Random Noise 4 : Some Fun Stuff

About Patrick Lockerby

Retired engineer, 60+ years young.
Computer builder and programmer.
Linguist specialising in language acquisition and computational linguistics.
Interested in every human endeavour except the... Full Bio

Patrick
Lockerby

How bad science can make you feel really good.

There is some really wonderful bad science to be found out there in the wierd world web. More wonderful than the bad site is the good site that gives insight, laced with humour, into the wierdness of the bad sites.

Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. He is also a very astute observer of human nature and is one very witty dude. For some moments of absolute hilarity I strongly recommend his blog Bad Astronomy and especially crankocentrism.

Bad Mad and Just Plain Doolally

From bad science to mad science is but a small step. If your thing is to dominate other members of your species, then there are some good guides available to world domination. Of course, if you are really insane then you won't stop there. You'll want to engage in genocide on a global scale. Yet again, why stop there? If you really are one slice short of the full sandwich, you can engage your skills, wits and scientific knowledge in the geocide challenge. However -

Destroying the Earth is harder than you may have been led to believe.

You've seen the action movies where the bad guy threatens to destroy
the Earth. You've heard people on the news claiming that the next
nuclear war or cutting down rainforests or persisting in releasing
hideous quantities of pollution into the atmosphere threatens to end
the world.

Fools.

Enjoy!

Comments

Has anyone comprehensively tried to collect all of the really bad modern-day science that's out there? Are there any books on the matter? I think it would be of tremendous service for future endeavors. I guess part of the problem is that time is the ultimate judge in filtering out the really bad science from the mediocre stuff, so we're just given really old paradigms as examples of bad science. But since such examples of bad science are always outdated & archaic - like phrenology, & the earth being flat - there's a disconnect between that stuff & the "real" science that's currently being conducted. & I suspect that there's lots of really bad science being published everyday, it just falls thru the cracks & remains unnoticed due to its mediocrity.

I think it would be helpful to learn from modern bad science, even if it just comes down to pointing out seemingly minor errors in inferences from select modern studies, or coming out with top 20 lists of the worst studies conducted each year. It's not about laughing at other scientists' mistakes - & from dealing with some, I get the impression that many scientists enjoy making fun of their peer scientists - but about capitalizing & learning from their errors.

I often wonder, 50 years from now, what sort of current paradigms we'll look back upon as just plain silly or completely wrong. Afterall, science funding (& R&D) has blossomed over the past 50 years, producing a cacophony of new constructs & theories, a small percentage of which are bound to be just plain wrong. But hand-in-hand with science's expansion, there's an inbuilt propensity to silent critics & blindly proclaim that the $ was well-spent (w/o looking at, say, opportunity costs), b/c criticism of current paradigms - altho incredibly insightful - isn't where the $'s at. If you're an environmental scientist who doesn't believe in global warming, you're out of a job. If you're a neuropsychologist who thinks that f-MRI studies are misguided, then you won't receive any funding. In the grander scheme of things I worry that such central planning is building a scientific tower of babel (I wrote a post about it here http://cntrly.blogspot.com/2009/02/restoring-science.html). But either way, I think it makes it all the more important to learn from contemporary scientific mistakes.

kerrjac (not verified) | 04/01/09 | 07:27 AM

I think one of the problems you'd encounter is that there is alot of science that could (at best) be described as mediocre. When you look at history, even many of those anecdotes aren't really accurate because for every "bad" idea, there were others that had different perspectives which often ultimately won out, or at least were closer to the truth. These stories are often untold because they are less sensational that the colossal failures of others.

In today's environment there are numerous other pressures that afflict those engaged in scientific work, so that there will always be some percentage of individuals whose primary interest is in their own self-advancement rather than moving science forward. In the end, it comes down to how much time and energy do you have available to research the "bad science" to come up with sufficient examples of how not to do something?

Gerhard Adam | 04/01/09 | 13:55 PM

"In the end, it comes down to how much time and energy do you have available to research the "bad science" to come up with sufficient examples of how not to do something?"

You're right that in the end we're all so caught up in the present & in our duties that there's little time to reflect. But it's quite problematic that in science there are few checks against unworthy endeavors; & often times there *are* inherent checks preventing people from being overly critical.

Perhaps it's too much to ask people who have devoted themselves to the pursuit of knowledge & the life of the mind to reflect critically on their own endeavors. & I don't mean just by including little limitations sections in their articles, but by questioning fundamental assumptions, & by seeing those who disagree w/them as a catalyst for science rather than as barriers.

Consider for instance that study on circumcision (http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/reassessing_circumcision...) which you rightfully criticized as mistaking correlation for causation. Or cries that we're experiencing an epidemic of vitamin d deficiency, which are based on studies making a similar mistake, esp. by not controlling for exposure to sun. The vitamin d studies run also run afoul by rigid interpretations using previously established medical baselines & poorly standardized testing (http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-tc-health-vitamin-d...). Furthermore, as skin-color diversity increases in America, so might normal vitamin d levels, as the vitamin is absorbed thru skin. I suspect that such an adherence to "established" guidelines has tripped up many other medical studies. For instance, recent studies have suggested that baselines for lipid profiles might be categorically different for African Americans than for Caucaisans, with higher amounts of "total" cholesterol being linked to *less* risk for African Americans (http://www.dukehealth.org/HealthLibrary/News/8190). This is *huge* b/c statins are prescribed to tens of millions of people, often solely based on total cholesterol. Or there's the criticisms about the role of fMRI in research, well voiced by Dr. Poldrack (http://www.poldracklab.org/pdfs/poldrack_tics_inference.pdf), which threatens to pull the rug out from the logic behind 100's of previous *extremely* expensive studies. I've yet to see an adequate response to Poldrack's criticisms.

Perhaps those mentioned areas are just rare exceptions, or it's just undue skepticism on my part, or I'm overglossing science's accomplishments. But I highly suspect that there's a larger percentage of misguided studies than might be commonly accepted. & I'm not even an expert in any of the previously mentioned fields, which makes me think I must be missing tons of other equally damning errors. Afterall that's what happens when, say, critics are silenced thru a lack of funding. If scientists on the whole are too busy to adequately deal with these large errors, then perhaps they should be less busy.

kerrjac (not verified) | 04/01/09 | 20:04 PM

by seeing those who disagree w/them as a catalyst for science rather than as barriers.

This, for me, is the most enjoyable aspect of science.

Anyone who would gag an opponent has neither the stomach nor the mind to pursue science for its own sake.

If I am wrong in any report of other's acheivements, or in any of my own theorizing, then by all means tell me. Let it be a debate amongst friends, and the hell with 'truth'. Let future scientists decide the matter, as indeed they, as I note from hindsight, always have.

Patrick Lockerby | 04/01/09 | 22:13 PM

I think we have several problems to consider:

1. The "professionalization" of scientists. This may elicit all kinds of violent responses, but we have to consider what it means when someone's economic stability and future hinges on one's ability to "do science". This is quite analogous to the problem of professional politicians, where one's future is too closely tied to the idea that they should act objectively (or altruistically) instead of in their own self-interest.

2. Often what is considered science is actually more "technological" in the sense that it is the application of scientific principles either to public policy, or industrialized usage. Both have pretty clear "agendas" and shouldn't or don't qualify as "science" in my mind.

In the end it comes back down to economics. Can a modern scientist survive any more successfully than an artist centuries past without a patron? There is certainly the idea that "science" somehow should be for the purpose of advancing human knowledge, but let's not be naive about it. In truth, the typical scientist will never be a Newton, or Gauss, or Einstein. Instead, they're going to be people that go to work and hope that they can earn enough to pay their mortages and retire. Some may even be ambitious enough to try and parlay their knowledge into business ventures and try their hand at entrepreneurship. When this is coupled with a need to garner external funding, it shouldn't be a shock that often we find less than rigorous papers being published that often convey a sort of "common sense" that invites ridicule from the layperson.

Often we hear scientific stories being published that convey a sense of urgency and importance that simply isn't there. In truth, whatever knowledge we didn't possess yesterday can hardly become "critical" simply because we possess it today (or think we do). Therefore, this is all hype. The universe will continue to operate and life will go on whether we possess a piece of information or not.

Some would argue that issues like Global Warming, or Energy, or the environment (or pick your own favorite) are exceptions, but the truth is that we already know what the problem is. Too many people! The fact that we don't want to do anything about it, creates an artificial sense of urgency that suggests that somehow we can avoid the inevitable mathematics that clearly shows that no species can grow infinitely. Does it really seem shocking to suggest that nearly 7 billion people (and their domesticated animals) might actually have an effect on the planet? Is it shocking that as human populations increase we encroach on other living organisms? That there is an environmental impact?

Yet often what passes as "important" science is nothing more than trying to find ways around the problems we're created for ourselves. One of my favorites is how we can save ecosystems and species from going extinct. Does it really require a scientific study to conclude that if we leave them alone (not ignore or interfere with them) they'd probably do just fine?

In short all too often, there is too much science that is devoted to little more than ensuring that we can "have our cake and eat it too".

Gerhard Adam | 04/02/09 | 15:14 PM

Gerhard: as always you have posted some thought-provoking perspectives on science.

we already know what the problem is. Too many people! The fact that we don't want to do anything about it, creates an artificial sense of urgency that suggests that somehow we can avoid the inevitable mathematics that clearly shows that no species can grow infinitely.
Does it really seem shocking to suggest that nearly 7 billion people (and their domesticated animals) might actually have an effect on the planet? Is it shocking that as human populations increase we encroach on other living organisms? That there is an environmental impact?

I can agree with you there.
One of the problems with getting that message across is that since Thomas Malthus published on population growth, technological fixes have seemed to prove him wrong. I stress seemed. It is scientifically impossible for this planet's resources, technical fix or no, to indefinitely sustain the expansion human population. For once, I think you and I can agree on the validity of the mathematical models at the foundation level.

Yet often what passes as "important" science is nothing more than
trying to find ways around the problems we're created for ourselves.

And so often, ill thought out schemes make matters worse. The case of rabbits in Australia is a very good example. They were introduced as a fix to the early colonists' food supply problems. No problem where rabbits are kept properly enclosed. But rabbits excel at digging under fences, and in Australia, the rabbit is said to have no natural predators. The 'fix' for the rabbit population problem - myxomatosis - in about 1959 was said by UK newspapers at that time to be responsible for an outbreak of myxomatosis in the UK's wild rabbit population. Those reports may, or may not be factual - farmers in the UK may simply have copied the Australians. But your point still stands.

Patrick Lockerby | 04/02/09 | 17:00 PM

"One of the problems with getting that message across is that since Thomas Malthus published on population growth, technological fixes have seemed to prove him wrong."

I would agree, but much like Zeno's paradox about the Achilles and the Tortoise, there is no scientific principle at play, but only the sense that somehow we can keep reducing the distance between intervals but never actually reach them.

Invariably this is often caused because the original predictions are based on unchanging conditions, so when they fail to occur they are considered "falsified".

My concern is that with human population growth, it won't magically reach some equilibrium point, but rather it will swing into chaos and like other population studies will experience wild, totally unpredictable swings that will seriously destabilize our changes for survival. In other words, despite common mythology, humans are not exempt from extinction (and there are no technological solutions for biological problems, there are only finite "holding actions").

Gerhard Adam | 04/02/09 | 17:26 PM

Gerhard: I am in complete agreement with what you say here.

I think that it is unarguable in a scientific sense, and I look forward to the day when it is unarguable in the legal sense, i.e. a truth so widely held that it is futile to argue against it, hence a waste of the court's time and hence an abuse of the process of any court of common law jurisdiction.

Patrick Lockerby | 04/02/09 | 17:50 PM

"...the truth is that we already know what the problem is. Too many people! The fact that we don't want to do anything about it, creates an artificial sense of urgency that suggests that somehow we can avoid the inevitable mathematics that clearly shows that no species can grow infinitely."

I've been preparing a blog piece on science's tower of babel, but one lesson from all this is that science is best approached with a large dose of humility. From communism to Malthus & global warming, just b/c a model works in theory doesn't mean it'll work in practice. I don't mean to throw creationist-tinged it's-just-a-theory style insults, b/c they overlook the genuine hard work & thought all for the sake of an obvious agenda. But when I consider some of the individual knocks on science like those noted above, those criticisms aren't that crazy.

Think about the cholesterol issue, just b/c it's been so ingrained in public thought. We've long known that cholesterol is a risk-factor. Studies show (almost indisputably) that statins lower it. The evidence for each of those sentences is set in stone, you'd have to be crazy to disagree w/any of them. & after standardizing their usage across the nation, we find that this science might not work for a large % of our population, particularly African Americans. Of course, science can later tell you where the cholesterol logic went wrong, but it's still a huge error, promulgated just as much by "evil" big pharma as by more basic research & by public health research into prevention.

Not that we should throw up our arms & believe in God, but just that in many areas we might be only a little less wrong than creationists.

Preventative medicine is a particularly hot area b/c w/the advent of vaccine, we all know how powerful it can be. At the same time, it's dangerous b/c you're asking people to do something *before* anything actually goes wrong. & in some areas, it creates an artificial sense of urgency. In the instance above, you're putting millions of African Americans on a drug w/ potential side effects (that're relatively safe but still deemed Rx-worthy), unnecessarily billing society (eg, them and/or insurance), & should the research above pan out more fully, no one goes bankrupt, all you have to say them is "woops".

I'm not sure why you guys put so much truth in environmental science. In many ways it parallels preventive medicine in that environmentalists have to create this sense of urgency all by themselves, whereby there aren't any symptoms now, but just wait. Moreover, the proposed environmental changes are much more drastic than just, say, millions of people unnecessarily taking a drug. Consider the drastic societal effects of population control; or the huge economic effects of increased carbon control. It's of a magnitude that the proposed remedies rival the predicted problems that we'd face w/o them.

Which isn't to say that it's all bunk, but just that we have to be absolutely sure that there is in fact a problem, & that the proposed remedies will help. I mean, consider how sure people thought we were about cholesterol. Writers like Malthus & Ehrlich do lose face when their dire predictions don't come true. & the argument that we should act now just to be on the safe side is tantamount to believing in God just in case He exists.

kerrjac (not verified) | 04/02/09 | 18:15 PM

While I may agree or disagree with some of your assertions, the primary problem I have is that you aren't discussing science, but rather the implementation of scientific concepts into public policy.

There is no such science as "preventative medicine". Whatever the science tells us medically or environmentally is one thing, but when it is interpreted (enter the problem of models), and an attempt is made to translate it into public policy ..... then there will be no end of difficulties.

In the first case, there can be no scientific model for the environment, the weather, or human populations that are anything but statistical and likely chaotic. Therefore they are unsuitable for any "absolute" interpretation since the results are not uniformly repeatable. An argument can be made regarding statistical outcomes and whether something is more likely to happen as something else, but then we must leave it up to an intelligent participant to decide for themselves whether the risks are worth taking or not. Public policy must, by definition, consider that some percentage of the population will suffer as a result of any implementation.

While this is certainly a worthwhile argument to have, it isn't science nor is it particularly scientific.

Gerhard Adam | 04/02/09 | 18:46 PM

Kerrjak: we are neither arguing against each other, nor are we knocking each other. I sincerely respect your views. I agree with much of what you have to say. So just comment away my friend, my toes have evolved specifically to be trodden on. :) Formatia trans sicere educatorum - enter all ye who seek knowledge, even if you don't agree with me.

I have stated elsewhere that there are about 200 variants of what any average person might accept as 'truth'. The primary source of truth is always direct observation by a trained observer. When a scientist sees the snow line retreating up a mountain, he ponders the reason. When another scientist observes species migration over time up the slopes of a mountain, he ponders the reason. When they get together with a meteorologist I would say they know the mechanism. Such meetings have taken place on a global scale. The degree of overlap and agreement between direct observations is too vast to be an artifact of the scientific method. Accordingly, I accept global climate change as a proven fact by direct observation. The overlap and conformity between many theoretical models of the causes provides an added bonus.

When, not if but when the global average sea level rises to the point that millions of people will lose not just their homes but their agricultural lands, will any of them be worrying about minor health problems? And yet we are expending billions of dollars on medical research. All current economic models require that economic growth = spend more money, produce more goods. An engineer, it has been said, is a person who can do for a cent what any fool can do for a dollar. So, say I, let us not tweak and poke at the global economy but engineer it so that producing less will enhance the status of all of our tiny globe's citizens.

Patrick Lockerby | 04/02/09 | 18:55 PM

"...we are neither arguing against each other, nor are we knocking each other. "

Agreed & if any hostility is sensed in my writing it's unintended. I mean, it's boring to have a conversation with people who completely agree w/you, as it just gets to the point where you might as well just have a conversation w/yourself. & I can assure that tho I have my believes & opinions (I consider them more as hunches & suspensions) I've no axe to grind but that of my own knowledge.

A few months ago I read a book about the Enron collapse ("The Smartest Guys in the Room"). There's a sad almost consolation in seeing such men on top of the world, who thought that they had it all right, but were really just riding the crest of a wave, as it becomes obvious that their fortunate rested more on luck than on personal skill. That's how Tolstoy viewed Napoleon as well. Nature & reality can be harsh, it's funny how the mind works.

I agree Gehard we may be talking more policy than science. A lot of these thoughts stem my own thoughts brewing in reaction to some of the other conversations I've been fortunate to witness here, like those about autism/vaccines & creationism/evolution. In those sort of topics, there are all sorts of science-bashing visitors, quite typical of almost any blogging discussion btwn disagreeing parties. They come here to knock heads, everyone disagrees w/them, it's clear that their arguments are flawed, they know hardly anything about science, which even I'll be willing to admit, & like you say they're vindictive of this enterprise science while having enjoyed its advantages all the same.

But I have to admit that I get just a bit queasy at that all the same. (Like those mother's of autistic children, who are suddenly forced to concoct whole theories b/c their observations are flat-out rejected by science.) They're not scientists, or particularly informed of it, so of course anyone of us can talk scientific circles around them. I just get this nagging thought that much of science is just sophistry all the same, & just b/c we can poke holes in their theory, doesn't make us that much better. fMRI machines give research institutions millions of dollars for basic research, & it's looking like many of those studies are all baloney. I just wonder how much of what we stand for is just an elaborate house of cards. I'd like to find out that's wrong.

kerrjac (not verified) | 04/02/09 | 19:34 PM

Kerrjak: just in case anyone missed your website link I'm making it more obvious here.
In most web pages hyperlinks show in blue, but your signature hyperlink is non-obvious, being in black.

Dialogue, thoughts, reactions, ideas for future posts, ramblings,&other signs of life

I like that!

Have you ever seen the movie, or read about Lorezo's Oil? I'll leave you with that thought and come back after a coffee.

Patrick Lockerby | 04/02/09 | 20:47 PM

Patrick,

Thanks for drawing attention to it & for the compliment!

I've only heard of the movie, but will be sure to add it to my queue.

The final piece turned out to include a bunch of bits that I posted as comments around here, so parts might sound familiar, I just felt a need to string many of them together - as you can probably tell I tend to think aloud. I included some Godel as well, but I admit being fast & easy in applying his theory. I've studied him directly, & read Hofstadter, but I still have to admit unease in discussing him - he was building off of so much background work, & sometimes his work seems like the theory of relativity, whereby it's so counter-intuitive in nature that you just have to accept it & leave it at that (or work with it so long until it makes a sort of sense).

One thing I've always been curious about - for you or anyone here - would be the implications that his theory has for the widespread use of the general linear model in empirical research.

kerrjac (not verified) | 04/03/09 | 19:40 PM

I agree that it is a serious problem when scientific principles are hijacked to make public policy. For example, there is about a 0.00003% chance of being struck by lightning (all things being equal), however, when this applys to public policy it would be tantamount to saying that there are at least 100 people in the U.S. that are just basically "out of luck".

While it is scientifically accurate, it would be wrong to simply write off these 100 people without giving them a fair shot at making their own informed decisions. Now I'm using a somewhat silly example, but it illustrates the point when statistics enters the picture. Because regardless of how small the odds are, if you're one of those 100 people, the probability is 100% for being struck.

Gerhard Adam | 04/02/09 | 21:09 PM

regardless of how small the odds are, if you're one of those 100 people, the probability is 100% for being struck.

Unless you improve the odds in favour of a Darwin award. You can do this easily by taking too literally the old advice to "go fly a kite!" When Benjamin Franklin performed his famous experiment in 1749, I suspect it would have been widely reported, the more so since the churches opposed his suggestion of putting 'Franklin rods' on churches. It is said that he was impatient to experiment, so, not being at the time able to mount his experiment on a church tower, he flew a kite - whilst taking suitable precautions.

It is easy to see how the expression 'go fly a kite' might have become fashionable, especially in an age when women and children dare not swear in public.

Patrick Lockerby | 04/02/09 | 21:45 PM

Kerrjak: I have quite a few bad science sites in a list. Perhaps I'll blog about them from an educational perspective, as you suggest.

I read your article and left this comment concerning 'the rightful place of science':

This is an interesting perspective on political use of language.
I
would say that the rightful place of science is in the home and in the
school, in the college and in the university, on the workshop floor and
in the street, in the hairdresser's shop and in the bar.
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Show a man how to fish and he will exhaust the natural stocks.
But when every person on the planet has at least a BSc degree, who then will starve?

Thank you for your, as ever, thought-provoking feedback.

Patrick Lockerby | 04/01/09 | 12:47 PM

In the end, it comes down to how much time and energy do you have
available to research the "bad science" to come up with sufficient
examples of how not to do something?

Gerhard:
I try a mix of approaches. If I know that somebody has level > L2 grasp of a subject, then I know they will understand the humour in a < L2 person's publication of a > L2 theory.

Hv = Iac( Lks>Ln )
Aks<Ln

To a close approximation where:
Hv = Humour value
Iac = an Intelligent argument coefficient
Aks = Author's knowledge of the subject
Rks = Reader's knowledge of the subject

I expect that Garth Sundem could write a better formula and build a whole blog out of this one idea. :)

This blogger manages a dry mix of physics, economics and sport, withs about the mildest slap on the wrist I have seen being given to bad science.

Patrick Lockerby | 04/01/09 | 15:27 PM

More The Chatter Box articles

About Patrick Lockerby

Comments

Add a comment

Know Science And Want To Write?

What People Are Saying

Books By Writers Here

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

More The Chatter Box articles

About Patrick Lockerby

Related Articles Here On Scientific Blogging

Comments

Add a comment

Know Science And Want To Write?

What People Are Saying

Books By Writers Here