunyadragon]

I agree. It is a useless term. But this is Wired we are talking about. I think overall, it was a very good article that hit on important topics.

The term ECREE is a nebulous thing for sure, but not really for the reasons 'believers' object. Just plan sound skeptical thinking is enough to place miraculous claims in ancient literature in terms of the what is sound evidence other then believing through faith in the accuracy of the scriptures.

[Kbertsche]

I am also a scientist, a geologist and soil scientist for over 30 years. Yes, there is a human element of error, fraud and just plain poor research, but you are neglecting the role of the correcting process over time of weeding and cultivating the knowledge of science. I still strongly object to your statement 'there is no reason science is wrong as it often is.' There are good reasons, mainly just the humanness and fallibility of human nature.

Actually traditional theists that cling to ancient paradigms of religious worldviews, like Christians, over state the reliability of ancient writings to base infallible doctrine and dogma that they use to form the foundation of their religion, and not take into consideration the fallible humanness underlying these written scriptures.

Interesting article, but it more supports my view then your statement. There are progressive corrective methods over time, and it remains a human thing to be 'wrong' a lot, but in science the skeptical process of scientific methodology does correct itself over time.

You seem to be misquoting sfs1. He said "there is no reason science is wrong as often as it is," not "there is no reason science is wrong as it often is." I agree with sfs1. Most fields of science are significantly less rigorous than physics, and more rigor would help these other fields to reduce their errors significantly.

But in spite of its rigor, scientific errors still appear in physics. These errors often share characteristics which should urge caution. The "symptoms" of such "Pathological Science" were explained very nicely by Langmuir in his classic talk on the topic in 1953.

Source: Irving Langmuir, "Pathological Science"

Symptoms of Pathological Science:

1) The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.

2) The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.

3) Claims of great accuracy.

4) Fantastic theories contrary to experience.

5) Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.

6) Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.

© Copyright Original Source

These characteristics that Langmuir identified are timeless: they apply equally well to "cold fusion" and to claims of paranormal abilities as they did to his original examples.

[Teallaura]

ECREE is the security blanket used to avoid actually engaging the argument. It's anything but rational thinking.

[shunyadragon]

You seem to be misquoting sfs1. He said "there is no reason science is wrong as often as it is," not "there is no reason science is wrong as it often is." I agree with sfs1. Most fields of science are significantly less rigorous than physics, and more rigor would help these other fields to reduce their errors significantly.

But in spite of its rigor, scientific errors still appear in physics. These errors often share characteristics which should urge caution. The "symptoms" of such "Pathological Science" were explained very nicely by Langmuir in his classic talk on the topic in 1953.

Source: Irving Langmuir, "Pathological Science"

Symptoms of Pathological Science:

1) The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.

2) The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.

3) Claims of great accuracy.

4) Fantastic theories contrary to experience.

5) Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.

6) Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.

© Copyright Original Source

These characteristics that Langmuir identified are timeless: they apply equally well to "cold fusion" and to claims of paranormal abilities as they did to his original examples.

Disagree. Your criticism of science here is an overstatement in pulp fiction,

[klaus54]

Disagree. Your criticism of science here is an overstatement in pulp fiction,

Overstatement AND Pulp Fiction?

Wow!

How about some hyperbole?

K54

[Kbertsche]

Disagree. Your criticism of science here is an overstatement in pulp fiction,

I don't understand. Which specific statement do you disagree with, and why? Are you claiming that Langmuir's talk was "pulp fiction"?!?

[Carrikature]

ECREE is the security blanket used to avoid actually engaging the argument. It's anything but rational thinking.

I could say the same about people dismissing an entire article because ecree is mentioned in a minor example.

[shunyadragon]

I don't understand. Which specific statement do you disagree with, and why? Are you claiming that Langmuir's talk was "pulp fiction"?!?

That your citation from Irving Langmuir, "Pathological Science" does not remotely represent the reality of science. I have clearly acknowledged the very human problems of science, but bad research like that involved with 'cold fusion' does not last long.

Again, "there is no reason science is wrong as often as it is," does not represent science either.

As the topic of the thread states: Scientists Are Wrong All the Time, and That’s Fantastic

[shunyadragon]

That your citation from Irving Langmuir, "Pathological Science" does not remotely represent the reality of science. I have clearly acknowledged the very human problems of science, but bad research like that involved with 'cold fusion' does not last long.

Again, "there is no reason science is wrong as often as it is," does not represent science either.

As the topic of the thread states:

Further note, yes, Irving Langmuir does address some of the very human problems with science, which ALL are corrected over time through the self correcting process of scientific methodology. Another point of note the reference is 1953. A little old and dated.

[seer]

I am also a scientist, a geologist and soil scientist for over 30 years.

I don't believe you. What is your degree? Where did you get your degree? What have you published?

[shunyadragon]

Overstatement AND Pulp Fiction?

Wow!

How about some hyperbole?

K54

The hyperbole is sfs1 and Kbertsche in overstating the issue of errors and humanness of the problems with science. Put this reference in perspective it would help to read the following neglected by Kbertsche. note highlighted.

Source: http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langmuir.htm

On December 18, 1953, Dr. Irving Langmuir gave a colloquium at the Research Laboratory that will long be remembered by those in his audience. The talk was concerned with what Langmuir called "the science of things that aren't so," and in it he gave a colorful account of several examples of a particular kind of pitfall into which scientists may sometimes stumble.

Langmuir never published his investigations into the subject of Pathological Science. A tape recording was made of his speech, but this has been lost or erased. Recently, however, a microgroove disk transcription that was made from this tape was found among the Langmuir papers in the Library of Congress, This disk recording is of poor quality, but most of what he said can be understood with a little practice, and it constitutes the text of this report.

A small amount of editing was felt to be desirable. Some abortive or repetitious sentences were eliminated. Figures from corresponding publications were used to represent his blackboard sketches, and some references were added for the benefit of anyone wishing to undertake a further investigation of this subject. The disk recording has been transcribed back onto tape, and a copy is on file in the Whitney Library.

Gratitude is hereby expressed to the staff of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress for their cooperation in lending us the disk recording so we could obtain the best possible copy of the Langmuir speech, and for providing access to other related Langmuir papers.

© Copyright Original Source

It is hyperbole and pulp fiction to refer to this reference to justify: "there is no reason science is wrong as often as it is," The statement itself is hyperbole,

As described before, there are very good reasons "science is wrong as often as it is." These reasons reflect the very fallible humanness of science. This does not take into
consideration the self-correcting nature of the methodology of science, which is very effective in correcting science over time.

[sfs1]

The hyperbole is sfs1 and Kbertsche in overstating the issue of errors and humanness of the problems with science.

It is hyperbole and pulp fiction to refer to this reference to justify: "there is no reason science is wrong as often as it is," The statement itself is hyperbole,

As described before, there are very good reasons "science is wrong as often as it is." These reasons reflect the very fallible humanness of science. This does not take into
consideration the self-correcting nature of the methodology of science, which is very effective in correcting science over time.

What hyperbole? I have you the references that show that in major fields of science, most new results are wrong and that this unfortunate fact results from lax statistical standards (among other problems). More widespread use of rigorous standards would indeed result in science being wrong less often than it is. So there's no (good) reason that it is wrong as often as it is.

If you disagree with the analysis in the papers I linked to, have at it. But you'll have to actually address the analysis rather than just reciting bromides.

(Also, are you ever going to tell us why there had to be something special about mtEve or her population?)

[klaus54]

I don't believe you. What is your degree? Where did you get your degree? What have you published?

Jerk!

[shunyadragon]

What hyperbole? I have you the references that show that in major fields of science, most new results are wrong and that this unfortunate fact results from lax statistical standards (among other problems). More widespread use of rigorous standards would indeed result in science being wrong less often than it is. So there's no (good) reason that it is wrong as often as it is.

If you disagree with the analysis in the papers I linked to, have at it. But you'll have to actually address the analysis rather than just reciting bromides.

Again, I disagree with your statement in conclusion, "there is no reason science is wrong as often as it is," There is good reason science is wrong as often as it is and I gave my reasoning. You are clearly over emphasizing the negative and not taking into the 'facts' that science is self-correcting over time to compensate for the fallible nature of human failings.

(Also, are you ever going to tell us why there had to be something special about mtEve or her population?)

The population as whole dominated in the population of modern humanity.

[klaus54]

The hyperbole is sfs1 and Kbertsche in overstating the issue of errors and humanness of the problems with science. Put this reference in perspective it would help to read the following neglected by Kbertsche. note highlighted.

Source: http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langmuir.htm

On December 18, 1953, Dr. Irving Langmuir gave a colloquium at the Research Laboratory that will long be remembered by those in his audience. The talk was concerned with what Langmuir called "the science of things that aren't so," and in it he gave a colorful account of several examples of a particular kind of pitfall into which scientists may sometimes stumble.

Langmuir never published his investigations into the subject of Pathological Science. A tape recording was made of his speech, but this has been lost or erased. Recently, however, a microgroove disk transcription that was made from this tape was found among the Langmuir papers in the Library of Congress, This disk recording is of poor quality, but most of what he said can be understood with a little practice, and it constitutes the text of this report.

A small amount of editing was felt to be desirable. Some abortive or repetitious sentences were eliminated. Figures from corresponding publications were used to represent his blackboard sketches, and some references were added for the benefit of anyone wishing to undertake a further investigation of this subject. The disk recording has been transcribed back onto tape, and a copy is on file in the Whitney Library.

Gratitude is hereby expressed to the staff of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress for their cooperation in lending us the disk recording so we could obtain the best possible copy of the Langmuir speech, and for providing access to other related Langmuir papers.

© Copyright Original Source

It is hyperbole and pulp fiction to refer to this reference to justify: "there is no reason science is wrong as often as it is," The statement itself is hyperbole,

As described before, there are very good reasons "science is wrong as often as it is." These reasons reflect the very fallible humanness of science. This does not take into
consideration the self-correcting nature of the methodology of science, which is very effective in correcting science over time.

Good.

Hey, I had Irving's nephew as a professor in grad school (geochemistry).

K54