Junk Science Alert!

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

[Right Wing Professor]

So, Mike, what color is an electron?

I don't know, you tell me.

I can't. It's a nonsensical question. Just like the size and shape of a photon.

[Right Wing Professor]

There is a lot of CH4 from beavers however.

I thought it came from their guts?

Oh, you meant the animals. Never mind....

[chilepepper]

Contrary to what you seem to think, the scientific community is not the Republican party

EXACTLY RIGHT. *MUCH* of the scientific community is like the DEMOCRATIC party, with an explicit, and implicit, agenda, which tends to foster the theories currently in vogue. If you try to promote an idea which is contrary to the prevailing "world view" of the elder scientists...

you simply WILL NOT GET TENURE and WILL NOT PUBLISH.

this ends up working on scientists as a whole the same way it works on faculty who do not tow the PC line on feminism, race, the environment, you get the picture.

now it so happens that i believe there is a *LOT* of bologna and junk science out there, but I assure you many of the future breakthroughs in science are waiting there in the junkyard for someone to understand and develop them...

[RightWhale]

According to Singleton at Oxford, distributions of electrons and ions can travel faster than the speed of light when the dielectric material is polarized while individual electrons or ions cannot. He is experimenting with an antenna using a special polarization current distribution where the radiation falls off more slowly than the inverse square law. But perhaps eddy currents are confusing the result. Research continues.

[rustbucket]

Park's article mentions peer review as a way for judges to assess scientific truth. Articles that have been peer reviewed probably do in general contain better science than those that have not undergone the process.

However, just because an article has passed peer review doesn't mean it is correct or that unpeer-reviewed counter evidence by other scientists is necessarily incorrect (it may simply have not undergone peer review yet). Richard Feynman zeroed in on O-ring failure as a cause of the Challenger disaster -- was this incorrect because it had not been peer reviewed?

Peer review can depend in part on the beliefs and prejudices of the reviewers and how rigorous the policies of the journal in which an article is published. For example, if an article in favor of creation science is sent only to creationists for peer review, it would likely pass. If the same article were sent to evolutionists, it would likely fail. That is an extreme example, but the same sorts of personal passions exist in scientific controversies (creation science isn't science).

Peer-reviewed repeat experiments, alternate experiments, and additional data by other scientists are perhaps better ways of establishing scientific truth than peer review of one article alone.

[gomaaa]

You're talking about motion INSIDE a dielectric material? The speed of light in any material is slower than the actual speed of light in a vacuum. This has little to do with the speed of light in general and is more of an electromagnetic property of the material. It is possible for objects like electrons to move faster than this speed of light, just as it's possible for airplanes to fly faster than the speed of sound. They even give off radiation in a shock wave just like a sonic boom. It's called Cherenkov radiation.

Still, it sounds like VERY interesting work. Got a link? I guess I could do a Google search, but I'm just too lazy at the moment.

[RightWhale]

I don't have a link, but it is in the current issue of Physics World. [Yes, there is such a publication, and it's target audience is the general public. Lotsa pictures, not much math.]

Article is titled "Futuristic device defies law." Pg 6.

[Youngblood]

Peer-reviewed repeat experiments, alternate experiments, and additional data by other scientists are perhaps better ways of establishing scientific truth than peer review of one article alone.

Obviously! Isn't this the way it works?

If someone has a new idea, the burden of proof is on them. If the conclusions are sound, they'll attract support and inspire further research.

[longshadow]

How many times do I have to tell you? Anti-gravity in the basement; perpetual motion in the attic. And in the garage (pronounced "guy-RAHGE") I do my FTL work.

A thousand pardons for my juxtaposition, your crankiness.......

[rustbucket]

Obviously! Isn't this the way it works?

One would hope so. My concern is that judges that are not scientifically trained might opt to accept only things that have undergone the peer review process. I fear that in some cases such a judge might rule out valid data.

If a case involves data that have not undergone peer review and/or are too complex for a non-scientist judge, perhaps the judge should set up a scientific review panel. Such panels do not need to involve the National Academy.

In cases involving competing scientific interpretations, the poor judge and jury sometimes don't know what to believe.

[Ben Ficklin]

The authors second example in the first paragraph would be Black Light Power and there some heavy hitters there, both technical and managerial.

[mikegi]

You're asking ill-formed questions. They don't make physical sense.

Of course, the classic cop out.

Now you demand that quantum objects and properties be described in terms of quotidian objects and properties, but it can't be done.

No, I'm not. I'm asking for the dimensions of your photon. Are you denying the existence of space? Are there time delays involved in interactions? Seeing the typical "ill-formed questions" response makes me want to write a "Indicators that you're involved in a cult".

Meanwhile, if you want to understand how a photon can be both pointlike and wavelike, study the Fourier transformation.

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).

[Physicist]

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?

Look, if you aren't conversant with the basics of quantum mechanics, why do you feel that you are in a position to critique it? The whole point is that if you are locating the photon to a specific place, it cannot have a specific frequency, and if you measure the photon to a specific frequency, it cannot have a specific location. That is both a theoretical imperative and an irreducible experimental fact. If you specified both the position and frequency of a photon, it would constitute a violation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

[Youngblood]

If a case involves data that have not undergone peer review and/or are too complex for a non-scientist judge, perhaps the judge should set up a scientific review panel.

Sound advice. One would hope that this already is the practise.

Such panels do not need to involve the National Academy.

I don't live in the States. Why do you think this National Academy need not necessarily be involved? What is their role in the scientific field?

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

On a scale of 1-10 this one was about a 7 for paperless solution. "that" is a give away. (could be "else" but 9 out of 10 times abca pattern is "that".) Other easy words are "people" and "always".

- Keep hacking.

[PatrickHenry]

Junk science placemarker.

[rustbucket]

Why do you think this National Academy need not necessarily be involved? What is their role in the scientific field?

In my opinion, the National Academy of Science ought to focus on matters of high scientific interest and public policy, not on scientific disputes in private litigation. I've known a number of people who have served on NAS panels. I jointly wrote and published a scientific paper with one of them and once supervised another. None of their scientific duties for NAS involved resolving court disputes.

The Daubert court case mentioned by the lead article of this thread is important for limiting the use of junk science in the US court room. I applaud it in general. Long before Daubert, however, I saw a scientific arbitration panel formed by members of both sides of a dispute that revolved around scientific issues. The scientists reviewed data from both sides and agreed on a recommendation.

I don't live in the States.

Looks like you are from Ireland, land of some of my ancestors. Tell me, what is the mood of the people there about the Iraq issue? Answer me by Freepmail if you would -- I don't mean to divert this thread from its original subject.

[husky ed]

When I was reading the article, all of a sudden it popped into my head how simlar to Clinton this was.

And maybe I just hang out on FR too much.

[ggekko]

Dr. Park's rules do not seem to allow for authentic dsicoveries of new natural laws. Admitedly, such an event is rare but that is how science progresses. Many scientific breakthroughs have been put forward by those who did not have formal credentials within a given scientific discipline.

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.

The aspect of any new authentic scientific discovery should be repeatability. If other scientists can reproduce the same results using the same methods then it is authentic discovery. Solely relying the assessment of experts who have a vested interest in the current theory is a recipe for scientific stagnation.

[PatrickHenry]

100