6 ms·

So many pseudoscience articles today! We got one about solving NP complete problems in polynomial time with a new kind of "brain-like" computer, and now there's

by jules 12y ago

So many pseudoscience articles today! We got one about solving NP complete problems in polynomial time with a new kind of "brain-like" computer, and now there's one about violating conservation of momentum. Next up: Peano arithmetic is inconsistent & telepathy proven to work based on quantum mechanics.

api 12y ago
What exactly makes this pseudoscience? Is it pseudoscientific to investigate unlikely or speculative possibilities? They have presented evidence and a proposed mechanism, have fully published the details of their work, and have invited others to attempt to replicate it or to show where they're wrong. Where's the "pseudo"? It's also important to note that in experimental physics it's more than enough to show an effect that can be replicated. Their currently proposed theoretical explanation could be wrong, but that wouldn't matter.
- jules 12y ago
  They have an experimental setup that spits out some data. That data goes against the theory of general relativity. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The article also sets off various other pseudoscience alarm bells, such as the fact that their paper is published in a philosophy journal, and the guy having a history degree instead of a physics degree. But that goes against the naive rebellious spirit of HN that dictates that anybody can overthrow fundamental physics with an experimental setup in his basement, so downvote away!
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Going against established theory has nothing to do with "pseudoscience". Pseudoscience is how you treat it. If you say, this is the next best thing, all my doubters are idiots, and invest now! Then that is pseudoscience. But if you just go, "hmm, that's funny" and keep investigating what's going on, that's just plain science. The article is very much written in the second form, at least as far as I can tell.
    - jules 12y ago
      Quotes from the article: "ninety-nine percent convinced" That's not "hmm, that's funny, let's investigate more". "The theory has been sitting in peer-reviewed literature for more than fifteen years" (a single paper in a philosophy journal...) "Those who are players in the field of advanced propulsion," he says, "feel obligated, for whatever reason, to dissuade people from considering seriously alternatives to their particular scheme. I think they may genuinely feel they are doing a public service when they say, 'Don't spend money on that, it can't possibly work.'" He gives me a wry smile. "But their own schemes have all failed." Implying that the space industry should invest in it.
      - mikeash 12y ago
        Yay, taking quotes out of context! She became "ninety-nine percent convinced." She started out skeptical until she investigated it thoroughly. "Sitting in peer-reviewed literature" only applies to "something obviously wrong with it." He's saying that, if there's a flaw, it must be subtle. That's not saying "therefore it must be right" but merely that there are no obvious flaws. And for space industry investment, I really don't see the problem here regardless of the context. Imagine, for a moment, that this was a completely legitimate thing that failed to attract any investment. Why would he not say those exact words? If this is something that could be said both by a kook and a legitimate scientist working on a legitimate theory, does that not mean the statement has no deciding power?
        jules 12y ago
        Meh, from those quotes it's 100% clear that the article presents a picture that is diametrically opposed to the picture that you said it paints. If it were painting a picture of good science where such an extraordinary claim would be approached with great skepticism, then it wouldn't contain phrases such as she's 99% certain, claims that it's peer reviewed when it's really not, and implications that the space industry should invest in it.
        mikeash 12y ago
  - api 12y ago
    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- I don't hear anyone claiming otherwise. Woodward publishes all his work an has invited others to attempt to replicate it or tell him where he's wrong. "such as the fact that their paper is published in a philosophy journal, and the guy having a history degree instead of a physics degree." -- argument from authority, very unscientific. If an unemployed poodle shaver publishes a replicable experiment, it is science. "naive rebellious spirit of HN that dictates that anybody can overthrow fundamental physics with an experimental setup in his basement" -- if the experiment works and can be replicated, they certainly can. There's also a misunderstanding of scientific epistemology in your last statement. Theories are seldom overthrown, but they are often extended. Einstein didn't overthrow Newton -- he provided an extension. Newton's equations still work, but with a very tiny error that only becomes visible at high velocities or with unbelievably precise measurements unavailable in Newton's day. A theory is not an absolute dogma, but a model that is deemed correct within its context -- namely all data and experiments available at a given time. New data or new experiments can extend the context, requiring an extension of theory. If this effect is real, it would not "demolish" or "overthrow" relativity, but would likely require some sort of extension to the theoretical framework. Who knows? Perhaps such a thing could point in the direction of the elusive quantum / relativity synthesis? I am skeptical (lower-case S) of this, in that I wouldn't really believe it unless the effect could be reliably amplified. So far that hasn't been the case. But I don't consider it at all psuedoscientific to try it out. Even if the effect is a result of something else, doing so will refine your skill at measuring tiny forces and possibly advance the field of experimental technique. The character assassination and arguments from authority are completely unwarranted, and is a major reason I am not a Skeptic (upper-case S). P.S. a tangent: Part of why I think CS advances so fast is that the unambiguous nature of computer "experiments" leaves little room for arguments from authority or character either pro or con. Either something works or it does not. Politics -- that age-old enemy of truth -- are clearly irrelevant.
    - jules 12y ago
      > argument from authority, very unscientific. If an unemployed poodle shaver publishes a replicable experiment, it is science. Except for the fact that he says: "The theory has been sitting in peer-reviewed literature for more than fifteen years, so if there was something obviously wrong with it, the odds are, more than one person would have said that it's not right.". I'm just counting that claim. > if the experiment works and can be replicated, they certainly can. And guess what, it wasn't replicated! > There's also a misunderstanding of scientific epistemology in your last statement. I understand that, but conservation of momentum is one of the most fundamental facts of physics, maybe even THE most fundamental fact of physics, certainly as fundamental as conservation of energy (in relativity it's basically the same thing -- both are components of the energy-momentum 4 vector). It holds in Newtonian mechanics, general relativity, and in quantum mechanics. It is at the very basis of those theories. Finding something that contradicts that would completely destroy that foundation. It would be the single biggest discovery in the history of science. To present that with such confidence as the article does is just ludicrous. If the article was about creating energy from nothing, should that be taken seriously too, with similarly weak evidence?
  - jdpage 12y ago
    To be totally fair to the dude, he's not claiming anything yet, because he maintains that the experiments he's done are inconclusive, and he still needs to control for additional effects. As far as I can tell, he's basically doing a series of experiments where he's trying to disprove his own project because he doesn't want another Dean drive. The data can't 'go against' general relativity because it's agreed by everyone--the researcher included--that he hasn't got all the variables controlled, and so the data doesn't 'go' at all. It'd be pseudoscience if he was cherry-picking data that shows his theory to be correct, or ignoring existing data that conclusively shows that his theory is incorrect. He doesn't seem to be doing the former; I don't really have a way of telling if he's doing the latter.
  - DennisP 12y ago
    Actually the whole idea is based on general relativity.

by jules 12y ago

api 12y ago

What exactly makes this pseudoscience? Is it pseudoscientific to investigate unlikely or speculative possibilities? They have presented evidence and a proposed mechanism, have fully published the details of their work, and have invited others to attempt to replicate it or to show where they're wrong. Where's the "pseudo"? It's also important to note that in experimental physics it's more than enough to show an effect that can be replicated. Their currently proposed theoretical explanation could be wrong, but that wouldn't matter.

jules 12y ago
They have an experimental setup that spits out some data. That data goes against the theory of general relativity. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The article also sets off various other pseudoscience alarm bells, such as the fact that their paper is published in a philosophy journal, and the guy having a history degree instead of a physics degree. But that goes against the naive rebellious spirit of HN that dictates that anybody can overthrow fundamental physics with an experimental setup in his basement, so downvote away!
- mikeash 12y ago
  Going against established theory has nothing to do with "pseudoscience". Pseudoscience is how you treat it. If you say, this is the next best thing, all my doubters are idiots, and invest now! Then that is pseudoscience. But if you just go, "hmm, that's funny" and keep investigating what's going on, that's just plain science. The article is very much written in the second form, at least as far as I can tell.
  - jules 12y ago
    Quotes from the article: "ninety-nine percent convinced" That's not "hmm, that's funny, let's investigate more". "The theory has been sitting in peer-reviewed literature for more than fifteen years" (a single paper in a philosophy journal...) "Those who are players in the field of advanced propulsion," he says, "feel obligated, for whatever reason, to dissuade people from considering seriously alternatives to their particular scheme. I think they may genuinely feel they are doing a public service when they say, 'Don't spend money on that, it can't possibly work.'" He gives me a wry smile. "But their own schemes have all failed." Implying that the space industry should invest in it.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      Yay, taking quotes out of context! She became "ninety-nine percent convinced." She started out skeptical until she investigated it thoroughly. "Sitting in peer-reviewed literature" only applies to "something obviously wrong with it." He's saying that, if there's a flaw, it must be subtle. That's not saying "therefore it must be right" but merely that there are no obvious flaws. And for space industry investment, I really don't see the problem here regardless of the context. Imagine, for a moment, that this was a completely legitimate thing that failed to attract any investment. Why would he not say those exact words? If this is something that could be said both by a kook and a legitimate scientist working on a legitimate theory, does that not mean the statement has no deciding power?
      - jules 12y ago
        Meh, from those quotes it's 100% clear that the article presents a picture that is diametrically opposed to the picture that you said it paints. If it were painting a picture of good science where such an extraordinary claim would be approached with great skepticism, then it wouldn't contain phrases such as she's 99% certain, claims that it's peer reviewed when it's really not, and implications that the space industry should invest in it.
        mikeash 12y ago
- api 12y ago
  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- I don't hear anyone claiming otherwise. Woodward publishes all his work an has invited others to attempt to replicate it or tell him where he's wrong. "such as the fact that their paper is published in a philosophy journal, and the guy having a history degree instead of a physics degree." -- argument from authority, very unscientific. If an unemployed poodle shaver publishes a replicable experiment, it is science. "naive rebellious spirit of HN that dictates that anybody can overthrow fundamental physics with an experimental setup in his basement" -- if the experiment works and can be replicated, they certainly can. There's also a misunderstanding of scientific epistemology in your last statement. Theories are seldom overthrown, but they are often extended. Einstein didn't overthrow Newton -- he provided an extension. Newton's equations still work, but with a very tiny error that only becomes visible at high velocities or with unbelievably precise measurements unavailable in Newton's day. A theory is not an absolute dogma, but a model that is deemed correct within its context -- namely all data and experiments available at a given time. New data or new experiments can extend the context, requiring an extension of theory. If this effect is real, it would not "demolish" or "overthrow" relativity, but would likely require some sort of extension to the theoretical framework. Who knows? Perhaps such a thing could point in the direction of the elusive quantum / relativity synthesis? I am skeptical (lower-case S) of this, in that I wouldn't really believe it unless the effect could be reliably amplified. So far that hasn't been the case. But I don't consider it at all psuedoscientific to try it out. Even if the effect is a result of something else, doing so will refine your skill at measuring tiny forces and possibly advance the field of experimental technique. The character assassination and arguments from authority are completely unwarranted, and is a major reason I am not a Skeptic (upper-case S). P.S. a tangent: Part of why I think CS advances so fast is that the unambiguous nature of computer "experiments" leaves little room for arguments from authority or character either pro or con. Either something works or it does not. Politics -- that age-old enemy of truth -- are clearly irrelevant.
  - jules 12y ago
    > argument from authority, very unscientific. If an unemployed poodle shaver publishes a replicable experiment, it is science. Except for the fact that he says: "The theory has been sitting in peer-reviewed literature for more than fifteen years, so if there was something obviously wrong with it, the odds are, more than one person would have said that it's not right.". I'm just counting that claim. > if the experiment works and can be replicated, they certainly can. And guess what, it wasn't replicated! > There's also a misunderstanding of scientific epistemology in your last statement. I understand that, but conservation of momentum is one of the most fundamental facts of physics, maybe even THE most fundamental fact of physics, certainly as fundamental as conservation of energy (in relativity it's basically the same thing -- both are components of the energy-momentum 4 vector). It holds in Newtonian mechanics, general relativity, and in quantum mechanics. It is at the very basis of those theories. Finding something that contradicts that would completely destroy that foundation. It would be the single biggest discovery in the history of science. To present that with such confidence as the article does is just ludicrous. If the article was about creating energy from nothing, should that be taken seriously too, with similarly weak evidence?
- jdpage 12y ago
  To be totally fair to the dude, he's not claiming anything yet, because he maintains that the experiments he's done are inconclusive, and he still needs to control for additional effects. As far as I can tell, he's basically doing a series of experiments where he's trying to disprove his own project because he doesn't want another Dean drive. The data can't 'go against' general relativity because it's agreed by everyone--the researcher included--that he hasn't got all the variables controlled, and so the data doesn't 'go' at all. It'd be pseudoscience if he was cherry-picking data that shows his theory to be correct, or ignoring existing data that conclusively shows that his theory is incorrect. He doesn't seem to be doing the former; I don't really have a way of telling if he's doing the latter.
- DennisP 12y ago
  Actually the whole idea is based on general relativity.