Junk Science Alert!

The Chronicle of Higher Education ^ | 1/31/03 | ROBERT L. PARK

[gomaaa]

The prevalence of junk science today is truly disturbing. Judges are not the only ones who can benefit from knowing these warning signs. Circulate this among friends and family!

[RoughDobermann]

Yep, I agree. After all, "everything that could ever be invented has already been invented..."

[gomaaa]

Out of curiousity, who said that?

[facedown]

Good rules of thumb.

[RoughDobermann]

IIRC, some English twit. I'll see if I can find out...

[RoughDobermann]

I think I misquoted. I believe that it was actually, "Everything worth having must already have been invented."

[RoughDobermann]

Here ya go.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." - Charles H. Duell

Questionably attributed to him anyway.

[RoughDobermann]

He was American Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents

[gomaaa]

Gracias.

[tje]

I believe it came from the head of the US patent office in the late 1800's.... whoever he was...

[Hodar]

Of course, they are only warning signs -- even a claim with several of the signs could be legitimate.

As rules of thumb, I think the author has a good point. However, just because someone thinks something is impossible, doesn't necessarily make it so.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

That isn't what he said.

[gomaaa]

Yeah, they don't always apply. Einstein was a lowly patent clerk who worked largely alone and suddenly turned physics on its head. Then again he did have a good physics education and published first in a good journal. The rules here will allow people to filter out the vast majority of cranks.

[RoughDobermann]

Yes, like I said, questionably attributed to him.

[RightWhale]

The Patent and Trademark Office recently issued Patent 6,362,718 for a physically impossible motionless electromagnetic generator

There could be a few dozen claims in the original application and the patent granted to only one of the claims. For example, the PTO might grant a design patent for the shape of a magnet without granting a patent for a ZPE machine in its entirety.

[RoughDobermann]

Indeed

[husky ed]

Judges are not the only ones who can benefit from knowing these warning signs.

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media
"I did not have sex with that woman"

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work
"It's a Right Wing Conspiracy"

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
"Stained blue dress"

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
"It was just about sex"

5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries
"Everybody cheats"

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation
"It's the hardest he's ever worked in his life, and it's for the children!"

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
Define what "is" is.

[Frank_Discussion]

While I do tend to hate junk science myself, you have to consider the source. Dr. Park is not exactly impartial about things outside of scientific establishment. He also is hard-wired against human space travel, and wastes no opportunity to bash NASA for it's fixation upon it. It seems this article is meant to merely bolster his "NASA is just nutty" premise in a general way. Character assasination, if you will.

The field of electrogravitics (his first example in the article) is subject to the whims of peer review and scientific community peer pressure. In the 40's and 50's a fellow by the name of T.Townsend Brown had government backing for such research, and the results of his work still stand as valid. I've seen his stuff denegrated a goodly bit, though, and researchers who try to realistically follow up on his work often find themselves unpublished and alone. Such is the capricious nature of scientific circles.

Park's rules are useful, when it is assumed that they'll be applied scientifically. Often, however, they are abused.

[gomaaa]

True, and it's my understanding (though this could be wrong) that the gadget in question doesn't have to actually work in order to get a patent on it. That doesn't make it any less rediculous that someone thought this sort of thing COULD work, but the system gives them the benefit of the doubt.

[RightWhale]

the gadget in question doesn't have to actually work

That's true. One thing the PTO refused to consider last time I checked is any kind of perpetual motion device. I assume a ZPE device would be considered a perpetual motion device if the claims present it as such. It's all in how the claims are written.