Is Science Really Self-Correcting?

sculptor said:
I found this today
Click to expand...
Then you found lies. It wasn't Nature, it was Science and Nature and Physical Review Letters. It wasn't a brush off, it was a serious investigation.
sculptor said:
Lots of people tried and failed to reproduce Schön’s work, in the process wasting months of their lives and significant portions of their own research budgets. Others attempted in vain to alert Nature (the elite journal that published seven of Schön’s papers during 2000 and 2001), that his work suffered from “profound” technical problems. They were advised to take their concerns elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
[Citation required]
According to a 2002 Salon article, the concerns originated at Bell Labs and the seriousness of the investigation proceeded much faster than typical publishing rates:
Then the wunderkind fell to earth. In April, a small group of researchers at Bell Labs contacted Princeton physics professor Lydia Sohn and whispered that all was not right with Schön’s data. Sohn recalls that she and Cornell University’s Paul McEuen stayed up late one night and found some disturbing coincidences in Schön’s results: The same graphs were being used to illustrate the outcomes of completely different experiments. “You would expect differences,” she said, “but the figures were identical. It was a smoking gun.”

Once tipped off, McEuen started looking closely at a range of Schön’s work, enlarging the graphs and playing a game of mix-and-match. He found many duplicate graphs in different papers on different subjects. Schön was apparently using the same sets of pictures to tell lots of different stories.

In May, McEuen and Sohn formally alerted the editors of Science and Nature — where Schön and his team had published numerous articles — of the discrepancies. McEuen and Sohn also informed Schön; his supervisor and coauthor, Bertram Batlogg; and Bell Labs management that they were blowing the whistle. Schön immediately insisted that his experiments were fine, and that the duplicated figures were a simple clerical error for which he now offered substitutes. To Nature he declared he was “confident” of his results. To Science he said, “I haven’t done anything wrong.” Batlogg mostly said nothing at all. A scandal had broken out in the world of physics.
Click to expand...
http://www.salon.com/2002/09/16/physics​

The result of the Bell Labs investigation and Schön’s firing happened on September 25, 2002. Nature reported it the next day. All papers have been retracted at the request of all co-authors except Schön.

sculptor said:
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."
Click to expand...
[Citation required.] Most of the evidence for older human habitation in the Americas than the Clovis culture appears to have appeared in the 21st century. So your claim that you bested this professor "long ago" does not show that 1) you made a credible claim backed by credible research, and 2) said research was available "long ago." Am I just old? I thought "long ago" still means prior to 2001-09-11.

sculptor said:
Almost daily, I read really crazy stuff fabricated to refute someone else's work.
Click to expand...
[Citation required.] How do you know that stuff is fabricated? Why have you not demonstrated these claims to the appropriate ethics panels? Even granting for the sake of argument that you can divine scientific misconduct by looking at it, how are we supposed to judge your claims of being able to attribute it to specific motivation?

sculptor said:
One recent one is "cranial elasticity" for morphological differences.
Click to expand...
[Citation required.] This appears to be a very specific claim in a specific field, while the forum is one of General science.
dumbest man on earth said:
Evidently, sculptor, 'some Members' seem neither to have fully read, nor fully understood your OP prior to responding...
Click to expand...
That fault largely lies with sculptor. It was his burden to make articulate, well-supported points for the enlightenment of his potential audience. Also, what was the point of reporting a post without a cogent argument for why the post merited any moderator action? Just because you view the post through rose-tinted glasses doesn't make your love's beauty as blindingly obvious to the rest of us as your report would have us believe.
exchemist said:
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 [2001]. 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.
Click to expand...
Except the period from the concerns being raised to the firing was April-September, so more like 6 months for consequences or two years if you count from the beginning of the flood, as Russ_Waters does. Other consequences, like his Ph.D. being revoked, happened later. The Salon article I quoted above came out even before the Bell Labs review was completed.
 
rpenner said:
Just because you view the post through rose-tinted glasses doesn't make your love's beauty as blindingly obvious to the rest of us as your report would have us believe.
Click to expand...
Quite an assumption, considering that I reported nothing about any " love's beauty "...
 
dumbest man on earth said:
Perhaps, Write4U, you could possibly Read this Thread - beginning with the OP...

...my "*compliment* to Russ"?
I humbly request of you, Write4U, to Please "Quote" or possibly Post a "Link" to my "*compliment* to Russ" that you refer to?
Click to expand...
Post # 48, 49. And I do have to make a correction. Your compliment was for *exchemist*, but Russ voiced his agreement.

@ exchemist, please accept my apology. I also enjoy your posts and learn from your knowledge and insights.
 
Science cannot be self correcting ; since there is to much politics ; for funds ; which guided by a bunch of old foggies thinking ; egos and fear of old theories being outdated and wrong.

Science ; is no longer science ; it has become ; plain.
 
river said:
Science cannot be self correcting ; since there is to much politics ; for funds ; which guided by a bunch of old foggies thinking ; egos and fear of old theories being outdated and wrong.
Science ; is no longer science ; it has become ; plain.
Click to expand...
And that has prevented us from extraordinary discoveries and new methods of observing our natural environment? IMO, science is progressing at an exponential rate.
 
Write4U said:
Post # 48, 49. And I do have to make a correction. Your compliment was for *exchemist*, but Russ voiced his agreement.

@ exchemist, please accept my apology. I also enjoy your posts and learn from your knowledge and insights.
Click to expand...
So...did you read the first page of the Thread?
 
rpenner said:
Then you found lies. It wasn't Nature, it was Science and Nature and Physical Review Letters. It wasn't a brush off, it was a serious investigation.
[Citation required]
According to a 2002 Salon article, the concerns originated at Bell Labs and the seriousness of the investigation proceeded much faster than typical publishing rates:

The result of the Bell Labs investigation and Schön’s firing happened on September 25, 2002. Nature reported it the next day. All papers have been retracted at the request of all co-authors except Schön.

[Citation required.] Most of the evidence for older human habitation in the Americas than the Clovis culture appears to have appeared in the 21st century. So your claim that you bested this professor "long ago" does not show that 1) you made a credible claim backed by credible research, and 2) said research was available "long ago." Am I just old? I thought "long ago" still means prior to 2001-09-11.

[Citation required.] How do you know that stuff is fabricated? Why have you not demonstrated these claims to the appropriate ethics panels? Even granting for the sake of argument that you can divine scientific misconduct by looking at it, how are we supposed to judge your claims of being able to attribute it to specific motivation?

[Citation required.] This appears to be a very specific claim in a specific field, while the forum is one of General science.
That fault largely lies with sculptor. It was his burden to make articulate, well-supported points for the enlightenment of his potential audience. Also, what was the point of reporting a post without a cogent argument for why the post merited any moderator action? Just because you view the post through rose-tinted glasses doesn't make your love's beauty as blindingly obvious to the rest of us as your report would have us believe.
Except the period from the concerns being raised to the firing was April-September, so more like 6 months for consequences or two years if you count from the beginning of the flood, as Russ_Waters does. Other consequences, like his Ph.D. being revoked, happened later. The Salon article I quoted above came out even before the Bell Labs review was completed.
Click to expand...

Thanks, yes indeed, I had misread the article insofar as the timeline was concerned - in fact the unmasking and corrective action took place with commendable speed, it seems to me. Hence my lack of respect for the journalist, who I think was reporting in bad faith, to suit a preconceived agenda.
 
Write4U said:
Post # 48, 49. And I do have to make a correction. Your compliment was for *exchemist*, but Russ voiced his agreement.

@ exchemist, please accept my apology. I also enjoy your posts and learn from your knowledge and insights.
Click to expand...

Well thanks for this, Write4U. As you know, I disagree with you about Tegmark/Shapiro, but otherwise I enjoy your contributions too.

And isn't it something to get a compliment from DMOE? :D
 
exchemist said:
Well thanks for this, Write4U. As you know, I disagree with you about Tegmark/Shapiro, but otherwise I enjoy your contributions too.

And isn't it something to get a compliment from DMOE? :D
Click to expand...

Oh, even more most perfect puerile near almost kneel before as to paddo(err UNIVERSAL PERFECT)boy and more HAPPY HAPPY childish "EMOTICON"...so perfected of respectful to 20/20 hindsight of conspiracy of preconceived to denigrate all most perfect of science(KNEEL KNEEL)...
May I please oh near almost as perfect one wear ROSE COLORED GLASSES to see awesomeness of reporting conspiracy against near perfect of see all most not me perfect COMPLIMENT...
Genuflect before you and bow to your perfection oh great and almost near perfect exchemist

No ...CLICK... please oh super member of almostest perfectest except the one mostest perfectest, even more
 
river said:
Arrogance
Click to expand...
Simple Definition of arrogance
  • : an insulting way of thinking or behaving that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people
Click to expand...
  • Can you give me an example where I acted arrogantly or do you just see my ghost (MNN image) as arrogant?
 
Last edited:
river said: ↑
Science cannot be self correcting ; since there is to much politics ; for funds ; which guided by a bunch of old foggies thinking ; egos and fear of old theories being outdated and wrong.
Science ; is no longer science ; it has become ; plain.
Click to expand...


Write4U said: ↑
And that has prevented us from extraordinary discoveries and new methods of observing our natural environment? IMO, science is progressing at an exponential rate.
Click to expand...

Expotential rate....hmmmm....
 
Yazata said:
Are history and archaeology really sciences in the sense that physics is?
Click to expand...

Some times, parts of the discipline are very scientific.
However archaeology is an ever changing "science". One never knows what the next find, the next shovel, will turn up.
But very much not like physics and chemistry-------We have very little evidence of the distant past. Imagine trying to speculate the periodic table with only 25 known elements, then finding another one or two every decade or so.

Was Childe really the originator of the idea of the neolithic revolution?
Click to expand...
He published under that title, and, I think, coined the phrase in 1923.

As for me, I think that Childe is basically right about monument building generally appearing subsequent to the appearance of agriculture. (Note the word 'generally'.)

It makes sense. Monument building is a group endeavor by its nature. So it will depend on the existence of suitable population densities. Agriculture allowed greater population densities associated with the appearance of village life.
Click to expand...

Yes, makes sense, I would hazard the guess that that is why it remained a strong paradigm for 9 decades.
However, one does not nee agriculture to have very large gatherings. eg: the Tsetsehese-staestse would gather together in winter camps numbering 4000(or more?)of the people.

A great deal depends on how accurate the dating of Gobekli tepe is.
Click to expand...
If memory serves, Klaus dated the site by comparing tools found there to other tools found nearby in sites that had been radiocarbon dated.
Tricky that.

(I'm a little skeptical about the early date, due to the quality of the stonework.)
Click to expand...

That is a constant bias within the science. Many tend to see our forebears as not just primitive, but stupid. We doubt their art, architecture, and inventive natures. I suspect that when this bias prevails, we blind ourselves to the "truth".

Assuming that the early date holds, then the question is who constructed it and how they sustained themselves while they were doing it. I think that most theories of the agricultural revolution suggest that exploitation of wild grains preceeded the intentional cultivation of those grains. So perhaps the Gobekli tepe site was particularly rich in plant life that could be exploited by hunters and gatherers who gathered periodically at the site for religious festivals or something like that, and when construction was undertaken incrementally. And given that village life is known to have existed in mesolithic times along coasts where shellfish and other sea life were exploited (fishing?), perhaps village life was sustained in this area in some way other than growing crops. The nature of the community that constructed this thing is an historical problem remaining to be solved.
Click to expand...

Lots more digging to do there, but Klaus is dead.

I guess that the point I'm trying to get at is that ideas like Childe's aren't laws of nature in the same sense that the law of gravitation supposedly is. It isn't necessary to assume that they are totally without exceptions. They are more long the lines of rules of thumb. It's entirely reasonable to think that monument building typically appears subsequent to the appearance of agriculture and settled life, and that a few stray exceptions to that generalization might exist.
Click to expand...

As I posted above: option B).

Much is a guess, and some guesses are better than others.

(a little prayer)
May the funders keep funding, and the diggers keep digging and publishing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top