Is Science Really Self-Correcting?

[paddoboy]

It seems some are just plain ignorant of a couple of important facts that have already been raised..........................................
Science and the scientific method is certainly self correcting in the main: That has been proven time and time again down through the ages. It isn't perfect though...what is?
.
And of course despite all the whooha and criticism directed at science, there would not be too many who would chose to live in a world without all aspects of science,I bet my short n curlies!
Just imagine, no medicine, no phone, no computers, no TV, no radio, no cars buses, trains or ferries....
This may help deflate any orgasm that some are appear to be having.....

 

[timojin]

And of course despite all the whooha and criticism directed at science, there would not be too many who would chose to live in a world without all aspects of science,I bet my short n curlies!
Just imagine, no medicine, no phone, no computers, no TV, no radio, no cars buses, trains or ferries....
No knowledge of the Moon, Sun and stars.
Those inclined would be worshiping the Sun, the Moon, Volcanoes, rivers etc, in between swinging from branch to branch....Ahh the joy of it all!

You forgot the science on how to make fire , ferment drinks , produce copper make bronze , Iron, Of course that was not called science

 

[paddoboy]

You forgot the science on how to make fire , ferment drinks , produce copper make bronze , Iron, Of course that was not called science

Did you read "swinging from branch to branch"?

 

[Write4U]

Of course. It's easy. but I doubt anyone is unaware of what wikipedia is.

I don't want to defend the authority of Wikipedia, but I start a lot of my searches in wiki. IMO, it is a good starting point for references to *published* works and if the narratives on a specific scientific concept allow me to understand the fundamental principles involved, I may quote a specific passage from wiki to illustrate my understanding of an aspect of the subject.

I use Wiki the same as Youtube, they are libraries on a great variety of subjects which are instantly accessible with a few *key words*.
Wiki --> Published works and general related information.
Youtube --> Live recordings of lectures and/or debates and general related information, as well as music.

These sites can be useful, if used with discretion and some critical thinking.

 

[Russ_Watters]

c'est la vie?

Grok'd!

Snarp!

 

[Russ_Watters]

I don't want to defend the authority of Wikipedia, but I start a lot of my searches in wiki.

As do I: As I said, it is easy. It is also reasonably concise and clearly written, on a generally not super technical level, which is good for layperson discussions. As long as the topic isn't too cutting edge or controversial, it is generally pretty reliable.

 

[exchemist]

Many Members on this Forum often Cite Wikipedia to support their "science"...

Perchance you noticed that I put Quotation Marks (" ") around a certain word in my Post?

And quite right too. Wikipedia is in general a very good source on at least the less contentious science topics. I use it quite a lot - for chemistry and the physics that relates to chemistry - and make no apology for doing so.

 

[paddoboy]

And quite right too. Wikipedia is in general a very good source on at least the less contentious science topics. I use it quite a lot - for chemistry and the physics that relates to chemistry - and make no apology for doing so.

hear hear!

 

[exchemist]

I found this today:
from: https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2016/04/11/is-science-really-self-correcting/


Long ago, I got into an argument with a "clovis first" professor who really had not kept up with the science.
He said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof!"
I said: "Except when they are yours."

Almost daily, I read really crazy stuff fabricated to refute someone else's work.
One recent one is "cranial elasticity" for morphological differences.

Will you look twice and engage in a little skeptical research the next time someone cites Nature?

I find the article unremarkable. First, I am amused to see that its thesis - that science is not self-correcting - is actually illustrated by a news story of a scientist who lost his job for fraud! Thus illustrating that this guy WAS excreted from the body scientific. It concerns some fellow called Schoen who falsified data in physics papers published in 2000 and 20001. It is reported, with horror, that this was not finally brought to light until 8 years later. The peer review process is blamed for not detecting the fraud.

But that is not surprising, since the peer review process does not set out to check that data is not fraudulent - how can it? Peer review does not involve repeating or all the experimental work! All it can do is check that the author has apparently followed a good process, that the conclusions drawn are legitimate, based on the data presented and that no blunders have been made in any of the supported science or maths that is relied upon. If you get actual fraud, it obviously can take non-routine measures to detect it, just as it does in any other form of fraud. Fraudsters are cunning.

In this case it was all corrected in less than a decade, which is not bad, it seems to me.

The whole article strikes me as a rather silly straw man, alleging that science presents itself as holy and incorruptible when, like any human activity, it obviously is not. It is undeniably true that, over the course of history, science IS self-correcting. But you need to use a historian's timescale for this be true, not that of some impatient journalist looking for a headline.

 

[exchemist]

I find the article unremarkable. First, I am amused to see that its thesis - that science is not self-correcting - is actually illustrated by a news story of a scientist who lost his job for fraud! Thus illustrating that this guy WAS excreted from the body scientific. It concerns some fellow called Schoen who falsified data in physics papers published in 2000 and 20001. It is reported, with horror, that this was not finally brought to light until 8 years later. The peer review process is blamed for not detecting the fraud.

But that is not surprising, since the peer review process does not set out to check that data is not fraudulent - how can it? Peer review does not involve repeating or all the experimental work! All it can do is check that the author has apparently followed a good process, that the conclusions drawn are legitimate, based on the data presented and that no blunders have been made in any of the supported science or maths that is relied upon. If you get actual fraud, it obviously can take non-routine measures to detect it, just as it does in any other form of fraud. Fraudsters are cunning.

In this case it was all corrected in less than a decade, which is not bad, it seems to me.

The whole article strikes me as a rather silly straw man, alleging that science presents itself as holy and incorruptible when, like any human activity, it obviously is not. It is undeniably true that, over the course of history, science IS self-correcting. But you need to use a historian's timescale for this be true, not that of some impatient journalist looking for a headline.

Footnote: I see the journalist's name (Laframboise) is an English slang term for the farting noise used to signify abuse. Is this a joke name?

 

[origin]

FYI Gobeklitepe is monumental architecture dated to 12,000 years ago.
while the neolithic revolution/ (switch to sedentary agricultural life) is estimated to have happened circa 10,000 years ago.

The neoplithic revolution occurred about 12,000 years ago. The Gobeklitepe site is about 12,000 years old. So this is evidence why you should not trust science? Hmmm, OK whatever.

 

[Russ_Watters]

It concerns some fellow called Schoen who falsified data in physics papers published in 2000 and 20001. It is reported, with horror, that this was not finally brought to light until 8 years later.

Two years later. The papers were withdrawn by Science and Physical review in October and December of 2002, respectively - after an investigation by Bell Labs concluded he was a fraud in September. His phd was rescinded in 2004.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schön_scandal

To me, this is a remarkably fast self-correction and I too was amused and bemused by the example. A big swing and a miss!

 

[exchemist]

Two years later. The papers were withdrawn by Science and Physical review in October and December of 2002, respectively - after an investigation by Bell Labs concluded he was a fraud in September. His phd was rescinded in 2004.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schön_scandal

To me, this is a remarkably fast self-correction and I too was amused and bemused by the example. A big swing and a miss!

My mistake then - thanks for the correction. I read the article a bit too fast and confused the date of an interview about it with the date the fraud itself came to light. But interesting that Schoen is such a cause celebre that he warrants a Wiki entry. Having read it, it seems this episode caused a lot of very public soul-searching in the physics community. (Not the sort of way that a closed-minded priesthood, say, would react.)

I see the journalist (La Fartoise) is preoccupied with climate change. You may perhaps guess which standpoint she gravitates towards - while protesting impartiality, naturally (don't we all?).........

So this whole storm in a teacup looks like a put-up job, to denigrate science for political ends. Quelle surprise .

 

[origin]

Two years later. The papers were withdrawn by Science and Physical review in October and December of 2002, respectively - after an investigation by Bell Labs concluded he was a fraud in September. His phd was rescinded in 2004.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schön_scandal

To me, this is a remarkably fast self-correction and I too was amused and bemused by the example. A big swing and a miss!

So it would appear the answer to the question in the title is yes.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Snarp!

Russ_Watters, since the "Snarp!" is evidently, at least partly, in response to my Post...I must ask for further Clarification or Elaboration on what "Snarp!" is, signifies or what the "Snarp!" comment has to do with my missive to sculptor?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

I see the journalist (La Fartoise)

Odd, exchemist, that 2 1/2 hours ago, in a 'Footnote' you spelled the Journalists name correctly...:

Footnote: I see the journalist's name (Laframboise) is an English slang term for the farting noise used to signify abuse. Is this a joke name?

Now, you choose to mis-spell her name...In reference to the ^^above quoted^^, I believe that "framboise" is French for "raspberry".
So...Laframboise could be interpreted as : the raspberry, could it not?

 

[Russ_Watters]

Russ_Watters, since the "Snarp!" is evidently, at least partly, in response to my Post...I must ask for further Clarification or Elaboration on what "Snarp!" is, signifies or what the "Snarp!" comment has to do with my missive to sculptor?

It's gibberish. I thought we were riffing...

 

[Schmelzer]

Potentially, yes -- do you have an example of that?

The harmful consequences of masturbation.

It has been observed when people have started to put the idiots into special medical facilities that these idiots masturbate a lot. The resulting naive theory was that masturbation causes a lot of various harm, which brings you into such an asylum. With quite horrible consequences for education.

Of course, the correct explanation was that at this time the abundance of masturbation was unknown and heavily underestimated, and that those idiots were simply too stupid to hide behavior which was forbidden by conventions, sometimes simply because they were too stupid to understand that it is forbidden.

I would not make here historical claims about how many generations were necessary to correct this inside the scientific community. Even more was necessary to communicate the correction to the society. But from what I know "generations" instead of "years" is the correct order of magnitude.

Given that even without this "scientific" result the prejudice against masturbation was quite strong, this particular part of science can be classified as an example of what I have named "politically influenced science". So, I see here no accident, but a general rule: To correct errors in politically influenced sciences takes much more time than usual.

PS: If you think this is from long ago, actual science is in no way better. I'm observing now that science starts, slowly, correcting similar errors which became popular in the 1970-s. I will not discuss them, simply because until it will be recognized by the population and the forum members that these errors have been corrected I expect I have to wait another 40 years.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

It's gibberish. I thought we were riffing...

...

 

[sculptor]

The neoplithic revolution occurred about 12,000 years ago. The Gobeklitepe site is about 12,000 years old. So this is evidence why you should not trust science? Hmmm, OK whatever.

It ain't so much a matter of "trust" as it is thoroughly examining the paradigm and deconstructing it to isolate the premise(es) upon which the paradigm was constructed.

A brief primer on the neolithic/agriculture/ urban revolutions:
To begin:
First, visualize that hunter gatherers did not wander aimlessly about, but rather traveled in an annual circuit revisiting certain locations when certain foods were readily available, including flora and fauna. Eat till you can't eat no more, then carry any excess with you to the next location. Somewhere in here, someone noticed that food crops were growing in midden piles miles away from where they had been previously gathered. And, gradually this led to intentional planting. Eventually, the planting became so successful that the people were able to travel less, and still eat well. Unfortunately, this led to less healthy diets, and people were dying younger, and suffering from infections, etc-----------However, the less nomadic lifestyle led to having more children, and more children who survived to adulthood, which led to population increases.
And voila, we have the agricultural revolution.
Now on to the urban revolution:
As the settled areas grew into villages and towns, and people began to have territorial claims there were conflicts, which led to arbitration, which led to formation of hierarchies. Which led to centralized authority which led to monumental architecture.
According to Childe, this gradual urbanization/ monument building took thousands of years from the time of the first agriculture.

So(recapping), it was assumed that agriculture and sedentary(as opposed to hunter-gatherer) lifestyles had to precede monument building by thousands of years.
Not a bad premise nor paradigm actually. It seemed to represent the best inference from the then available information, and right up till Klaus stumbled on to gobekli tepe it seemed accurate.
Now, the premise and paradigm need reevaluation.

A) Did the urban revolution necessarily precede Monumental architecture?
or
B) Were the monument builders descendant from an earlier civilization which flourished on previous coastal plains during the time when glaciers had lowered the sea levels opening up vast rich coastal plains?
or
C).............................?

It ain't a matter of trust, it's a matter of loving the science and looking for truths.