3 ms·

Could one create a proof of pseudo-science, by injecting a faked fundamental corner stone paper, that becomes proof by inheritance that a full field is rotten?

Could one create a proof of pseudo-science, by injecting a faked fundamental corner stone paper, that becomes proof by inheritance that a full field is rotten? Also why does this remind me of european politicans, claiming everyone wants to life european lifes, meanwhile whole countries goto war and atrocities without big counter-demonstrations by those western valued citizens .. narrative glider guns going ad absurdum..

kenjackson 2y ago
> Could one create a proof of pseudo-science, by injecting a faked fundamental corner stone paper, that becomes proof by inheritance that a full field is rotten? I don't think there's any doubt that pseudoscience exists, even amongst the most optimistic of scientists. The problem is identifying what is bad science vs what is good. The fact that I can send this from a small phone from a parking lot is proof that someone did good science at some point in time. Or that I've seen therapies like CBT turn someone who was struggling mentally on a daily basis to thrive, or that I've seen valve replacement surgery give someone years of great life after a "six months to live diagnosis" -- all show that there is good science. I think we almost need a "discipline" of people who validate scientific results, and people should be held accountable for results that validate or don't. Peer review is great. It's not a farce (I've gotten some incredible feedback on papers from it), but it is also extremely limited by design. We need more.
jjk166 2y ago
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I can publish a paper with results I think are wrong, but it's entirely possible that follow up studies confirm it was accidentally correct. While this is improbable in general, if we restrict ourselves to publishing claims that are sufficiently plausible that people in the field would accept them as a corner stone paper, then there is a very decent chance it sounds plausible because it's true. Even if I test the claim myself before publishing to confirm it's false, I may have made an error. Possibly repeatedly publishing bogus papers in a certain manner might be able to confidently weed out poor academic hygeine, but it's not a trivial thing.

kenjackson 2y ago

> Could one create a proof of pseudo-science, by injecting a faked fundamental corner stone paper, that becomes proof by inheritance that a full field is rotten? I don't think there's any doubt that pseudoscience exists, even amongst the most optimistic of scientists. The problem is identifying what is bad science vs what is good. The fact that I can send this from a small phone from a parking lot is proof that someone did good science at some point in time. Or that I've seen therapies like CBT turn someone who was struggling mentally on a daily basis to thrive, or that I've seen valve replacement surgery give someone years of great life after a "six months to live diagnosis" -- all show that there is good science. I think we almost need a "discipline" of people who validate scientific results, and people should be held accountable for results that validate or don't. Peer review is great. It's not a farce (I've gotten some incredible feedback on papers from it), but it is also extremely limited by design. We need more.

jjk166 2y ago

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I can publish a paper with results I think are wrong, but it's entirely possible that follow up studies confirm it was accidentally correct. While this is improbable in general, if we restrict ourselves to publishing claims that are sufficiently plausible that people in the field would accept them as a corner stone paper, then there is a very decent chance it sounds plausible because it's true. Even if I test the claim myself before publishing to confirm it's false, I may have made an error. Possibly repeatedly publishing bogus papers in a certain manner might be able to confidently weed out poor academic hygeine, but it's not a trivial thing.