The pseudoscientific belief in science

Inquiry and modeling for how we see the Universe/Multiverse/Existence and our place within.

Nucleus Principle: Directing present reality within community.
Post Reply
golly
Site Admin
Posts: 303
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:14 am
Location: Hohokam / Piipaash / Apache / O'odham / Pueblo / Mexico / Arizona

Gender

Skin

Sexuality

Belief

Political

The pseudoscientific belief in science

Post by golly »

Kenneth L. Feder, scientific gatekeeper and author of Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology (1990) while criticizing the epic work of Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race (by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, 1993) wrote:
"When you attempt to deconstruct a well-accepted paradigm, it is reasonable to expect that a new paradigm be suggested in its place."
This, I will demonstrate, is actually itself a specious and pseudoscientific argument coming from Feder and reveals his own bias towards authoritarianism and the hypocritical promotion of pseudoscience that he favors, while condemning science.

Science in each culture that I have encountered it is about presenting all evidence, however it is acquired, and assessing two things:
1. the validity or invalidity of the evidence (which is measured differently depending on the philosophy, but in "Western" schools it is about a bias of doubt demanding "repeatability" of evidence)
and
2. making reasonable suppositions from favored evidence to arrive at hypotheses that can be tested to arrive at reliable theory

Scientism, on the other hand, is the worship of any supposition, hypothesis or theory as being above the scientific method. This would include especially the tendency to use inconsistent and contradictory methods of avoiding the continual process of the ongoing primary stage, the assessment of evidence.

Ergo, when someone says "it is reasonable" to "expect" that the assessment of evidence should be halted or that the work of building theory from suppositions and finally hypotheses should be halted because the assessment of evidence should be halted, that is an argument against science.

When someone says "it is reasonable" to "expect" that the work of building theory from suppositions and finally hypotheses should be replaced by assumptions of any kind, that really seems to be an argument against science and for the realm of religion and philosophy.

Finally, when someone says "it is reasonable" to "expect" that maintaining paradigms is the focus of science, that is an argument against science and for authoritarian religious thought disguised as science.

Of course the process is never complete. That is what makes science open to reality and not in the business of managing paradigm shifts (unless you speak to the Tavistock institute, the CIA, religious schools or others in the actual business of managing beliefs and paradigm shifts. They have been known to immorally and unreasonably employ science as a weapon to control minds).

It may be accurate to say that shifting paradigms in one's self and in others can be dangerous because of the social implications. And it may be accurate to say that it is wise to avoid danger. However, it seems elitist and authoritarian to consider one's self perfectly capable of conducting science while telling others that it is "dangerous" to do the same, and to mislead them about what science actually is.

It's like covering one's tracks with a branch, and then yelling back anyone wishing to join them should obviously only do so by hovering over the path to them. Feder, and any other supremacist, should be more careful when making remarks towards bodies of work that are recognized as having scientific value. His unreasonable fear of evidence makes his arguments look weak and it makes the thing he calls weak look strong.

Any way the quote is read, unless you try to find some "hidden meaning" in it, Feder in the context of his expertise comes across as an authoritarian supremacist bully when implying that theory should be formed first rather than suppositions first. At best, he seems to have a gross misunderstanding of the accepted scientific process, which reflects poorly on any body of theory he would present.

Perhaps he needs to take his own advice and before attempting to deconstruct a well-accepted paradigm of science, he should suggest a new paradigm of science in its place. Then again, its resemblance to pseudoscientific scientism would put him on very shaky ground.

If I were to choose authorship to examine with respect prior to reading, based on the remarks of Feder or Cremo/Thompson, I would be more inclined to choose the latter first. I'd rather trust someone presenting evidence (practicing science) rather than suppressing it for personal gain.

Is this all I need to know from what we might get from his book?
On the first day of class he tells his students "Don't believe me because I'm the guy at the front of the classroom [...] its all about did the things that I'm saying are they researched? [sic] Is there evidence to back it up? Question authority."
From a podcast interview, via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Feder

Indeed. Indeed.

golly
Site Admin
Posts: 303
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:14 am
Location: Hohokam / Piipaash / Apache / O'odham / Pueblo / Mexico / Arizona

Gender

Skin

Sexuality

Belief

Political

Fraud in peer-reviewed science

Post by golly »

Not that I really "need" a bibliographical break down of why scientists are turning into religious zealots and evangelists for inadequately researched conclusions, since I can certainly see that for myself, but here are some quotes (my bolds) for consideration:
Our enthusiasm for scientific achievements has risen immeasurably. We have granted a godlike status to researchers and doctors, who still had the status of slaves in ancient Rome and even until the early 20'h century were mostly poor and powerless. [8] Because of this status, we continue to perceive them as selfless truthseekers. [9] The English biologist Thomas Huxley, a powerful supporter of Charles Darwin and grandfather of the author Aldous Huxley (Brave New World, 1932), described this phenomenon as early as the late 19'h century, when he compared science's growing authority to the Church's position of power. For this, he coined the term "Church Scientific. " [10 11]

Today's enlightened civilized individual believes so firmly in the omnipotence of scientists that they no longer question the evidence for certain hypotheses or even whether they make sense. Instead, citizens rely on the latest sensationalized media coverage churned out in daily newspapers and TV newscasts about world-threatening viral epidemics (Avian Flu, SARS, AIDS, etc.). For many decades, the media (and scientific reporters above all) have intently cultivated friendly relationships with researchers in the drive to scoop their competitors for provocative headlines. "We scientific reporters all too often serve as living applause for our subject," New York Times reporter Natalie Angier says critically about her profession.

"Sometimes we write manuscripts that sound like unedited press releases." [12] Journalists usually assume that scientists engage in rigorous studies and disseminate only provable facts-and that rare instances of fraud will quickly be driven out of the hallowed halls of research. It's an ideal picture, but one that has nothing to do with reality. [13 14 15 16 17 18] Uncountable billions of dollars are transformed into "scientific" hypotheses, which are ultimately packaged and hawked by pharmaceutical companies, researchers, health advocates and journalists alike as the ultimate conclusions of truth. In actuality, these theories are often mere speculation, proven false and years later, finally discarded.
From the Introduction to the book "Virus Mania: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense" by Torsten Engelbrecht and Claus Kohnlein

And later in Chapter 2, we have this gem:
Secretiveness has an oppositional goal: shutting out independent monitoring and verification. When external inspection and verification by independent experts are shut out of the process, the floodgates are open to fraud.[27] Of course, we observe this lack of transparency everywhere, be it in politics, in organizations like the international Football association FIFA, and also in "scientific communities [that] believe that public funding is their right, but so is freedom from public control," according to Judson. [28] With this, mainstream research has actually managed to seal off their scientific buildings from public scrutiny.

This set-up lacks critical checks and balances, so no one is ultimately in the position to scrutinize the work of researchers and make sure research is conducted in an honest way. We are left to simply trust that they go about it truthfully. [29] But a survey taken by scientists and published in a 2005 issue of Nature showed that a third of researchers admitted they would not avoid deceptive activities, and would simply brush to the side, any data that did not suit their purposes.[30] A crucial aspect of science has been lost; few researchers now trouble themselves to verify data and conclusions presented by fellow researchers.

Such quality checkups are equated with a waste of time and money and for that reason are also not financed. Instead medical researchers are completely occupied [and] obsessed with chasing after the next big high-profit discovery. And many of today's experiments are constructed in such a complicated manner that they cannot be reconstructed and precisely verified at all. [31] This makes it very easy for researchers to ask themselves, without having to fear any consequences: why shouldn't I cheat?

One would hope that the so-called peer review system largely eliminates fraud. It is still commonly considered a holy pillar of the temple of science, promising adherence to quality standards. [32] But the decades-long practice of peer review is rotten to the core.[33 34] It functions like this: experts ("peers") who remain anonymous examine (review) research proposals and journal articles submitted by their scientific competitors. These so-called experts then decide if the proposals should be approved or the articles printed in scientific publications. There are said to be around 50,000 such peer reviewed publications,[35] and all the best known journals such as Nature, Science, New England Journal of Medicine, British Medical Journal and The Lancet, are peer reviewed.

There is, however, a fundamental problem: peer reviewing, in its current form, is dangerously flawed. If researchers in other fields conducted studies and published results using this process, what would happen? If their current methods were common in the car industry, for example, BMW's competitors could decide, through an anonymous process, whether or not BMW would be permitted to develop a new car model and bring it to the market. Clearly this would stifle innovation and invite conflicts of interest and fraud.

"Peer review is slow, expensive, a profligate of academic time, highly selective, prone to bias, easily abused, poor at detecting gross defects, and almost useless for detecting fraud," says Richard Smith, former Editor in Chief of the British Medical Journal. [36] No wonder, then, that all the cases of fraud which scientific historian Judson outlines in his 2004 book The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science were not uncovered by the peer review system, but rather by pure coincidence. [37]
Citations taken from the book's own for the Intro and Chapter 2:
7 Starr, Paul, The Social Transformation of American Medicine. The rise of a sovereign profession
and the making of a vast industry, Basic Books, 1982, p. 3
8 Ibid., pp. 6 - 7
9 McCarthy, Michael, Lies, Damn lies, and scientific research (Rezension des Buches The Great
Betrayal: Fraud in Science von Horace Judson, Harcourt, 2004), Lancet, 6 November 2004,
p. 1657
10 Golub, Edward, The Limits of Medicine: How Science Shapes Our Hope for the Cure, The
University of Chicago Press, 1997, p. 178
11 McKeown, Thomas, Die Bedeutung der Medizin, Suhrkamp, 1979, p. 214
12 Moss, Ralph, Fragwiirdige Chemotherapie. Entscheidungshilfen fur die Krebstherapie, Haug,
1997, p. 39 - 43
13 Manipulating a Journal article, New York Times, Editorial, 11 December 2005, Sektion 4, p. 11
14 Engelbrecht, Torsten, Ungesunde Verhaltnisse. Wie die Pharmaindustrie die Medien beeinflusst,
Journalist, November 2005, pp. 40 - 42
15 Lieberman, Trudy, Bitter Pills, Columbia Journalism Review, July/August 2005
16 Engelbrecht, Torsten, Spitze des Eisbergs: Warum Joumalisten auch den angesehenen
Wissenschaftszeitschriften nicht blind lings vertrauen sollten, Message, 3/2005, pp. 70 - 71
17 Smith, Richard, Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical
Companies, Plos Medicine, May 2005, p. e 138
18 Krimsky, Sheldon, Science in the Private Interest. Has The Lure Of Profits Corrupted Biomedical
Research?, Rowman & Littlefield, 2004, pp. 163 - 176

...

26 Judson, Horace, The Great Betrayal. Fraud in Science, Harcourt, 2004, p. 30
27 Ibid., p. 20
28 Ibid., p. 27
29 Engelbrecht, Torsten, "Die Industrie macht Druck," interview with Marcia Angell, former editor
in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, on editorial autonomy, fraud in science and the
purpose of peer reviewing, Message, 3!2005, p. 69
3° Martinson, Brian, Scientists behaving badly, Nature, 9 June 2005, pp. 737 - 738
31 Judson, Horace, The Great Betrayal. Fraud in Science, Harcourt, 2004, p. 39
32 McCarthy, Michael, Lies, Damn lies, and scientific research (Rezension des Buches The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science von Horace Judson, Harcourt, 2004), Lancet, 6 November 2004, p. 1658
33 Judson, Horace, The Great Betrayal. Fraud in Science, Harcourt, 2004, pp. 244 - 286
34 Engelbrecht, Torsten, "Die Industrie macht Druck," interview with Marcia Angell, former editor
in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, on editorial autonomy, fraud in science and the
purpose of peer reviewing, Message, 3/2005, pp. 68 - 69
35 Judson, Horace, The Great Betrayal. Fraud in Science, Harcourt, 2004, p. 276
36 Smith, Richard, The Future of Peer Review, 1999, in: God lee, Fiona; Jefferson, Tom, Peer Review
in Health Sciences, BMJ Books, 2003
37 McCarthy, Michael, Lies, Damn lies, and scientific research (Rezension des Buches The Great
Betrayal: Fraud in Science von Horace Judson, Harcourt, 2004) , Lancet, 6 November 2004, pp.
1657 - 1658

Post Reply