tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post5239457585753681928..comments2024-03-28T03:13:37.212-05:00Comments on Althouse: "There is a veritable truckload of bullshit in science."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-55735079810775282222016-02-23T13:16:31.724-06:002016-02-23T13:16:31.724-06:00You seem fixated on this time travel stuff. But th...You seem fixated on this time travel stuff. But that's not how the world, how science, operates. In the case of astronomers, light waves, gravitational waves, neutrino “waves” traveling over possibly ages of time from star to star <i>are</i> signals from the past, and pointing your telescope up and looking out constitutes receiving them — in the case of geologists, digging up new rocks and fossils that have remained in situ for possibly geological ages is how signals from the deep past of the earth are received. All of your semantic tricks cannot stand against that basic fact of science.<br /><br /><i>The problem has been recognized by philosophers for years.</i><br /><br />For <i>years</i>? OMG!! Obfuscation, isn't it wonderful.Michael McNeilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17848373029958280894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58430468867790983002016-02-23T10:00:49.921-06:002016-02-23T10:00:49.921-06:00Michael Edward McNeil wrote:
"Past and future...Michael Edward McNeil wrote:<br />"Past and future are science constructs. But glad to hear that you believe that (e.g.) geology is not a real science — and that you agree with flat-earthers in this regard."<br />You did not write that 'signals from the past are directly observable', you wrote that 'the past is similarly directly observable.' If there are such things as signals from the past, what is receiving them?<br />Science is a thing that people do. If past and future are science constructs, what were they before there was such a thing as science? <br />The problem has been recognized by philosophers for years. Simply put, science gives meaning to the universe outside of the mind, but the universe outside of the mind has no meaning of its own. Lewis Wetzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01200232293505119133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-78808469331442501322016-02-23T07:59:14.723-06:002016-02-23T07:59:14.723-06:00Probably everyone has heard of the famous line in ...Probably everyone has heard of the famous line in <a href="http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm" rel="nofollow">Eisenhower's Farewell Address</a> warning about the "military industrial complex." It seems fewer have heard about the next few paragraphs from the same speech that warns about politicized science:<br /><br /><i>We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. <br /><br />Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. <br /><br />In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. <br /><br />Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. <br /><br />The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. <br /><br />Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. <br /><br />It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.</i><br />Larry Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07005320430740976182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-83339346286242463322016-02-23T07:00:57.600-06:002016-02-23T07:00:57.600-06:00Even the best journals publish garbage now and the...Even the best journals publish garbage now and them. Standards vary and sensational claims or big names sometimes carry poor work over barriers to publication. It can take years to refute bad claims and they weigh down the discipline, slowing progress. It happens even in highly scrutinized medical fields where results are rigorously re-tested. In the worst cases, refutation requires the death or retirement of an older scientist who is blocking authentic progress to preserve his/her rep. Scientists are human beings, with all the good and bad that implies, so I expect no lasting solution is possible from within.sparrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01693437681522726538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-48053814910204719672016-02-23T06:02:22.744-06:002016-02-23T06:02:22.744-06:00“… the past is similarly directly observable.”
Not...<i>“… the past is similarly directly observable.”<br />Not unless you have a time machine. The only time that can be observed is now. If you can show me something that doesn't exist, now, I'd be mighty impressed. Distant objects don't count. A star may be light years away, but we are perceiving it now.<br />Past and future are language constructs.</i><br /><br />Past and future are <i>science</i> constructs. But glad to hear that you believe that (e.g.) geology is not a real science — and that you agree with flat-earthers in this regard. Despite your opinion, however, there is no essential difference between the astronomer and geologist. Both observe the past by way of signals received in the present — in the case of the astronomer, via light (and other signals) that have passed across perhaps thousands of light-years of space (taking thousands of years to do so) before arriving in our telescopes — in the case of geologists, via rocks and fossils and other samples which have lain <i>in situ</i> for thousands or millions of years, before similarly being recovered to impinge on and be perceived by human senses and instruments. In both cases, signals from the past have been received and perceived — and if there is doubt about the validity of the signals, recover even <i>more</i> signals and analyze them further.Michael McNeilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17848373029958280894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-8238555987017164692016-02-23T00:23:10.718-06:002016-02-23T00:23:10.718-06:00Science was, for awhile, the new word that progres...Science was, for awhile, the new word that progressives used to tell people to "Shut up!"<br /><br />Because progressives love to tell people to shut up.erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18421496691136153382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7285901332241537822016-02-22T23:56:24.499-06:002016-02-22T23:56:24.499-06:00There's an interesting food fight going on rig...There's an interesting food fight going on right now that involves a "comprehensive review:"<br /><br />http://www.statnews.com/2016/01/19/crispr-history-firestorm/<br /><br />Background: researchers at MIT and Berkeley are involved in a huge patent dispute about the development of CRISPR, a gene editing technology that is likely to attract billions of dollars worth of investment. The general view is that the Berkeley researchers invented the procedure, but MIT asked for expedited patent review and got its patent first. To make the lawyers extra happy, this all happened when the patent system was changing from a "first to invent" standard to a "first to file" standard.<br /><br />So the head of MIT's Broad Institute comes out with a review covering the early history of CRISPR -- which lovingly details the work of the MIT guy, and mentions the Berkeley researcher in the middle of a paragraph. Several minor players get loving introductions; no such luck for the Berkeley gal. <br /><br />Supposedly they sent her a copy of the article at the last second to vet for accuracy -- she wisely declined to take part in creating a paper trail that her rivals could use later.Zachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02284350648793830503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-17500987554557143212016-02-22T23:33:46.624-06:002016-02-22T23:33:46.624-06:00The short problem with scientific studies is that ...The short problem with scientific studies is that 99% of the public, including most journalists, do not have the skills or resources necessary to review a scientific article for veracity. Even if one is able to follow and understand everything in the article itself, the likelihood of cross-checking all the footnotes and citations and looking to see if there is contrary evidence is slim. There is a tendency to believe what we see in print, particularly when it comes from parties perceived to be objective.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72370614875011664732016-02-22T21:28:04.151-06:002016-02-22T21:28:04.151-06:00Michael Edward McNeil said...
" . . . the pas...Michael Edward McNeil said...<br />" . . . the past is similarly directly observable."<br />Not unless you have a time machine. The only time that can be observed is <i>now</i>. If you can show me something that doesn't exist, <i>now</i>, I'd be mighty impressed. Distant objects don't count. A star may be light years away, but we are perceiving it now.<br />Past and future are language constructs. <br />Lewis Wetzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01200232293505119133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58260751541846500402016-02-22T21:26:44.115-06:002016-02-22T21:26:44.115-06:00{Quoting a little bit further from Misner, Thorne,...{Quoting a little bit further from Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's <i>Gravitation</i> (excerpting from §44.2):}<br /><br />No theory more resembles Maxwell's electrodynamics in its simplicity, beauty, and scope than Einstein's geometrodynamics. Few principles in physics are more firmly established than those on which it rests: the local validity of special relativity {…}, the equivalence principle {…}, the conservation of momentum and energy {…}, and the prevalence of second-order field equations throughout physics {…}. Those principles and the demand for no “extraneous fields” (e.g., Dicke's scalar field) and “no prior geometry” {…} lead to the conclusion that the geometry of spacetime must be Riemannian and the geometrodynamic law must be Einstein's.<br /><br />To say that the geometry is Riemannian is to say that the interval between any two nearby events C and D, anywhere in spacetime, stated in terms of the interval AB between two nearby fiducial events, at quite another point in spacetime, has a value CD/AB independent of the route of intercomparison {…}. There are a thousand routes. By this hydraheaded prediction, Einstein's theory thus exposes itself to destruction in a thousand ways {…}.<br /><br />Geometrodynamics lends itself to being disproven in other ways as well. The geometry has no option about the control it exerts on the dynamics of particles and fields {…}. The theory makes predictions about the equilibrium configurations and pulsations of compact stars {…}. It gives formulas {…} for the deceleration of the expansion of the universe, for the density of mass-energy, and for the magnifying power of the curvature of space, the tests of which are not far off. It predicts gravitational collapse, and the existence of black holes, and a wealth of physics associated with these objects {…}. It predicts gravitational waves {…}. In the appropriate approximation, it encompasses all the well-tested predictions of the Newtonian theory of gravity for the dynamics of the solar system, and predicts testable post-Newtonian corrections besides, including several already verified effects {…}.<br /><br />No inconsistency of principle has ever been found in Einstein's geometric theory of gravity. No purported observational evidence against the theory has ever stood the test of time. No other acceptable account of physics of comparable simplicity and scope has ever been put forward.<br /><br />(/EndQuote)<br /><br />Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne, John Archibald Wheeler, Gravitation, 1973, W.H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco; pp. 1066-1068 and 1199.Michael McNeilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17848373029958280894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-29698179794404889062016-02-22T21:24:25.784-06:002016-02-22T21:24:25.784-06:00{Continuing…}
In only one significant way do metr...{Continuing…}<br /><br />In only one significant way do metric theories of gravity differ from each other: their laws for the generation of the metric. In general relativity theory, the metric is generated directly by the stress-energy of matter and of nongravitational fields. In Dicke-Brans-Jordan theory {…}, matter and nongravitational fields generate a scalar field φ; then φ acts together with the matter and other fields to generate the metric. Expressed in the language of {…}, φ is a “new long-range field” that couples indirectly to matter. As another example, a theory devised by Ni (1970, 1972) {…} possesses a flat-space metric η and a universal time coordinate t (“prior geometry” {…}); η acts together with matter and nongravitational fields to generate a scalar field φ; and then η, t, and φ combine to create the physical metric g that enters into the equivalence principle.<br /><br />All three of the above theories — Einstein, Dicke-Brans-Jordan, Ni — were viable in the summer of 1971, when this section was written. But in autumn 1971 Ni's theory, and many other theories that had been regarded as viable, were proved by Nordtvedt and Will (1972) to disagree with experiment. This is an example of the rapidity of current progress in experimental tests of gravitational theory! [Published in 1973.]<br /><br />(/EndQuote)<br /><br />{Notice that in all of these “trials by combat” against the searing fires of experiment, it is Einstein's general relativity that has consistently withstood the tests, like Daniel walking through the fiery furnace!}Michael McNeilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17848373029958280894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-19677763237545118442016-02-22T21:22:00.435-06:002016-02-22T21:22:00.435-06:00{Continuing…}
Agreement with past experiment:
The...{Continuing…}<br /><br />Agreement with past experiment:<br />The necessity that a theory agree, to within several standard deviations, with the “four standard tests” (gravitational redshift, perihelion shift, electromagnetic-wave deflection, and radar time-delay) is obvious. Equally obvious but often forgotten is the need to agree with the expansion of the universe (historically the ace among all aces of general relativity) and with observations at the more everyday, Newtonian level. Example: Birkhoff's (1943) theory predicts the same redshift, perihelion shift, deflection, and time-delay as general relativity. But it requires that the pressure inside gravitating bodies equal the total density of mass-energy, p = ρ; and, as a consequence, it demands that sound waves travel with the speed of light. Of course, this prediction disagrees violently with experiment. Therefore, Birkhoff's theory is not viable. Another example: Whitehead's (1922) theory of gravity was long considered a viable alternative to Einstein's theory, because it makes exactly the same prediction as Einstein for the “four standard tests.” Not until the work of Will (1971b) was it realized that Whitehead's theory predicts a time-dependence for the ebb and flow of ocean tides that is completely contradicted by everyday experience {…}.<br /><br />§ 39.2. Metric theories of gravity<br /><br />Two lines of argument narrow attention to a restricted class of gravitation theories, called metric theories.<br /><br />The first line of argument constitutes the theme of the preceding chapter. It examined experiment after experiment, and reached two conclusions: (1) spacetime possesses a metric; and (2) that metric satisfies the equivalence principle (the standard special relativistic laws of physics are valid in each local Lorentz frame). Theories of gravity that incorporate these two principles are called metric theories. In brief, Chapter 38 says, “For any adequate description of gravity, look to a metric theory.” Exception: Cartan's (1922b, 1923) theory [“general relativity plus torsion”; see Trautman (1972)] is nonmetric, but agrees with experiment and is experimentally indistinguishable from general relativity with the technology of the 1970's.<br /><br />The second line of argument pointing to metric theories begins with the issue of completeness (preceding section). To be complete, a theory must incorporate a self-consistent version of all the nongravitational laws of physics. No one has found a way to incorporate the rest of physics with ease except to introduce a metric, and then invoke the principle of equivalence. Other approaches lead to dismaying complexity, and usually to failure of the theory on one of the three counts of self-consistency, completeness, and agreement with past experiment. All the theories known to be viable in 1973 are metric, except Cartan's. [See Ni(1972b); Will (1972).]Michael McNeilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17848373029958280894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-29318167050975849732016-02-22T21:16:44.179-06:002016-02-22T21:16:44.179-06:00As promised, here's an excerpt (two sections) ...As promised, here's an excerpt (two sections) from Misner, Thorne and Wheeler's classic advanced-physics textbook on the nature of Einsteinian “Gravitation,” from 1973. (Notice that no hint of a proof of the “law of gravity” — i.e., Einstein's theory of general relativity, aka “geometrodynamics” — is suggested. The authors know it can never happen. Instead, general relativity's success lies all in the <i>dis</i>proofs.) {Ellipses substitute for omitted internal cross references.} Quoting:<br /><br />§ 39.1. Other theories<br /><br />Among all bodies of physical law none has ever been found that is simpler or more beautiful than Einstein's geometric theory of gravity {…}; nor has any theory of gravity ever been discovered that is more compelling.<br /><br />As experiment after experiment has been performed, and one theory after another has fallen by the wayside a victim of the observations, Einstein's theory has stood firm. No purported inconsistency between experiment and Einstein's laws of gravity has ever surmounted the test of time.<br /><br />Query: Why then bother to examine alternative theories of gravity?<br />Reply: To have “foils” against which to test Einstein's theory.<br /><br />To say that Einstein's geometrodynamics is “battle-tested” is to say it has won every time it has been tried against a theory that makes a different prediction. How then does one select new antagonists for decisive new trials by combat?<br /><br />Not all theories of gravity are created equal. Very few, among the multitude in the literature, are sufficiently viable to be worth comparison with general relativity or with future experiments. The “worthy” theories are those which satisfy three criteria for viability: self-consistency, completeness, and agreement with past experiment.<br /><br />Self-consistency<br />is best illustrated by describing several theories that fail this test. The classic example of an internally inconsistent theory is the spin-two field theory of gravity [Fierz and Pauli (1939) {…}], which is equivalent to linearized general relativity {…}. The field equations of the spin-two theory imply that all gravitating bodies move along straight lines in global Lorentz reference frames, whereas the equations of motion of the theory insist that gravity deflects bodies away from straight-line motion. (When one tries to remedy this inconsistency, one finds oneself being “bootstrapped” up to general relativity {…}.) Another self-inconsistent theory is that of Kustaanheimo (1966). It predicts zero gravitational redshift when the wave version of light (Maxwell theory) is used, and nonzero redshift when the particle version (photon) is used.<br /><br />Completeness:<br />To be complete a theory of gravity must be capable of analyzing from “first principles” the outcome of every experiment of interest. It must therefore mesh with and incorporate a consistent set of laws for electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, and all other physics. No theory is complete if it <i>postulates</i> that atomic clocks measure the “interval”<br /><br />dτ = (−gαβ dxα dxβ)½<br /><br />constructed from a particular metric. Atomic clocks are complex systems whose behavior must be calculated from the fundamental laws of quantum theory and electromagnetism. No theory is complete if it <i>postulates</i> that planets move on geodesics. Planets are complex systems whose motion must be calculated from fundamental laws for the response of stressed matter to gravity. {…}Michael McNeilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17848373029958280894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-43689558951073502212016-02-22T21:02:44.996-06:002016-02-22T21:02:44.996-06:00“This is the critical feature of Science. Without ...“This is the critical feature of Science. Without experiment, there is no real truth that is provable.” (Michael K)<br /><br />I'm afraid this is wrong, seriously wrong with regard to the real nature of science — from a couple of different points of view.<br /><br />In the first place, nothing is <i>provable</i> as such in science — in the sense of certain demonstration (outside the realm of abstract mathematics, that is). The “law of gravity” — Einstein's general theory of relativity, first published just over a century ago — is not proven, and won't ever be. Relativity's enormous success lies not in its being proven (which can't happen), but in successfully surviving (a virtually endless number of attempts at) <i>dis</i>proof.<br /><br />(After this posting I'll post an excerpt from Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's classic graduate-level tome on Einsteinian relativity, <i>Gravitation</i>, which discusses that very issue.)<br /><br />The other problem with the foregoing is the insistence that <i>experiment</i> is the necessary and fundamental core of science. I was just perusing a posting by a flat-earther who made basically that very same argument: saying astronomy is bullshit (it's “all just mathematics,” as he put it), because… astronomy doesn't deal in experiments.<br /><br />This is wrong, in spades. It's true that astronomy (mostly) can't do experiments (because one cannot put a star, galaxy, or supercluster of galaxies into a laboratory) — ditto for other sciences in a like boat such as geology and paleontology (because one cannot run thousand, million, or billion year long experiments in your laboratory) — but that doesn't mean both it and they are not real sciences.<br /><br />The reason (and fundamental misconception shown here) is simple: What counts in science is not experiment, but rather <i>observation</i>. All a laboratory experiment <i>is</i> is a convenient testbed for obtaining observations — and even lacking same, all an astronomer (e.g.) need do is unlimber his telescope, open his eyes, and look out into space — obtaining observations (which may have begun their long trip towards Earth thousands, millions, or even billions of years ago), but which are just as good now at supporting the conclusions of a real science as homegrown experiments would be (if you could obtain them in this area, which you generally can't).<br /><br />With regard to the sciences of geology and paleontology, the past is similarly directly observable. To test an existing hypothesis in those sciences against new observations, simply dig up <i>more</i> rocks and fossils — much like the astronomers' telescopic observations, each such is a novel signal, newly arrived into our senses and instruments, from out of the distant past.Michael McNeilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17848373029958280894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-2601581171191511502016-02-22T20:24:05.986-06:002016-02-22T20:24:05.986-06:00Well I'm sure the scientists try to tell the t...Well I'm sure the scientists <i>try</i> to tell the truth. Always.CStanleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13467496850893922521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-10927369946870577592016-02-22T19:15:48.317-06:002016-02-22T19:15:48.317-06:00Amyloids are causative or associated with many dis...Amyloids are causative or associated with many diseases, like AD, Parkinson's, Huntington's, ALS (aka Lou Gehrig's disease), type 2 diabetes, prion diseases like mad cow or CJD, vascular amyloidosis, systemic amyloidosis, melanoma and on and on. One thing they have in common is that age is the major risk factor.<br /><br />Alice Aforethoughthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15658359182113875758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-5074095295443863582016-02-22T18:18:58.159-06:002016-02-22T18:18:58.159-06:00The fact that business and government can order up...The fact that business and government can order up research from universities and scientists that states the results sought by business and government indicates science is less about science and more about advocacy. Kind of like hiring an attorney to make your case for you but arguing scientific rather than legal theory/precedence.<br /> Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14762958003147397655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-38276471507896149602016-02-22T18:02:35.481-06:002016-02-22T18:02:35.481-06:00Sorry that I misunderstood you, Gabriel. Most soci...Sorry that I misunderstood you, Gabriel. Most social science isn't science of any kind. Social science should be properly considered one of the humanities. It should be called 'social studies.' Calling it a science implies that social science reveals objective truths about the material world. Lewis Wetzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01200232293505119133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-36935404652619368832016-02-22T16:40:23.143-06:002016-02-22T16:40:23.143-06:00@Terry:Complaining about the use of incompatible d...@Terry:<i>Complaining about the use of incompatible data sets is not straining at gnats after swallowing a camel, nor is it pointless legal disputation.</i><br /><br />Who said they were?<br /><br />Who said that every and all questioning of scientific methods or results was necessarily one or the other?Gabrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18188485747371986575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-79103560938320456392016-02-22T16:20:22.204-06:002016-02-22T16:20:22.204-06:00" Secreting the amyloid beta peptide from neu..." Secreting the amyloid beta peptide from neurons is actually good or beneficial. Almost nobody believes him. "<br /><br />I was at a meeting last week about Type II diabetes. The subject of <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26883429" rel="nofollow"> amyloid came up </a> and I can't remember exactly what the conclusion was as it was not the focus of the meeting.Michael Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18127450762129879267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-87102445231073831062016-02-22T15:55:00.938-06:002016-02-22T15:55:00.938-06:00Complaining about the use of incompatible data set...Complaining about the use of incompatible data sets is not straining at gnats after swallowing a camel, nor is it pointless legal disputation. If you are defining segregated zip codes by the race based on 2000 census numbers, and using differently-grained, non-race-specific bank reported mortgage data from 2006 to show that minority home owners living in that zip code get a worse deal than non-minorities based on their non-minority status, you are doing cocktail party anecdote, not science.<br />If you are using a loaded word like 'segregated', rather than 'ethnically homogeneous' in a scientific context, you had better be able to explain the scientific reasoning behind using the word 'segregated', and why your cut-off point is 85% non-white residents in a zip code. <br />And 'this is standard practice in the social sciences' is not scientific reasoning. Lewis Wetzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01200232293505119133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-13007698847735850312016-02-22T14:56:43.654-06:002016-02-22T14:56:43.654-06:00The kinds of bullshit that get through, and the le...The kinds of bullshit that get through, and the level of tolerance for them, varies across the sciences, and that's worth keeping in mind. It would make little sense to a Buddhist for you to criticize his Sabbath-breaking.<br /><br />There is nothing wrong, in itself, with questioning the methods or results or the sciences. However, when lay people do it, it usually takes two forms: straining at gnats while swallowing camels, or scholastic-legal style disputation. Neither form of criticism means anything in science.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />Gabrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18188485747371986575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-9105408172006213372016-02-22T14:56:30.187-06:002016-02-22T14:56:30.187-06:00It's not so much that I have such a low opini...It's not so much that I have such a low opinion of scientists, rather it's that I view them as being not so different from any person in any occupation. <br />I assume they will enjoy a nice thick slab of prime rib ad much as myself, and know what it's going to take to make that happen.<br />Levi Starkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05608821881587804877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-39325701128647452032016-02-22T14:55:17.000-06:002016-02-22T14:55:17.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Levi Starkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05608821881587804877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-78173516191118014022016-02-22T14:52:54.264-06:002016-02-22T14:52:54.264-06:00I am an Alzheimer's disease researcher, which ...I am an Alzheimer's disease researcher, which presents an interesting example of BS in science. The dominant paradigm for the disease mechanism is the "amyloid hypothesis", which states that the secretion of amyloid beta peptide (a 42 amino acid long sequence) from neurons causes the pathology. It is a reasonable hypothesis because all the human genetics pointed to the amyloid peptide as a causal agent. The vast majority of drugs developed in the past 25 years have been based on the amyloid hypothesis. In 2010, Eli Lilly tested a drug, Semagacestat, that inhibited the secretion of the amyloid beta peptide in humans. <br /><br />The result: It made the treated patients cognitively worse than the placebo. When most clinical trials fail, there is no difference in the treated and control groups.<br /><br />Alzheimer's scientists fell into two main camps on the significance of these results. Amyloid hypothesis supporters said it as a "bad drug" that caused unanticipated side effects, but dementia is not a side effect; it is the primary measure of the disease. A side effect is when your hair falls out when you take a cancer drug. Amyloid detractors said amyloid is not important, ignoring the genetic evidence and the fact that the drug made the disease worse.<br /><br />Occam said "You are thinking about the mechanism of amyloid pathogenesis backwards". Secreting the amyloid beta peptide from neurons is actually good or beneficial. Almost nobody believes him. <br /><br />Alice Aforethoughthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15658359182113875758noreply@blogger.com