Pathological science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Distinguish from the genuine medical-related science called pathology.
Irving Langmuir coined the phrase pathological science in a talk in 1953
Irving Langmuir coined the phrase pathological science in a talk in 1953

Pathological science is a neologism that describes the process in science in which "people are tricked into false results .. by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions" [1] Some commentators have noted a tendency to associate pathological science with what Bart Simon notes ".. are categories [.. such as ..] pseudoscience, amateur science, deviant or fraudulent science, bad science, junk science, and popular science [..] cargo-cult science, and voodoo science ..". [2]. Others such as Professor Emeritus Henry H. Bauer have noted that "'Pathological Science' is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological)" [3].

The term was first used by Irving Langmuir, Nobel Prize-winning chemist, during a 1953 colloquium at the Knolls Research Laboratory. It found resonance among skeptical scientists, who enjoy debunking recurrent pseudoscientific views and claims. Langmuir said a pathological science is an area of research that simply will not "go away" —long after it was given up on as 'false' by the majority of scientists in the field.[citation needed] He called pathological science "the science of things that aren't so" (Park 2000:40-41)

Such examples may include N-rays, polywater, water memory, cold fusion, homeopathy and animal language acquisition. [4]

Contents

[edit] Definition

Pathological science, as defined by Langmuir, is a psychological process in which a scientist, originally conforming to the scientific method, unconsciously veers from that method, and begins a pathological process of wishful data interpretation (see the Observer-expectancy effect cognitive bias). Some criteria for pathological science are:[3]

  • The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
  • The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
  • There are claims of great accuracy.
  • Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
  • Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.
  • The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.

Langmuir never intended the term to be rigorously defined, it was simply the title of his talk on some examples of "weird science". As with any attempt to define the scientific endeavor, examples and counterexamples can always be found.

[edit] Langmuir's examples

[edit] N-rays

Langmuir discussed the issue of N-rays as an example of pathological science.

The discoverer, René-Prosper Blondlot, was working on X-rays (as were many physicists of the era) and noticed a new visible radiation that could penetrate aluminium. He devised experiments in which a barely visible object was illuminated by these N-rays, and thus became considerably "more visible". Blondlot claimed that N-Rays also produced a small visual reaction, which could only be seen when most "normal" light sources were removed and the target was just barely visible to begin with.

After a time another physicist, Robert W. Wood, decided to visit Blondlot's lab, where he had since moved on to the physical characterization of N-rays. The experiment passed the rays from a 2 mm slit through an aluminum prism, from which he was measuring the index of refraction to a precision that required measurements accurate to within 0.01 mm.

Wood asked how it was possible that he could measure something to 0.01 mm from a 2 mm source, a physical impossibility in the propagation of any kind of wave. Blondlot replied, "That's one of the fascinating things about the N-rays. They don't follow the ordinary laws of science that you ordinarily think of."

Wood then asked to see the experiments being run as usual, which took place in a room required to be very dark so the target was barely visible. Blondlot repeated his most recent experiments and got the same results—despite the fact that Wood had reached over and covertly removed the prism.

[edit] Other examples

Langmuir offered examples of what he regarded as pathological science in his original speech:

[edit] Newer examples

Since Langmuir's original talk, a number of newer examples of what appear to be pathological science have appeared.

[edit] Polywater

Certainly the example of polywater is one of pathological science. In this case, however, the problem spread beyond a single lab; largely as a result of much better publishing and international talks, polywater experiments were being carried out around the world. Moreover polywater made some scientific sense as, although unlikely, it was certainly within the realm of possibility. With considerably more time and energy invested in the concept, polywater took much longer to die than N-rays, which basically had a single supporter.

[edit] Cold fusion

From its inception in 1989 through the 1990's, cold fusion was seen by many to be an example of pathological science. However in 2004, a US Department of Energy panel identified several areas where more research might resolve the continuing scientific issues.

[edit] Scientific theories that are not pathological science

As with any definition, it is useful to consider examples that do not apply but have features that may be in common. This can be a useful filter to separate closely related concepts.

For instance, according to the "scientist's account" of the progress of science, theory generally follows from experiment, and those theories are always open to change when new evidence is presented.

[edit] The cubical atom

Langmuir himself was at one time a supporter of the cubical atom, a simple model of atomic theory. This model was later was abandoned in favor of the Bohr atom, which offered a much simpler and richer understanding of the collected experimental results. There was no "pathology" taking place; when Bohr's model came along the supporters of the cubical atom had no particular interest in it anymore, and it quickly disappeared.

[edit] Continental drift

The theory of continental drift was proposed in 1912 by Alfred Wegener but not taken seriously by geologists until well into the 1960s. While it sounded fantastic in the first half of the last century it did make clear predictions about the movement of the continental plates, and as soon as the mechanisms driving plate tectonics (the theory which replaced continental drift) and seafloor spreading were elucidated, the theory gained wide acceptance. There was no pathology involved — the evidence appeared, grew, and was eventually accepted. So simply "not being accepted" at a point in time also proves not to be a useful demarcation line.

[edit] Lysenkoism

Lysenkoism is named after Trofim Lysenko and refers to a period of Soviet science in which political ideas superseded scientific rigour. Lysenko was an influential political figure, but his ideas were devoid of scientific merit; many scientists of the time were forced into publicly recanting politically unacceptable ideas such as genetics and heredity (those that refused were imprisoned or executed). Once again, there was no pathology involved in the legitimate scientific community. Rather, it was imposed by the political system.

[edit] Criticisms

Whenever a subject is branded as pathological science, its supporters flock to its defense. In general the arguments claim that in the past "people didn't consider effect x to be real, but it was later proved to be true". However these arguments tend to miss the point. The issue is not whether an effect actually exists, nor whether people "believe in it"; the issue is how the support for the claim is given.

Nevertheless the term remains a difficult one to use. Most of the problem appears to be the use of the word "pathological", which to many people implies mental illness. A more neutral term may be seen as more acceptable.

Critics sometimes assert that a pathological science can only be shown to be one in retrospect. Supporters of Langmuir's idea, however, point to explicit principles, such as the first three cited above. The radical and inexplicable discovery of radioactivity, for instance, could never have been classed as pathological science precisely because the observations were not at the limit of detection and could be easily reproduced. To give a modern example, many people consider cold fusion to be pathological, yet research continues. The possibility certainly exists that one of these experiments will suddenly prove the effect exists—but the same is true for N-rays. In fact, the test of pathological science is not whether a reported discovery turns out to be true, but the nature of the claims and the evidence for them.

Some people have claimed that the following are examples of scientific work that have described as pathological science[citation needed]:

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Irving Langmuir, "Colloquium on Pathological Science", held at The Knolls Research Laboratory, December 18, 1953. A recording of the actual talk was made, but apparently lost, though a recorded transcript was produced by Langmuir a few months later. A transcript is available on the Web site of Kenneth Steiglitz, Professor of Computer Science, Princeton University. But see also: I. Langmuir, "Pathological Science", General Electric, (Distribution Unit, Bldg. 5, Room 345, Research and Development Center, P. O. Box 8, Schenectady, NY 12301), 68-C-035 (1968); I. Langmuir, "Pathological Science", (1989) Physics Today, Volume 42, Issue 10, October 1989, pp.36-48
  2. ^ Bart Simon, "Undead Science: Science Studies and the Afterlife of Cold Fusion" (2002) ISBN 0-8135-3154-3. Simon refers to: Thomas F. Gieryn, "Cultural Boundaries of Science : Credibility on the Line" (1999) University Of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-29262-2
  3. ^ a b Henry H. Bauer, "'Pathological Science' is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological)" HYLE--International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 8, No.1 (2002), pp. 5-20
  4. ^ http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langmuir.htm
  5. ^ For a review and bibliography, see Hollander and Claus, J. Opt. Soc. Am., 25, 270-286 (1935).
  6. ^ F. Allison and E.S. Murphy, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 52, 3796 (1930). (b) F. Allison, Ind. Eng. Chem., 4, 9 (1932). (c) S. S. Cooper and T. R. Ball, J. Chem Ed., 13, 210 (1936), also pp. 278 and 326. (d) M. A. Jeppesen and R. M. Bell, Phys. Rev., 47, 546 (1935). (e) H. F. Mildrum and B. M. Schmidt, Air Force Aero Prop. Lab. AFAPL-TR-66-52 (May 1966).

[edit] References

[edit] See also

[edit] External links and bibliography

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/t/Pathological_science.html"
In other languages