The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science

[Bartman]

I haven't seen this posted here yet. My appolgies if it has.

In this article (http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm) Robert Park lists his seven signs of bad science. And they are pretty good:
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

What rule if any would you add to this list?

[Captain Jack]

The discoverer use meaningless technobabble to explain his theory.

[ClaysGhost]

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

I don't agree with those two. They don't necessarily indicate bad science; such things have to go on a case-by-case basis. Of course, often they are signs of bad science, but sometimes they're just indications that either more sensitive experiments need to be performed (3) or that the theorists have got it wrong again (7). These are not universal, and I'd take them out. The others are good and solid, though, and I'd add the very basic one,

6. Nobody can reproduce the experiment at all, despite performing it at full moon with sixteen virgins and a goat just as it said in the discovery paper.

Without reproducible results, you've got nothing.

[von Neufeld]

I would remove 6 and 7 from the list.
In number 6 the question is: What do you mean with isolation? Working alone? The item is not well defined.
Number 7 is clearly wrong. Several new laws of nature has been introduced to explain an observation during the last 100 years. Example: The disovery of radioactivity and the resulting theoretical progress made to explain it and related phenomena. The speed of light and the theory of relativity. It is the height of arrogance the claim that everything has been discovered.

I would add:
The discovery cannot be readily duplicated and the discoverer refuses to release detailed data how to do it.

[Bartman]

The full article goes into additional detail on each point. Here is the full description of points 3, 6, & 7.

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection. Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is probably not real and the work is not science.

Thousands of published papers in para-psychology, for example, claim to report verified instances of telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition. But those effects show up only in tortured analyses of statistics. The researchers can find no way to boost the signal, which suggests that it isn't really there.

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation. The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation. A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.

And remember these are not proofs that a theory is false, just indicators that it might be. For example while there have been significant advances in physics, there have been far more crackpot theories that claim to disprove the Theory of Relativity than actual theories which have caused us to actually revise it.

[Darth Servo]

I like DW's list of 13 better.

[Captain Jack]

I like DW's list of 13 better.

I second that. It looks like he covered it all.

[ClaysGhost]

The full article goes into additional detail on each point. Here is the full description of points 3, 6, & 7.

3. ...But if the signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is probably not real and the work is not science.

Ok, I agree with that one now.

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation. A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.

I think if the result is reproducible, then there is a problem with the theory. But he's correct about it being somewhat rare (except in cosmology and particle physics

[TrailerParkJawa]

I like the one about going straight to the media. Late night television is full of crap claims like penis enlargement, magnetic bracelets, etc.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I like the one about going straight to the media. Late night television is full of crap claims like penis enlargement, magnetic bracelets, etc.

I'd say that's bad science with a reason: The people making the claims want the money of the gullible. And I'm sure even if the makers of such products knew they were innefective, I'm sure they would continue selling them.

[neoolong]

I like the one about going straight to the media. Late night television is full of crap claims like penis enlargement, magnetic bracelets, etc.

It kind of works together with the establishment holding the science back. Who else to pitch it to, but the media.

[Wicked Pilot]

Robert Park lists his seven signs of bad science...

What rule if any would you add to this list?

Being asked to buy something/give money before being able to see the product or a detailed description. "Free Electricity" is an obvious example.

[Peregrin Toker]

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation

Didn't Charles Darwin work in isolation??

[Sriad]

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation

Didn't Charles Darwin work in isolation??

(mostly pulled from butt, may contain incorrect data)
Wasn't he working alone because he was the ONLY scientist on the Beagle? Also his theories weren't published in complete isolation; there were other theories of evolution coming out around the same time, but because Darwin got to visit the Galapogos he had better evidence. And also there was a sensational outcry over the brief implication that humans might have evolved from other creatures. (er, that sentance is in referance to why Darwin is remembered but none of his contemoraries. Sort of. Right, I'm going to stop talking now.)

[Peregrin Toker]

Also his theories weren't published in complete isolation; there were other theories of evolution coming out around the same time, but because Darwin got to visit the Galapogos he had better evidence. And also there was a sensational outcry over the brief implication that humans might have evolved from other creatures. (er, that sentance is in referance to why Darwin is remembered but none of his contemoraries. Sort of. Right, I'm going to stop talking now.)

Ah... I briefly forgot that Darwin wasn't the only scientist of his time who got the idea of evolving life, but he usually gets all the credits just because he happened to be a Freemason.