Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scigirl · 03-07-2003, 10:11 AM

My apologies if this article has already been posted here, just thought it was really cool.

The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science

The article goes into detail, but here is the list:

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.

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

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

Enjoy!

scigirl

Muad'Dib · 03-07-2003, 10:40 AM

Thanks, scigirl, great article!

I'm also a fan of the less practical but more amusing crackpot index.

Late_Cretaceous · 03-07-2003, 11:31 AM

These are pretty typical of the types of individuals who inundate many scientists with their "theories". Many prominant scientists (like Stephan Hawking) have to have people to screen their e-mail in order to filter out the weirdos. Nowadays, those unapreciated great minds with revolutionary new discoveries have a wider forum - the internet. Any crackpot can put his zany ideas up for anyone to see (including school kids researching reports - yikes).

Most of them beleive that mainstream science is basically wrong about certain things, and that they - and they alone can see the truth. Of course, the establishment is always out to get them. Oh, if only the world would listen to them.

an amusing list of the cranks

Nuno Figueira · 03-07-2003, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.

Hey, they really are out to get me! Seriously.

Ensign Steve · 03-07-2003, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

Did not Newton and Einstein do this very thing? Granted, their observations stood up to critial scrutiny and peer review, and that is why their theories led to the new discovery of old laws of nature. But, the other six aside, I don't think #7 is enough to write off the theory as bogus. Of course you said these were just "warning signs" so I'll go with it. Great article! Thanks!

Jen

Muad'Dib · 03-07-2003, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JenniferD
Did not Newton and Einstein do this very thing? Granted, their observations stood up to critial scrutiny and peer review, and that is why their theories led to the new discovery of old laws of nature. But, the other six aside, I don't think #7 is enough to write off the theory as bogus. Of course you said these were just "warning signs" so I'll go with it. Great article! Thanks!

Jen

Hi Jen,

Good points. Something the article goes into in a little more detail is that legitimate proposals of new laws are either consistent with existing laws, or offer replacements with superior explanatory and predictive power. Such was the case with Newton and Einstein. Crackpot proposals, on the other hand, contradict known laws without predicting nearly as much.

Lobstrosity · 03-07-2003, 04:28 PM

Einstein's special relativity mathematically reduces to classical physics when v << c. In this way, his theory was more of a refinement of existing theory that looked into details that had not yet been widely considered. He didn't simply make up something completely new and off the wall. Also, his new theories made testable predictions and were thus wide open for falsifiability and hence refutation. I think the proposal of new laws of physics can be considered good science so long as they don't conflict with pre-existing experimental data and as long as they make testable predictions.

And maybe if I had read the full article or Muad'dib's post above I would have seen that this has already been said. Ah well, at least I have independently agreed with others, thereby increasing the reliability of the claims made

beausoleil · 03-07-2003, 04:57 PM

8. It's only been published in Science or Nature.

Only half joking

lpetrich · 03-07-2003, 09:19 PM

Nice to see you back, scigirl.

And what that article described is rather similar to the symptoms of crackpottery described in Martin Gardner's classic Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science; some of these can be found in this page on pseudoscience. Consider:

"To me truth is precious. . . . I should rather be right and stand alone than to run with the multitude and be wrong. . . . The holding of the views herein set forth has already won for me the scorn and contempt and ridicule of some of my fellowmen. I am looked upon as being odd, strange, peculiar. . . . But truth is truth and though all the world reject it and turn against me, I will cling to truth still." from a 1931 booklet by Charles Silvester de Ford arguing that the earth is flat. (Martin Gardner, Fads and Fallacies)

There are, however, interesting differences between various sorts of pseudoscientists. Creationists are much more political than astrologers, for example. I don't know of any lobbies of astrologers pressing school boards and school-textbook writers to give equal time for astrology in science classes.

gilly54 · 03-07-2003, 10:03 PM

Wasn't number 2 voiced by Galileo when the RCC tried to silence/excommunicate him?

03-07-2003, 10:11 AM	#1
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science My apologies if this article has already been posted here, just thought it was really cool. The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science The article goes into detail, but here is the list: 1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. 2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. 3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection. 4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal. 5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries. 6. The discoverer has worked in isolation. 7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation. Enjoy! scigirl

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-07-2003, 10:40 AM	#2
Muad'Dib Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 845	Thanks, scigirl, great article! I'm also a fan of the less practical but more amusing crackpot index.

03-07-2003, 11:31 AM	#3
Late_Cretaceous Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Alberta Posts: 1,049	These are pretty typical of the types of individuals who inundate many scientists with their "theories". Many prominant scientists (like Stephan Hawking) have to have people to screen their e-mail in order to filter out the weirdos. Nowadays, those unapreciated great minds with revolutionary new discoveries have a wider forum - the internet. Any crackpot can put his zany ideas up for anyone to see (including school kids researching reports - yikes). Most of them beleive that mainstream science is basically wrong about certain things, and that they - and they alone can see the truth. Of course, the establishment is always out to get them. Oh, if only the world would listen to them. an amusing list of the cranks

03-07-2003, 04:28 PM	#7
Lobstrosity Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 719	Einstein's special relativity mathematically reduces to classical physics when v << c. In this way, his theory was more of a refinement of existing theory that looked into details that had not yet been widely considered. He didn't simply make up something completely new and off the wall. Also, his new theories made testable predictions and were thus wide open for falsifiability and hence refutation. I think the proposal of new laws of physics can be considered good science so long as they don't conflict with pre-existing experimental data and as long as they make testable predictions. And maybe if I had read the full article or Muad'dib's post above I would have seen that this has already been said. Ah well, at least I have independently agreed with others, thereby increasing the reliability of the claims made

03-07-2003, 04:57 PM	#8
beausoleil Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: US and UK Posts: 846	8. It's only been published in Science or Nature. Only half joking

03-07-2003, 09:19 PM	#9
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Nice to see you back, scigirl. And what that article described is rather similar to the symptoms of crackpottery described in Martin Gardner's classic Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science; some of these can be found in this page on pseudoscience. Consider: "To me truth is precious. . . . I should rather be right and stand alone than to run with the multitude and be wrong. . . . The holding of the views herein set forth has already won for me the scorn and contempt and ridicule of some of my fellowmen. I am looked upon as being odd, strange, peculiar. . . . But truth is truth and though all the world reject it and turn against me, I will cling to truth still." from a 1931 booklet by Charles Silvester de Ford arguing that the earth is flat. (Martin Gardner, Fads and Fallacies) There are, however, interesting differences between various sorts of pseudoscientists. Creationists are much more political than astrologers, for example. I don't know of any lobbies of astrologers pressing school boards and school-textbook writers to give equal time for astrology in science classes.

03-07-2003, 10:03 PM	#10
gilly54 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New Almaden, California Posts: 917	Wasn't number 2 voiced by Galileo when the RCC tried to silence/excommunicate him?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.