Pathological Science

General discussion area for tube amps.

Moderators: pompeiisneaks, Colossal

Post Reply
R.G.
Posts: 1322
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:01 pm

Pathological Science

Post by R.G. »

It seems that even die-hard, experienced science researchers can delude themselves. This is an excerpt on the topic.
Humans really, really, really want to find patterns, and sometimes find patterns where they may not exist. It requires care to avoid fooling one's self.
=====================================================================================================
"Pathological science" is a term coined by Nobel-laureate in chemistry Irving Langmuir in a presentation he made at General Electric's Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory a few years before his death in 1957. Langmuir described typical cases as involving such things as barely detectable causal agents observed near the threshold of sensation which are nevertheless asserted to have been detected with great accuracy. The supporters offer fantastic theories that are contrary to experience and meet criticisms with ad hoc excuses. And, most telling, only supporters can reproduce the results. Critics can't duplicate the experiments.

He gave several examples, including ESP experiments and Blondlot's N-rays, and stated that
These are cases where there is no dishonesty involved but where people are tricked into false results by a lack of understanding about what human beings can do to themselves in the way of being led astray by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions. These are examples of pathological science. These are things that attracted a great deal of attention. Usually hundreds of papers have been published on them. Sometimes they have lasted for 15 or 20 years and then gradually have died away.
Langumuir visited J.B. Rhine's lab at Duke University where Rhine was claiming results of ESP experiments that could not be predicted by chance and were probably due to some sort of psychic power. Langmuir found that Rhine was not counting all his data, however. He was leaving out the scores of those he believed were guessing their Zener cards wrong on purpose. "Rhine believed that persons who disliked him guessed wrong to spite him. Therefore, he felt it would be misleading to include their scores" (Park 2000, 42). Rhine determined that some of his subjects were deliberately guessing wrong because their scores were too low to have occurred by chance. "Indeed, he was convinced that abnormally low scores were as significant as abnormally high scores in proving the existence of ESP" (ibid.).
I don't "believe" in science. I trust science. Science works, whether I believe in it or not.
User avatar
martin manning
Posts: 13573
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:43 am
Location: 39°06' N 84°30' W

Re: Pathological Science

Post by martin manning »

Source of the quote above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science More examples are given.
Transcript of Langmuir's talk at Princeton, 1953: https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langmuir.htm
Mentioned there is a book published in 2000 by Robert L. Park, which is highly rated and still in print: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_Science
Ten Over
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 5:27 pm
Location: Central California

Re: Pathological Science

Post by Ten Over »

Langmuir was paid by the U.S. government to pose as a debunker of UFO's amongst other things. He was not a debunker in the strict sense of the word because debunkers take things that are false or at least distorted and exposes them as such. Langmuir took things that were true and tried to convince us that they were false. Furthermore, he was fully aware that they were true while he claimed that they were false. He was hired because he was a well-respected scientist with a Nobel prize and because he was willing to lie to the U.S. taxpayer while taking their money. We were supposed to believe him based on his credentials even though he had no expertise whatsoever regarding intelligently controlled crafts zipping through our atmosphere with complete impunity. He did, however, soundly prove the existence of pathological science.
R.G.
Posts: 1322
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:01 pm

Re: Pathological Science

Post by R.G. »

Didn't know that about Langmuir. I'll go research him so more. Maybe he really, truly was an unprincipled tool of the establishment for nefarious means.

If he was, that would sure make him an easy target for ad hominem attacks, all right.

I just like the sentiments in the statement. It is a good statement of the pitfalls of self delusion - er, I mean experimenter's expectancy bias. There are many more. I'll go look some up from ideally more-respectable sources.
I don't "believe" in science. I trust science. Science works, whether I believe in it or not.
User avatar
xtian
Posts: 7109
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:15 pm
Location: Chico, CA
Contact:

Re: Pathological Science

Post by xtian »

"There's something inside your head"

Source: Danny Elfman
I build and repair tube amps. http://amps.monkeymatic.com
User avatar
didit
Posts: 1026
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:37 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Pathological Science

Post by didit »

Ten Over wrote: Fri Aug 30, 2024 8:24 pm Langmuir took things that were true and tried to convince us that they were false. Furthermore, he was fully aware that they were true while he claimed that they were false.
Bafflingly, unable find the evidence of this?

..
R.G.
Posts: 1322
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:01 pm

Re: Pathological Science

Post by R.G. »

Yeah - weird. I did some simple poking around last night and didn't find anything yet. I'll keep looking.
I don't "believe" in science. I trust science. Science works, whether I believe in it or not.
User avatar
didit
Posts: 1026
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:37 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Pathological Science

Post by didit »

Hmm --

"[...] effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability"

..
carlsoti
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:27 am

Re: Pathological Science

Post by carlsoti »

This guy is, in part, responsible for some of the tubes we love so much. I may be biased on that, though.
R.G.
Posts: 1322
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:01 pm

Re: Pathological Science

Post by R.G. »

@Ten Over:
I'm still confused. I can't find any data on line of Langmuir taking things that were true and trying to convince us that they were false. I'm really interested in this now. Can you give me a couple of links maybe to put me on the right track?
I don't "believe" in science. I trust science. Science works, whether I believe in it or not.
Post Reply