Junk Science Alert!

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is investing close to a million dollars in an obscure Russian scientist's antigravity machine, although it has failed every test and would violate the most fundamental laws of nature. The Patent and Trademark Office recently issued Patent 6,362,718 for a physically impossible motionless electromagnetic generator, which is supposed to snatch free energy from a vacuum. And major power companies have sunk tens of millions of dollars into a scheme to produce energy by putting hydrogen atoms into a state below their ground state, a feat equivalent to mounting an expedition to explore the region south of the South Pole.

There is, alas, no scientific claim so preposterous that a scientist cannot be found to vouch for it. And many such claims end up in a court of law after they have cost some gullible person or corporation a lot of money. How are juries to evaluate them?

Before 1993, court cases that hinged on the validity of scientific claims were usually decided simply by which expert witness the jury found more credible. Expert testimony often consisted of tortured theoretical speculation with little or no supporting evidence. Jurors were bamboozled by technical gibberish they could not hope to follow, delivered by experts whose credentials they could not evaluate.

In 1993, however, with the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. the situation began to change. The case involved Bendectin, the only morning-sickness medication ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It had been used by millions of women, and more than 30 published studies had found no evidence that it caused birth defects. Yet eight so-called experts were willing to testify, in exchange for a fee from the Daubert family, that Bendectin might indeed cause birth defects.

In ruling that such testimony was not credible because of lack of supporting evidence, the court instructed federal judges to serve as "gatekeepers," screening juries from testimony based on scientific nonsense. Recognizing that judges are not scientists, the court invited judges to experiment with ways to fulfill their gatekeeper responsibility.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer encouraged trial judges to appoint independent experts to help them. He noted that courts can turn to scientific organizations, like the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, to identify neutral experts who could preview questionable scientific testimony and advise a judge on whether a jury should be exposed to it. Judges are still concerned about meeting their responsibilities under the Daubert decision, and a group of them asked me how to recognize questionable scientific claims. What are the warning signs?

I have identified seven indicators that a scientific claim lies well outside the bounds of rational scientific discourse. Of course, they are only warning signs -- even a claim with several of the signs could be legitimate.

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 saltwater.

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.

I began this list of warning signs to help federal judges detect scientific nonsense. But as I finished the list, I realized that in our increasingly technological society, spotting voodoo science is a skill that every citizen should develop.

Robert L. Park is a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and the director of public information for the American Physical Society. He is the author of Voodoo Science: The Road From Foolishness to Fraud (Oxford University Press, 2002).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://chronicle.com Section: The Chronicle Review Volume 49, Issue 21, Page B20

Dr. Park's rules do not seem to allow for authentic dsicoveries of new natural laws.

These aren't rules for scientists; they're rules for judges and ordinary citizens. Judges and voters aren't responsible for deciding what the accepted scientific orthodoxy should be. They're responsible for making reasonable decisions from the bench and in the ballot box, but too often they aren't even minimally equipped to do that.

Many scientific breakthroughs have been put forward by those who did not have formal credentials within a given scientific discipline.

I wouldn't say many. These are the exception rather than the rule, and it's not unreasonable for them to face higher hurdles than ideas from those who are conversant with the mistakes that have been made before. But in the final analysis, any idea is going to stand or fall in the laboratory. No amount of resistance can hold back the truth for long.

I wouldn't say many. These are the exception rather than the rule...

Genetics comes to mind as an idea that came from left field. The theory was, however, published in a legitimate journal.

One could make some rules of thumb about how quickly a revolutionary idea will be adopted, and it has nothing to do with the status of the scientist or his politics. New ideas will be quickly accepted if they are correctly phrased in the language of physical science and mathematics; if they address a problem that others are struggling with; and if they are supported by evidence.

Consider the ideas of John Nash, a certified loon. To the extent that his writings were lucid, he had no problem getting them accepted.

About 10 years ago an Australian Doctor discovered the fact that ulcers were caused by a bacterialogical infection and not the overproduction of stomach acid. His work was initially villified and ridculed by Doctors specializing in ulcer treatment. After several years of travail the Doctors results were accepted and ulscers are now almots always treated by using antibiotics rather than older methods.

Medical research is difficult because, ethically, you have to use the best proven treatment, and because many treatments are only statistically beneficial (you can't tell if they benefit an individual, because some people get well without treatment.) For these and other reasons, progress is slow. Conceptual breakthroughs do not change practice immediately. I don't think you can fault the practices of science for the backwardness of medicine.

I asked you for the color of an electron. Are you denying color exists?

Do electrons have a color? No, electrons don't have an intrinsic color since they are reflectors of em waves. They are more like perfect mirrors. If there is a fundamental em wave associated with an electron it would be at a wavelength far too short to be visible (ie. a color). Perfectly good question that deserves an answer.

Ok, I've answered your question. Now would you answer mine? What is the size and shape of a photon? If that's too hard, maybe you could start by saying whether a photon moves or not and at what speed it moves. I was under the impression that a photon from the Sun takes around 8 minutes to reach the Earth. Is that not true?

As an aside, if a unit step em wave hits a stationary point electron, at what distance from the point electron is the reflected wave's electric field equal to and opposite that in the input unit step? What is the significance of the distance? Of course, I'm asking for a classical analysis, if can lower yourself that far.

"Medical research is difficult because, ethically, you have to use the best proven treatment, and because many treatments are only statistically beneficial..."

You're right. The ulcer case is a poorly chosen example. Medical research is difficult becuase you don't to use human beings as guinea pigs.

I used to work for the Department of Energy which sponsors a lot of basic research. DOE used grant awards which were doled out based on recommendation for a proposal reviewed by a peer review committee. Much of American science is driven by this type of funding arrangement. The potential stultification of new lines of research under such arrangements is obvious. If some inventor did have a working prototype of an "anti-gravity" machine he would never get grant funding under the dominant peer review system because the principles involved were "unproven".

Scientists are first human beings (despite how they like to portray themselves). No human being likes to see years of work overturned suddenly by a new technology no matter how promising the technology maybe for the rest of us.

Dr. Park's attitude is typical of those scientists who work under government funding constraints. This attitude tends to be very conservative and not open to potentially revolutionary concepts in a particular field.

Scientists who work in private R&D are forced to take a different attitude to the scientific process than government-funded scientists. These scientists are compelled to think about protecting the commercial potential of their company's R&D investment. This makes these scientists less amenable to peer reviewed research results and the othere cadenced niceities of academic science. The mere fact that Pons and Fleischman did not publish their "cold fusion" findings in a peer reviewed science journal does not make their work inherently suspect. They were maneuvering to claim exclusive legal rights over their discovery; announcing their claims to the press was helping to establish their case for exclusivity.

The best thing that copuld happen to American science would be to blow up the government funded, peer reviewd grant system and start over.

You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask if they had a color, I asked what color they had. But anyway...

No, electrons don't have an intrinsic color since they are reflectors of em waves. They are more like perfect mirrors.

B.S.. I have somewhere around 10^28 electrons in my body. I'm not a mirror.

What is the size and shape of a photon?

That depends. Write a proper quantum mechanical operator for the property 'size', and calculate its expectation value. My QED is a little rusty, but I think you can do that without invoking creation and annihilation operators and mucking with the number of photons.

As an aside, if a unit step em wave hits a stationary point electron, at what distance from the point electron is the reflected wave's electric field equal to and opposite that in the input unit step

What makes you think a stationary electron (leaving aside the fact that a stationary electron cannot be localized at a single point) reflects em waves? Why would it do that?

I didn't ask if they had a color, I asked what color they had.

Are you trying to sound like some sort of great philosopher? It ain't working...

B.S.. I have somewhere around 10^28 electrons in my body. I'm not a mirror.

You asked about a free electron and I gave you the answer. Now you're talking about your body. The electron is in an atom and behaves differently and absorption/emission come into play. But you know this.

What makes you think a stationary electron (leaving aside the fact that a stationary electron cannot be localized at a single point) reflects em waves? Why would it do that?

Your classical em must be even rustier than your QED. An incident em wave's electric field causes an electron to accelerate. That acceleration causes an spherical em wave to be emitted by the electron which is superimposed on the input. You can call it scattering if you like. I prefer reflection because that's what it looks like - an incident em wave enters from, say, the left and a large chunk of the scattered em energy moves back to the left. Why would it do that? I'll throw throw back one of the photonist's answers: because that's what electrons do!

A photon travels at the speed of light in a vacuum. Your request for "size and shape" really makes no sense. A photon is not really a particle, nor is it strictly a wave. It can behave like a wave in some respects, and like a particle in others. In order to talk about it's shape, you would have to localize it, compress it to a single point. That's not allowed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

How can you say that something with an FT of 1 (eg. a point) has a specific wavelength, which a photon is supposed to have? Nope, you're going to have to broaden that impulse out in time and decrease the amplitude before anything resembling a dominant wavelength emerges. So, how broad in time is a photon (I can handle multiplying by c all by myself)

If you were to try and localize a photon (treat it as a point) you would be compressing it to an incredibly short light pulse. Such pulses can (sort of) be generated. I used to work in a lab with a femtosecond pulse laser system. A pulse of about 25 femtoseconds (1fs = 10^-13 seconds) is spread out over a distance of less than a millimeter. You are correct that this could not have a single wavelength. It typically has a mix of around 40 nm around a central primary wavelength, as opposed to just a few nm for a standard, continuous laser. Photons are not point-like particles, though they can act like particles in specific circumstances (the photoelectric effect for example).

I think you're describing a photon scattering off an electron here, though I'm not quite certain. The problem is, you're asking for a classical response to a question that ONLY Quantum Mechanics will answer. For one thing, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a photon to scatter off an electron without having the elctron respond. If the photon has a wavelength anywhere near that of the size of an electron, it will also have enough energy to excite and move the electron. For this and other reasons, you NEED QM to solve this problem.

Are you trying to sound like some sort of great philosopher? It ain't working...

You really don't want to answer that question, do you?

You asked about a free electron and I gave you the answer

Nowhere did I say 'free electron'. Stop making things up. Besides, electrons are indistinguishable particles. A free electron can't be a different color from a bound electron. What color is it?

Your classical em must be even rustier than your QED. An incident em wave's electric field causes an electron to accelerate.

For a guy who's so insistent others answer his questions, you're sure slippery about answering other people's. Let me repeat. Why would a stationary electron reflect e.m. waves?

You are pointing out very real problems with our current system of research funding and our system of evaluating new research. It is true that some good ideas will get swept under the rug and some good researchers will not be given the time of day if their research is not conventional or even a popular subject among those in the field. This sucks and I wish it could change.

But some kind of peer review system is essential for filtering out the innumerable whackos out there who think they are doing science and are capable of convincing nonscientists that this is the case. It is possible that some good theories will get lost in the noise of crap that people try to pass off as legitimate science, but I see no way out of this. As it stands crap does sometimes get in under the radar, so to speak. Dr. Schon of Bell labs was fired ofter it was revealed that he had been falsifying evidence and passed it off as legitimate research. This went on for years until someone finally caught him while studying some of his papers. The happy ending is that he was caught. You can't keep doing this sort of thing because someone, somewhere will try to reproduce it and will realize that you were making it up.

The peer review system isn't perfect, but it does work. The control that government exerts of research is lamentable, but there is noone poised to pick up the slack if it were to just stop for some reason. Basic science is just not profitable enough in the short term to interest corporate backers.

I have a nephew who is schizophrenic. His father (my brother) is a psychiatrist. My nephew is not a genius, but he did graduate from a university with high honors. Then he started aquiring guns. Lots of them. My son shared an apartment with him and found a diary in which he talked about taking people with him. He listed the people he would take with him. He never hurt anyone, but his behavior led to a divorce, a lot of family turmoil, and a lot of pain. He's medicated now and doing ok, but he can't hold a steady job. He tutors children.

There is nothing more disturbing than a brain that doesn't work right. My nephew had the same initial response to medication as depicted in Beautiful Mind. It wrecked his ability to concentrate, he hated it, and refused to take the meds. I understand it is rare to be able to come to grips with a dual reality, to function in the "real" and to stop paying attention to the other "real" world. They are both equally compelling to the victim.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.