From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: It's Good In Theory, But... (Re: Characterization of quack theories)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:43:15 GMT

In article turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:

>Listening to the frequent discussions over controversial
>empirical claims, an unsophisticated reader could easily walk
>away with the view that only tradition and prejudice separate the
>sparring factions.  Such a reader might think that most
>scientists cast a skeptical eye on paranormal phenomena, the
>claims for homeopathic dilution, the idea that the earth is
>relatively young, etc., merely because these scientists were
>taught opposing claims.  As one poster's signature would have it,
>such critics merely engage in "school of thought bashing."
>
>I think this view is wrong.  I think it stems, in part, from an
>inadequate understanding of how to evaluate evidence.  The
>evidential claims for many of these controversial notions exhibit
>common flaws.  They are the kinds of flaws that scientists
>recognize from many, many past failures.  It is this history of
>dead ends which seduced previous researchers with flawed evidence
>that informs the way scientists evaluate the evidential claims
>accompanying these controversial notions. 
> [rest deleted to save space]


I am very impressed with Russell's presentation of the scientific method,
and how important it is for a scientist to remain critical and skeptical
when faced with theories and experimental evidence that contradict our
present state-of-the-knowledge.  It is true that the burden of proof lies
with the proponents and subject to verification by the scientific community.

But at this point, Russell and I part company.  As a scientist myself,
having worked at three of the top Government labs in this country (SNLL,
LBL, and LLNL), I can say that the egalitarian view that scientists, as a
group, *use* the scientific method in their approach to new ideas (or new
"paradigms"), is not what I observe in real life.  There are notable
exceptions, but by and large scientists are just as driven by emotions and
personal gain, rather than reason, as the general population.

To cite one example among many, all one has to do is to go over to sci.physics
and see how some of the physicists have labeled Dr. Jack Sarfatti (who knew
Feynman quite well) as a "quack" because of his approach to quantum mechanics,
yet it is clear that he knows what he is talking about and presents his
speculations in a way that can be critiqued using the scientific method (he
gives his basic postulates, and then uses understandable mathematical 
development to develop his theory).  Fortunately, not everybody on sci.physics
is taking such an "emotional" approach to his posts, there are a few
physicists, such as Dr. Paul Budnick, who, though critical, are taking the
proper scientific approach in dealing with Sarfatti's theories and
speculations.

In a private e-mail communication with a physicist e-mail friend who knows his
quantum mechanics and does not totally agree with Sarfatti, he stated that
some of these other physicists are just jealous, closed-minded, and react the
way they do because they are afraid that the ramifications of Sarfatti's
research would undermine many of the "paradigms" (sorry Russell) that they
hold dearly (after all, if you've devoted 20+ years of your life with one set
of "paradigms" (sorry Russell), it is emotionally difficult, and for some,
impossible, to change course in mid-life.)

There's a quote by a famous physicist - the name and the exact quote I can't
remember, but paraphrased it goes like this:  "When does a new theory in
physics get established?  When all the older physicists die off!"  (If you
know the exact quote and the physicist who said it, I'd like to know).  This
is a very frank statement, and as such reveals, I believe, the power that
unrestrained human emotions and personalities have on sabotaging the proper
scientific method for evaluating new ideas (of which Russell outlined very
well), with the unfortunate result that advancements in science are slowed
to the detriment of all.

Of course, this applies in the medical field as well, and I wouldn't even
be surprised if it's even more so (based on my personal experience with
medical doctors who also perform research).

I believe all of us would agree it is important that new ideas, speculations,
theories, etc. get a fair hearing and are presented to the scientific community
at large.  Why?  As Russell correctly points out, a large majority of these
speculations turn out to be dead-ends.  But do these speculations have value
in and of themselves, right or wrong?  The answer is an emphatic YES!

I know several scientists, all of good standing in their areas of expertise,
who do spend some of their valuable time studying such unorthodox speculations
(even from those they consider to be a little too far out in left field) 
because these speculations, if nothing else, provide them with new ways and
insights to view problems, which often end up as real contributions to science.
And, though Russell does not like this, they use the phrase "new paradigms" a
lot in referring to this activity.  A scientist needs to *always* challenge
the "paradigms" (sorry Russell) they currently hold, and be willing to change
them once the new ones pass rational scientific scrutiny (notice I said
rational).

For example, most of Dr. Hal Puthoff's significant work in stochastic
electrodynamics (published in Phys. Rev.) was inspired by such speculations
(Puthoff regularly reads Bearden's speculations for inspiration, even though
he thinks Bearden is totally out to lunch.)  Putting it another way, orthodox
science can (and maybe has) become too in-bred and stagnant if new ways of
looking at the world around us are squashed for reasons that have little to
do with science and a lot to do with human personality traits which I talked
about above.

I would even go as far to say that a scientist is incompetent who refuses to
rethink (notice I'm not saying throw out, just rethink) the basic fundamental
postulates of present day theory when confronted with conflicting scientific
evidence.  Those who *blindly* hold on to such "paradigms" (sorry Russell) as
the party line (and history shows several examples), will probably end up only
as amusing footnotes in the history of science.  What percentage of scientists
fit this category, I don't know, but it is probably shockingly larger than we
might at first suspect.  (I'm cross-posting this to alt.psychology.personality
for the opinion of the readers there since this "bound-to-paradigms-til-I-die"
attitude is a well-known, and testable characteristic of some personality
types.)

Of course, some of the more bureacratic minded scientists (strongly 'SJ'
personalities in the Myers-Briggs personality system) would say that we
already have an adequate outlet for new ideas in the current system of
publishing in refereed journals.  Again, this is a naive and egalitarian
viewpoint that does not reflect reality.  I've been around a lot of
scientists, and nearly everyone of them have, at one time in their life, had
a paper rejected because of objections of one "faceless" reviewer who did not
give a good reason why the paper was rejected, even though one or more of the
others thought it should be published.  I've also talked to scientists who
have been reviewers and rejected papers, and have been appalled that in some
instances the reasons sometimes were linked more to funding and a dislike for
the results and/or the researcher than anything rational as Russell outlined.

So it is clear that there need to be some changes to the present system to
make it more friendly to scientists to be able to present their new ideas,
speculations, theories, etc.  One scientist friend I know has several new
theories that unfortunately shake some "paradigms" (sorry Russell), and because
of this has been reluctant to publish anything for fear of his peers - this
should not be, but that's the *reality* of the present day system that rewards
those who hold to the "party" line.  Unfortunately, the rewards of being a
"party" line person is that they rise to levels of control, to the detriment
of science.

One intriguing idea is to let the solution be Internet/Usenet.  I propose
the creation of moderated (but only lightly) sci.*.speculations newsgroups to
act as true electronic journals.  At this time, there may not yet be enough
readers to make this viable.  But as the network grows geometrically, and new
proposals to expand it almost to every home, it may be only a few years where
such groups can really get off the ground and become a major factor in
scientific exchange and discussion in an atmosphere outside of the control
of those who attempt to stifle new ways of looking at things (oops, paradigms.)

Oh well, enough ramblings of a mad man.  :^)

I look forward to the discussion.  


Final Summary
=============

In summary, though Russell and I may have some differences of opinion, I am
very impressed with his outline of how a scientist needs to approach new ideas,
etc.  My point is that this system is not used in most situations, and that
there is a large bias in the scientific establishment against new speculations
that goes beyond anything rational.  The result of this is that such
speculations, which are important for scientific advancement, are not given a
proper platform for being expressed, and that scientists who would like to
propose such speculations are by and large unwilling to "rock the boat" for
fear of personal retribution.  I also propose that sci.*.speculations
(moderated) newsgroups be created as one possible solution to this problem.


Jon Noring


(p.s., I'm following this post to sci.med by a lecture given by Dr. Truzzi
wherein he expands on some of the issues I raise and also touches upon
the scientific method that Russell presented.  It is very interesting.)

-- 

Charter Member of the INFJ Club.

Now, if you're just dying to know what INFJ stands for, be brave, e-mail me,
and I'll send you some information.  It WILL be worth the inquiry, I think.

=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        | I VOTED FOR PEROT IN '92 |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   | Support UNITED WE STAND! |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 417-4101   |  caravan moves on."      |
=============================================================================
Who are you?  Read alt.psychology.personality!  That's where the action is.
Xref: sparky sci.med:23495 misc.health.alternative:324