education eyesonly forumpost francis histo hoax inquiry jjg^groll.co.za pathologicalscience projects pseudoscience psychology random_interest science sf skepticism storyideas theory voodoo-science wishfullthinking

My tags:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Distinguish from the genuine medical-related science called pathology.

Part of a series on:

Science

Natural sciences Astronomy: Cosmology • Galactic astronomy • Planetary geology • Planetary science • Stellar astronomy • Sun Biology: Anatomy • Astrobiology • Biochemistry • Bioengineering • Bioethics • Biogeography • Bioinformatics • Biophysics • Biopsychology • Biotechnology • Botany • Cell biology • Cryobiology • Developmental biology • Ecology • Ethnobiology • Evolutionary biology (Intro) • Forestry • Genetics (Intro) • Gerontology • Immunology • Limnology • Marine biology • Mathematical biology • Microbiology • Molecular biology • Neuroscience • Paleontology • Parasitology • Physiology • Radiobiology • Soil biology • Biostatistics • Theoretical biology  • Toxicology • Zoology Chemistry: Acid-base reaction theories • Alchemy • Analytical chemistry • Astrochemistry • Biochemistry • Crystallography • Chemical engineering • Environmental chemistry • Food science • Geochemistry • Green chemistry • Inorganic chemistry • Materials science • Medicinal chemistry • Metallurgy • Molecular physics • Nuclear chemistry • Organic chemistry • Photochemistry • Physical chemistry • Radiochemistry • Solid-state chemistry • Stereochemistry • Supramolecular chemistry • Surface chemistry • Theoretical chemistry Earth sciences: Atmospheric sciences • Ecology • Environmental science • Geodesy • Geography • Geology • Geomorphology • Geophysics • Glaciology • Hydrology • Limnology • Mineralogy • Oceanography • Paleoclimatology • Palynology • Physical geography • Soil science • Space science Physics: Applied physics • Atomic physics • Computational physics • Condensed matter physics • Experimental physics • Mechanics • Particle physics • Plasma physics • Quantum mechanics (Intro) • Solid mechanics • Theoretical physics • Thermodynamics • Entropy • General relativity • M-theory • Special relativity

Behavioral sciences Anthropology Psychology: Social psychology Sociobiology

Applied sciences Computer science Engineering: Software Engineering • Agricultural Engineering  • Biomedical Engineering  • Chemical Engineering  • Civil Engineering  • Computer Engineering  • Electrical Engineering  • Fire Protection Engineering  • Genetic Engineering  • Industrial Engineering  • Mechanical engineering  • Military Engineering  • Mining Engineering  • Nuclear Engineering  • Test Engineering Health sciences: Bioengineering • Dentistry • Epidemiology • Healthcare • Medicine • Nursing • Pharmacy  • Social work • Veterinary medicine

Related Interdisciplinarity: Applied physics • Artificial intelligence • Bioinformatics • Biomedical engineering • Cognitive science  • Computational linguistics • Cultural studies • Cybernetics • Ethnic studies • Evolutionary psychology • Health • Library and information science • Logic • Mathematical physics • Scientific modeling • Museology • Neural engineering • Neuroscience • Political economy • Science and technology studies • Science studies • Semiotics • Systems theory • Transdisciplinarity • Urban planning History of Science Philosophy of science Scientific method

v • d • e

Pathological science is the process in science in which "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions".^[1] The term was first used by Irving Langmuir, Nobel Prize-winning chemist, during a 1953 colloquium at the Knolls Research Laboratory. 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. He called pathological science "the science of things that aren't so".^[2]

Bart Simon lists it among practices pretending to be science: "categories [.. such as ..] pseudoscience, amateur science, deviant or fraudulent science, bad science, junk science, and popular science [..] pathological science, cargo-cult science, and voodoo science ..".^[3]

On the other hand, Professor Emeritus Henry H. Bauer said that " 'pathological science' is not scientific misconduct (nor is it pathological)", that "it lacks justification in contemporary understanding of science studies (history, philosophy, and sociology of science)", and that "it is time to abandon the phrase".^[4]

Examples of pathological science may include N-rays, polywater, water memory, and cold fusion (which remains controversial as there is ongoing published research).

Contents 1 Definition 2 Langmuir's examples 2.1 N-rays 2.2 Other examples 3 Newer examples 3.1 Polywater 3.2 Cold fusion 4 Scientific theories that are not pathological science 4.1 The cubical atom 4.2 Continental drift 4.3 Lysenkoism 5 Notes 6 See also 7 External links and bibliography

[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, and cognitive bias). Some characteristics of pathological science are:^[4]

• 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.

In 1903 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 sabotaged the N-ray apparatus.

[edit] Other examples

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

• The Davis-Barnes effect (1929) After Professor Bergen Davis from Columbia University [1]
• The Mitogenetic rays of (1923) Alexander Gurwitsch and others^[5]
• The Allison effect (1927) After Fred Allison ^[6]
• Extrasensory perception (1934)
• Flying saucers

[edit] Newer examples

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources (ideally, using inline citations). Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2008)

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (October 2008)

Since Langmuir's original talk, a number of newer examples of what appear to be pathological science have appeared.^{[dubious – discuss]}

[edit] Polywater

Polywater was a form of water which appeared to have a much higher boiling point and much lower freezing point than normal water; many articles were published on the subject, and research on polywater was done around the world with mixed results. Eventually it was determined that many of the properties of polywater could be explained by biological contamination and when more rigorous cleaning of glassware and experimental controls were introduced polywater could no longer be produced. It took several years for the concept of polywater to die in spite of the later negative results.

[edit] Cold fusion

Since the announcement of Pons and Fleischmann in 1989, cold fusion has been considered to be an example of pathological science.^[7] Two panels convened by the US Department of Energy, one in 1989 and a second in 2004, did not recommend a dedicated federal program for cold fusion research.^[8] In 2007 Nature reported that the American Chemical Society would host an invited symposium on cold fusion and low energy nuclear reactions at their national meeting for the first time in many years.^[9][10]

[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 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] Notes