>>> Posting number 559, dated 30 Jul 1996 13:33:39 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 13:33:39 -0400 Reply-To: Discussion of Fraud in Science Sender: Discussion of Fraud in Science From: "Dewey M. McLean" Subject: Re: A Dubious AZT Survival Study Response to John Bailar's 7/30/96 posting. >I wrote, and Ted Gerrard wrote in response, as shown below. > >The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong --- but >that's the way to bet. There are dedicated and informed scientists out >there who are flat wrong about major matters (some of which turn up here >from time to time). The proponents have a fair hearing, their views are >not accepted, but they complain forever after that their hearing was not >really fair, that the profession has exiled them, that journals are the >evil tools of the profession or the interested politicians or whatever, and >so on. But the fact remains that the proponents of unaccepted ideas in >science are usually wrong. There is no conspiracy out there. John, Voltaire must have had your archetype in mind when he cast the character "Pangloss" for his _Candide_. >This is absolutely not to say that the majority is always right, or the >minority always wrong. Nearly every importand and controversial idea seems >to have started as a minority opinion. But when most members of a >profession or sup-discipline know about the disagreement, when the >proponents of an unaccepted view have had their say, and when their views >are not accepted, it is time for those crying in the wilderness to consider >whether they may have been mistaken. If REAL scientists actually believed--or practiced--this silliness, we would still not believe in continental drift, or the concept of Milankovitch-cycle-driven ice age climatology, and a host of other topics that "experts" discounted early in their development. Surely you know about Ignaz Semmelweis who advised medical doctors to wash their hands before delivering children and surgery--and how he was ignored by the great medical minds of his time. And what about J.J. Waterson whose paper on the molecular theory of gases anticipated much of the work of Joule, Clausius, and Clerk Maxwell, for whom the referee of the Royal Society said was "nonsense." Waterson's work became lost until discovered 45 years later. I could go on and on. >There is a broad and serious issue here: How much is enough? How long >should we continue to give substantial attention to important criticisms >that fail to convince, at least to some level of serious doubt? Re "how much is enough?" the conclusion of scientific issues is determined by the scientists involved and not by kibitzers up in the bleachers who don't know enough about the issues to discuss them intelligently. For "how much is enough?" this also applies to endless lessons in Statistics 101. >Where is >the best balance between a tyranny of the majority and a scientific >landscape cluttered with rejected ideas that will not die, and are >sometimes treated as equals with ideas still in full vigor? When is >something so far beyond the core of the discipline that public support is >no longer justified (though supporters should be forever free to invest >their own resources or seek other support that might turn the tables)? I >suspect that any operational answer to this question would cause far more >trouble, in myriad ways, that it would prevent, but the matter coudl use >some discussion. John, this is worse gibberish than that of some creationists who have contacted me recently. >I should add that, as someone with a lot of editorial experience, I know >that editors of even the most eminent journals make a lot of mistakes in >what they select. But I know also that they don't always make the same >mistakes, and a series of unfavorable decisions is likely to carry a >message. But again, not always. Good screen filler, but not very instructive. >One other thing. I find the notion that birds and small mammals have >senses denied to mere humans, or so poorly developed in us that we cannot >detect them, to be inherently implausible. It seemed pretty nutty even the >first time I heard about it many years ago, and it appears that the data in >support are very skimpy and from a tiny handful of investigators. Gerrard >may well be right, and I rate the chances of long-term success of his views >on this as a lot higher than those of most other dissident views. But I >would not come to a firm conclusion unless I had become familiar with the >original literature and also had a chance to hear from the other side >about its counter-arguments. And life is too short to dig into very many >controversies as deeply as is needed to come to an informed opinion. It's >long, hard work. I am surprized and dismayed by how rapidly some >scientists form opinions about controversial matters beyond their real >expertise. This paragraph is pure wisdom. (After reading Miss Manners I don't use the word "bullshit" anymore.) John, it wasn't long ago, that you were attacking, and baiting, the Science Studies folks with some kind of misplaced--and wrong--thinking. Some of them even contacted me thanking me for standing up for them. Some of us have bared our souls on Scifraud for those who might be interested in issues involving actual misconduct. Sorry if it interferes with your lessons in Statistics 101, and whatever. John, I haven't seen much/anything out of you on the topic of scientific misconduct. Surely, in your many decades of slashing and burning the frontiers of science you came across something other than dreamy landscapes, honorable editors, and pristine scientists. I would be delighted to have you tell us about the great scientific issues you provided leadership in, and your heroic experiences at confronting misconduct and fraud. Surely, you have something/anything real to say on the topic of scifraud. Dewey McLean P.S. John, I know that you are speaking in generalities not pointed toward anyone. Same for me. I am using "John" in the sense of a universal archetypal character. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >John > >>>Re the note below from Dewey, on the "inside" quote from John Lauritsen: I >>>agree about the shoddy standards, but you can't count on things getting >>>better by themselves. And most of the editors I know are pretty responsive >>>to readers. Do either of you write now and then to editors about the >>>shoddy work they publish? That might do more good in the long run than >>>grumbling on our favorite pages here. By all means, continue to grumble, >>>and I will grumble with you, but maybe you could also act more directly. >>> >>I honestly think John lives in a different world ! >> >>Time after time come postings on "our favorite pages" illustrating that many >>leading science editors pay not the slightest attention to legitimate (and >>usually >>polite---to start with anyway) "grumbles". >> >>Also time after time specific details are provided on Scifraud to show that >>many >>of these "grumbles" are something more. Yet John remains steadfastly >>unconvinced. **************************************************************************** Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559 Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.REDACTED Virginia Polytechnic Institute Blacksburg, VA 24061 Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/ Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html ****************************************************************************