[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

[Physicist]

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.

[Hodar]

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

What you have said is true, however this article is more of a list of generic 'warnings', than any hard and fast set of rules. And for a simple list of 'rules of thumb'; it's pretty well thought out.

[js1138]

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.