Scientific Regress

[JDL]

In spite of tenuous evidence of government knowledge of bigfoot, I still simply cannot believe that the federal government is so incompetent that it is unaware of them.

[Guest DWA]

From the article:  "If peer review is good at anything, it appears to be keeping unpopular ideas from being published. "

 

This has always been the fatal flaw of peer review, something that bigfoot skeptics - and "scientists" in general - seem to have a particularly hard time understanding.

[Guest DWA]

In spite of tenuous evidence of government knowledge of bigfoot, I still simply cannot believe that the federal government is so incompetent that it is unaware of them.

Same here.  But I simply cannot believe that there is some sort of Nefarious Coverup going on here.  The government simply has much more important things to do than handle large vats of worms.  This simply isn't their job.

[Guest DWA]

From the article:  

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like monasticism, science is an enterprise with a superhuman aim whose achievement is forever beyond the capacities of the flawed humans who aspire toward it. The best scientists know that they must practice a sort of mortification of the ego and cultivate a dispassion that allows them to report their findings, even when those findings might mean the dashing of hopes, the drying up of financial resources, and the loss of professional prestige. It should be no surprise that even after outgrowing the monasteries, the practice of science has attracted souls driven to seek the truth regardless of personal cost and despite, for most of its history, a distinct lack of financial or status reward. Now, however, science and especially science bureaucracy is a career, and one amenable to social climbing. Careers attract careerists, in Feyerabend’s words: “devoid of ideas, full of fear, intent on producing some paltry result so that they can add to the flood of inane papers that now constitutes ‘scientific progress’ in many areas.â€

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

And so here we are.  Bigfooters' mistrust of scientists may actually be well-founded.  VERY well-founded.

Edited April 21, 2016 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

Fringe topic 101:  When rationalizing the failure of the fringe topic in question (in this case bigfoot) it is SOP to assign the failure to outside forces, institutions, and agencies.  These may be  in the form of the government at large, specific government or quasi government agencies, academic institutions and institutions of professional discipline.  Practitioners within the fringe topic are encouraged to maintain both an insular certainty that their approach to evidence and information is both more substantial and intellectually honest than those of the aforementioned and that it is directly the  obfuscation administered by those agencies that prevent the rightful place and conclusion of the fringe topic.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Crowlogic

[FarArcher]

Actually, academic, professional, and government institutions all fight for funding.

 

The bulk of their existence is to perpetually seek funding.  Funding determines science.  Funding directs science by funding only those things the funding source wants to determine.  

 

For example, in medicine, a significant majority of funding is by wealthy pharmaceutical companies - who want to discover more and more treatments - they can profit from - rather than funding cures which they can't really profit from.

 

Another trick they use is to seek funding for a very narrow, very specific sliver of a discipline.  They'll publish their findings using a .  .  .  say 10% subject content, show it may indicate this or that, and this allows them to seek more funding for another year or two to chase a 20% concentration of the subject content.  A year or two later, they'll maybe seek funding for a 30% concentration.  It's about a long-term paycheck.  When at the time, for the same funding, they could have done simultaneous 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and other concentrations at no additional cost.

 

Then, you have academics that don't want touchdowns - rather they just want to pick up a few yards - and incrementally move the ball forward - again, seeking multiple one or two year fundings, to perpetuate their paychecks doing research.

 

No one in the scientific establishment is going to fund something that may create problems for the already established science where the experts - are the authorities and want to remain the authorities.  

 

No one will recall, but I remember one gentleman pushing for amorphous semiconductors - and all physicists from every nook and corner of the world derided him for even considering such a thing.  It was impossible, a complete waste of time, and according to them violated known physics.  He quietly went about his work, and one day amorphous semiconductors began showing up in electronics - and then EVERYONE knew it was a good idea all along.  

 

You want to go to the moon?  With chalkboards and slide rules?  Fund it!  And it gets done.

 

Funding is everything.  

 

And BF isn't getting any.  It would be interesting to fund a search for the scores of large sloped forehead skulls and giant skeletons sent to the Smithsonian.  Scores were sent there, but they can't seem to be found, and they certainly are not on display.

[SWWASAS]

I hope those sloped forehead giant skeletons did not make the trip out on the boat into the Atlantic to be dumped as has been claimed.    Got evidence that bothers the establishment?   Get rid of it.  

[MikeZimmer]

The anti science meme, it lives!

I'm not anti-science, just anti-inadequate science. I went to grad school and worked in several research labs, and almost became a researcher. I was always more interested in the methods themselves than the subject matter, in my field at least.

 

However, when major journals and editors of major journals (e.g., The Lancet) start reporting on the vast systemic problems in science, it should give one pause.

 

We also need to rethink the whole utility of science in many research areas, where the signal to noise ratio is so great that many spurious statistical results will routinely be found. Science is a set of tools and a set of approaches which do have limitations.

[MikeZimmer]

From the mainstream, a significant article. Not an easy read in some ways, but worth it.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

 

 

PLoS Med. 2005 Aug; 2(: e124.

Published online 2005 Aug 30. doi:  10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

PMCID: PMC1182327

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

John P. A. Ioannidis

 

 

Abstract

Summary

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies [1–3] to the most modern molecular research [4,5]. There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims [6–8]. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false. Here I will examine the key factors that influence this problem and some corollaries thereof.

 

Continues at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

[MikeZimmer]

Another article from a mainstream perspective:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964337/

 

 

Editors, Publishers, Impact Factors, and Reprint Income

Harvey Marcovitch^*

 

Editors under Pressure—Avoiding Conflicts

Editors would like to imagine they are simply gatekeepers who facilitate the interaction between authors who wish to impart information and people who want to read it. In fact, they are subject to a raft of external pressures that interfere with this core task. Coauthors are prone to disputes with each other and with reviewers; rejected authors may protest; readers may be dissatisfied; institutions may react inadequately to editors' concerns about probity; editorial freedom may be compromised by the demands of the learned society that owns the journal; and a commercial publisher might exert subtle—or unsubtle—pressure to increase profitability. All of these distractions increase the possibility of competing interests corrupting the editorial process.

 

 

Article continues here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964337/

[MikeZimmer]

And this one, from a (the?) former editor of The Lancet.

 

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf

 

Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?

 

Richard Horton
richard.horton@lancet.com

 

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get resultsâ€. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational  weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism  too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance†pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants.

 

PDF here: http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf

Edited May 1, 2016 by MikeZimmer

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

I was referring more to the crowd that does not accept basic geology, standard evolutionary theory, classic anthropology often in support of a fundamentalist agenda or pseudo scientific agenda such as ALIENS!!! or the world is only 6000 years old, of facts that fly in the face of established field work and analysis and defy reality.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[FarArcher]

Yeah, well, when one gets into the details of fossil finds, for example, there's frequently less geology, and more conforming the numbers to match the preconceived determinations.  

 

I have a problem with "standard evolutionary theory."  Why is this "evolutionary theory" so limited?  Next question, why is this "evolutionary theory" so very selective and only works on a few species, and not at all on others?

 

Wouldn't this evolutionary theory apply across the board if this were a real mechanism?  99.5% of all species are extinct.  I don't see adaptation as should be so very evident, rather I see lots of extinctions.

 

Glad you included geology and evolution.  For current evolution theory to be a working mechanism, one must have what can be termed steady-state geology.  After all, if it takes eons to alter and change in a painfully slowly method to a new, improved species, the geology must me steady state.  But it's not.  Geology is catastrophic geology - eras defined by mass extinctions.  You can't morph if you go extinct.

 

Then there's the extreme selectivity of this "evolutionary theory."  Slow incremental changes, if a true mechanism, should be a universal mechanism, or a mechanism that works on all organisms, more or less at the same rate.  

 

In older books, especially on the fossil records, was at least one highly detailed, complete fossil of a coelecanth, and we were told A) the coelecanth went extinct 66,000,000 years ago, one could look at the stubby lower fins and see them clearly in the process of evolving into legs.

 

Son of a gun.  Found living coelecanths, and they are identical to the fossil dated to have gone extinct 66,000,000 years ago.  Guess what?  No legs.  No change.  Same fish.  No evolving whatsoever.  Now we know this is not a perfect fish, so it should have gotten slimmer, bigger, smaller, more efficient - something!  But it didn't.

 

So over 66 million years, not one tittle of evolving, but somehow, the most complicated, most intelligent thing to walk the earth, went from a primitive h. Heidelbergensis to a modern human in less than 600,000 years.  That's quite a transition.  Fast, too!

 

I don't think the narrative is right.  I have no idea what the correct narrative is, but I know BS when I smell it.

[Faenor]

Evolution does work on every species it is not limited or selective. In fact it works like clockwork to an extent accurate predictions on the date of divergence between two species can be calculated based upon the number of changes in nucleotides.

The coelcanth may be morphologically similar to fossils but it will have evolved a radically different genome. There are silent mutations which change out a nucleotide without changing the translated amino acid. Changing out amino acids through mutation may also not alter the structure or function of the protein.

The coelecanth did not drastically evolve morpholohically because it successfully filled a niche. Any mutations which altered the shape or function been selected against and out competed off or evolved to fill another niche that didnt directly compete with the coelecanth. There are several species that have not changed morphologically for millions years.

Put down whatever nonsense anti evolution pamphlet you got from the zealot factory and pick up a college, or at least high school or middle school, biology textbook. There has been over 150 years of scholarship in biology all pointing to the same conclusion. Why people think a few flawed examples and faulty logic they make up trumps that i dont know. Wake up and get with the 21st century.

[JDL]

The Theory of Evolution is too limited to apply to everything we see in nature.  It is sufficient for much, but not all.  Yet, dogmatic adherence is common among theories crafted by people enamored of the Theory of The Theory of Everything.

 

In the case of humans, proponents espouse that there must be continual improvement of the species.  This may, may, apply with regard to humans if you have a limited perspective (we have reached the point scientifically and socially that we now circumvent the Theory of Evolution by preserving genetic diseases and limitations that would have been selected out in past centuries, and some contend that we are setting ourselves up for a major die-off in the event of any disaster that deprives us of something so basic as electricity - a 50% die off based on a couple of Congressional reports that I have read), but it does not necessarily apply to all species.

 

The simple fact that we now selectively breed and genetically modify various species is another example of how the Theory of Evolution can be circumvented.

 

Nature is dynamic.  Biology responds.  Evolution, though, is not, first and foremost, about improvement.  It is about survival.  In the case of the Coelocanth, its biology was sufficient to a certain set of environmental conditions.  It remains sufficient, though the environmental conditions that can support it have become more geographically limited.  It may also be that there are descendants of the Coelocanth that look nothing like it which have adapted to environments that the Coelocanth cannot occupy.

 

Catastrophic conditions have to be incorporated into the Theory also.  The development of an antibiotic is catastrophic to bacteria and they evolve to respond.  The accident at Chernobyl spurred the mutation and evolution of field mice in the affected area.  Intervention by a species on the development of another, or even on the development of its own is technically a catastrophic event.

 

The concepts of devolution through the preservation of the unfit in our own species must be accounted for, as must the practice of Eugenics.

 

So I agree that the Theory of Evolution is limited.  I also agree that dogmatic adherence to the Theory of Evolution can lead one to disregard or reject evidence that does not agree with prevailing thought, so when one insists that 150 years of scholarship have affirmed the Theory of Evolution, I would counter that it is more likely that 150 years of dogma have been applied to protecting the Theory if it does not account for everything we see in nature - which it does not.

 

Technically, Faenor, the Theory of Evolution itself demands that species be able to evolve beyond the constraints of the Theory of Evolution.

 

No one has yet started calling it the Law of Evolution.

Edited May 2, 2016 by JDL