Over the course of my limited scientific career I have noticed a trend.
A number of alarming posts and discussions inside and outside of RG have brought to my attention recent increased rates of what I like to call scientific quackery; bogus science
Many of these theories and arguments offered by these "scientist' have little to no proof and are harmful for intelligent discussions on a topic. The arguments they provide can seem "off the wall" and not line with current literature and fly in the face of 100's of years of science; much of which they seem to not understand.
Many of these quacks seem to stick to big named fields:
*finding cures for cancer,
*disproving evolutionary theory,
*discrediting Einstein's theory of relativity,
* New definitions of morality and ethics, new notions of reality
*Ways of altering the scientific method.
This is all accomplished with little to know knowledge base and ignoring years of experimental data.
This post should offer no harm to those with bold hypotheses and creative solutions to problems; all scientist will encounter some form of resistance when discovering something novel. However, quacks offer nothing novel.
Is my sentiments seem to shared with people in the scientific community?
A recent article, attached, by an esteem physicist highlights some of motifs of quacks.
My advice:
*Distinguishing between hypothesis and theory. Your argument without experimental data is an hypothesis, what you are trying to refute is a theory.
*Make sure you read all of the literature in a field before offering your new found theory.
Questions:
Why the increase in quackery recently?
Why do quacks stick to big named fields?
What can be done about this increase in fraudulent science?
If you are a quack, come forward and explain yourself?
Thanks
Michael
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
Chris, Michael
Quackery in the scientific study probably is a phenomenon visible, and definitely unwelcome.
But I think, before we want this type of behavior in science strongly condemn, it would be useful to specify more precisely the sense in which we speak of quackery.
To pay attention to the other behavior in science (which - I believe - Michael did not you include in the introduction to the topic) - maybe worth to include in the discussion of scientific quackery - I attach a link to a short text on the canvas of the famous "case of cold fusion" by Fleischmann and Pons:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/cold_fusion_01
PS
I think that instead of discussing about the scientific quackery, would be better to expand the discussion to issues of scientific charlatanism.
Great question, if somewhat un-PC.
If I may be even more un-PC , I have observed - not statistically, but anecdotally - that
a (small) number of the 'Researchers' on RG who call themselves 'Independent Researchers' are wholly uncredentialed (far from all - many 'Independent Researchers' do have spotless credentials) and may have no formal grounding and no clue whatsoever as to the fields they're professing interest in.
These uncredentialeds are however very vocal, and come up with all kinds of explanations that bear zero relationship to current research. They are prone to using phrases such as 'in my personal opinion', and then come up with the darnedest assertions. They do not however begin to understand the complexity, non linearity, and body of proof that attend to current science. They have never experienced the sheer awe that often accompanies the demonstrating of a stunning, but counterintuitive item of reality.
Some may think that they can shortcut years of modest toiling away by brilliant immediate insights of their inborn genius. They're wrong.
And these may even be the mild cases. There are the even worst Dunning Kruger cases, those who need to dump on the Einsteins of this world to boost their own egos. Those are the really pathetic ones.
@Chris, I know this question is very un-political correct. However, it means no offense as stated above. Quackery does not harm the educated, but the uneducated souls of this world. People read books or articles by these "scientist" thinking they have found a light, but really they are headed into darkness.
Chris, Michael
Quackery in the scientific study probably is a phenomenon visible, and definitely unwelcome.
But I think, before we want this type of behavior in science strongly condemn, it would be useful to specify more precisely the sense in which we speak of quackery.
To pay attention to the other behavior in science (which - I believe - Michael did not you include in the introduction to the topic) - maybe worth to include in the discussion of scientific quackery - I attach a link to a short text on the canvas of the famous "case of cold fusion" by Fleischmann and Pons:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/cold_fusion_01
PS
I think that instead of discussing about the scientific quackery, would be better to expand the discussion to issues of scientific charlatanism.
@Andrzej,
You have presented an interesting angle for this discussion; dissecting the behaviors between members of the scientific community, particular when encountering a new innovative idea.
Scientific community must be open enough to accept challenges to the status quo but shrewd enough to debunk works of fiction. Science must be refutable and highly tested.
However, I fear it is common folk who are most endanger of quackery; these people may have difficulty distinguishing between highly researched works and works of fiction and assumption. Many of these works are highly circulated among the scientific illiterate. Those with scientific training would be adept to see the flaws in these works and will ignore the "contributions" of these papers and books.
Quackery I am referring to are those works that do not follow the scientific method for investigations. Real science is investigated and refutable. Cold Fusion case study touches on this issue how organic real scientific works can be
Examples of quackery under my definition give below:
*author argues that taking megadosage of vitamin C cures cancer without ever having conducted a single clinical trial with Vitamin C intervention.
*author claims to disprove/challenge relativity theory with X idea without doing an experiment to test the validity of X.
Hard and copious data/experiments separate novelty from quackery under my definition.
Causes of quackery may be traced back to archetypical vices of man; god, glory, and gold.
@Thomas, great comment.
Many noble prize winners after achieving fame tend to stick their nose in a bunch of fields they know nothing about; what caused James Watson to get thrown out of his lab he started.
Linus Pauling is still one of my favorite Chemist. After wining 2 noble prizes, he published a series of books about Vitamin C curing all sorts of diseases including cancer, mental retardation, and even aging; even started an institute related to the concept. Funny thing is he died of prostate cancer; dark sense of human, I know. i apologize to all of those offended.
Dear Dr. Michael Mannen,
You have raised a great point about some debates of RG questions.
I wonder why this question is filed under "Physics, Obesity, Cancer, Evolution, Metaphase" when it's meant to instigate a discussion about science communication, theory and practice of sciencemaking, public perception of research, common fallacies (among non-professional scientists), and likewise issues.
Offtopic or not, the particular reasons for criticism will be more graspable if a list of links to 'problematic' Researchgate threads is given. Considering the tone and indistinctness of arguments it is hard to see how this discussion can lead to anything better than a mere exchange of anecdotes. In the end Researchgate is a social network like others and a common rule could be practiced here as well: Don't feed the trolls!
@Mike Buchwitz, not to sound too anecdotal, but you are taking the architecture of my question/others comments too seriously with your intentionally verbose diction; i suspect your comment is a real troll. I could have also attached a book relevant to the subject matter to make the question more complete.
Simply put, your over thinking this question instead of just answering it; probably a systemic problem in your other answers/articles.
The warrant for the thread is directly stated in the question "recent esteemed physicist recently published an article giving guidelines for quackery." The article is attached, BTW.
This thread should be taken as a Red Flag and observation on some trends in the scientific community as to what some of its members are doing.
*The question is tag under those areas b/c I am a biologist; so I most encounter quackery most related to the biomedical world and evolution. I follow those topics and it is in these topics that i have discovered the trend of increased quackery.
If makes you feel better I will change the tags to allow for a more accurate description of the topic?
@Thomas
The promoter of orthomolecular medicine is the Linus Pauling Institute; directly attached to Oregon State University. It never occurs to his followers that his noble prizes were in an area not even tangentially related to micronutrient ratios in health and disease. The institute still promotes the concept of Vitamin C therapy for treatment; with no apparent side effects.
@Ahmad,
Thanks
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminC/
@Mike Mannen: Following the topic 'evolution' in RG you come from time to time across rather ideologically motivated questions and meta-discussions about issues drifting away from subject of evolution and evolutionary biology - so I was kind of irritated about yet another meta-discussion ('quackery' under the topic of evolution).
My experience (anecdotal evidence; evolution, geoscience, palaeo-sciences) about 'quackery' on the web: present and vocal as ever but perhaps no increase.
- Badges
- Science topic