Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [evol-psych] authentic science, crackpot science, and fraudulent science

Expand Messages
  • Edgar Owen
    Kohl and Don, Your one single study was simply to have one man appear before a small group of women twice, once when he wore your pheromone product and once
    Message 1 of 12 , May 1, 2013
      Kohl and Don,

      Your one single 'study' was simply to have one man appear before a small group of women twice, once when he wore your pheromone product and once when he didn't, and for the women's resulting behavior to be subjectively judged by a few people with apparent financial interests to the product. This was probably the worst designed study anyone could imagine. It could be fudged in any number of ways and I'd be willing to bet it was and was designed to be.

      Edgar



      On May 1, 2013, at 7:12 AM, james kohl wrote:

       

      From: Edgar Owen
      >Don,

      Good post. Are you implying some legitimate scientists should try to replicate Kohl's clearly amateurish and likely fraudulent test of his pheromone elixirs with a legitimate double blind study?

      JK: I think he is implying that someone should make both an original attempt and replication attempt to "revolutionize" science by showing how mutations cause adaptive evolution, since this is how scientific progress is made. For example, based on findings presented by Linda Kelahan in 2007 at AChemS, our study design was incorporated by others into a study of androstadienone. Whereas our results (using an androsterone/androstenol mix) showed statistically significant increases in flirting behavior, they reported (see below): "The current results reject the idea that Androstadienone enhances flirting behavior within couples."

      Although their results clearly suggest a replication attempt be made using our androstenol/androsterone mix, the ridiculous theory of mutation-caused adaptive evolution (a theory that some now say never existed) may have prevented others from making advances based on my model. Thus, evolutionary theorists and mutations theory have clearly deterred interest in revolutionary science, which remains my concern as the role of the microRNA/messenger RNA balance (in my model) becomes clearer in the context of cancer research.

      If not for my antagonists here, for example, the potential for increased understanding of pheromone-controlled cell differentiation and cell proliferation might already have led to revolutionary science. Instead, we have a ridiculous untested theory to guide all but the least gullible of researchers -- as well as the comments of fools.

      Effects of androstadienone and menstrual cycle phase on flirting behavior in random couples.
      Olsson, MJ
      Lundstrom, JN
      Esteves, F
      Arriaga, P
      McClintock, MK
      International Symposium on Olfaction and Taste (2008)

      Abstract: "Although the existence of human pheromones is widely accepted among layman, scant evidences for overt behavioral effects in humans exist in the literature. Aim: The aim was to test possible effects of androstadienone on non-verbal flirtatious behavior in a controlled social-interaction situation. Method: Sixty-five male and 65 female, heterosexual individuals, aged 19-34 (mean 23 years), were randomly assigned to the experimental group (exposed to androstadienone) or the control condition. None of the women were taking hormonal contraceptives, and menstrual cycle data were collected from all. Using a double-blind experimental design, male-female pairs were instructed by a female experimenter to perform two collaborative tasks, and each pair was subsequently left alone in a room and videotaped during the task execution. The videotapes were analyzed for signs of non-verbal flirtatious behavior by two independent raters. Measures of behavior included the calculated frequencies of specific behaviors (e.g., head tilt, object caress) and several subjective ratings (e.g., level of eye contact) made independently by the raters, using visual analog scales. Results: Analyses will focus on differences in flirtatious behavior between the experimental group and the control group, as a function of gender and of menstrual cycle phase.

       
      James V. Kohl
      Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
      Independent researcher
      Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience Psychology, 2: 17338




      On Apr 30, 2013, at 5:15 PM, Don Zimmerman wrote:

       

      Some extremely troublesome problems in the interpretation of scientific findings occur at what might be called the interface between authentic science and crackpot science. There is a fine line between the two, and it is often quite difficult to differentiate between them. Editors of scientific journals constantly face the task of coming to terms with what Kiuhn called "normal science" and "revolutionary science," both of which are authentic, although the latter may not readily appear to be authentic. What usually happens, unfortunately, is that both "revolutionary science" and "crackpot science" are alike dismissed and rejected for publication by mainstream journals. Usually the former takes considerably longer to prevail than it should.

      There is another important category, and I am not sure whether or not Kuhn described it. It could be called "fraudulent science." The prime example of this category is a pharmaceutical company's research report concerning a new drug that overstates its effectiveness or omits findings about limitations and side effects. Another example would be the report about a new diet that plays up a few people who have successfully lost weight using it and fails to mention the countless failures. Any dishonest report of scientific research that distorts the actual findings with subsequent financial gain in mind would fall in this category.

      Historically, a very significant antidote to both crackpot science and fraudulent science has been the attempted replication of reported findings by other investigators. Unfortunately, in modern times, especially in social sciences and psychology, replication of new research has been minimal. Every investigator wants to make original discoveries not merely repeat an experiment conducted by someone else.

      The motivation for conducting original research, to some extent at least, is an enhanced reputation, promotion, successful application for research grants, and ultimate financial gain. The prevalent lack of replication promotes both crackpot science and fraudulent science. For this reason, it could be thought of as itself an attitude closely related to fraudulent science--or as a kind of second-order fraudulent science.

      Best regards,

      Donald W. Zimmerman
      Vancouver, BC, Canada
      dwzimm@...
      http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899




    • james kohl
      From: Edgar Owen Kohl and Don, Your one single study was simply to have one man appear before a small group of women twice, once when he
      Message 2 of 12 , May 1, 2013
        From: Edgar Owen
        Kohl and Don,

        Your one single 'study' was simply to have one man appear before a small group of women twice, once when he wore your pheromone product and once when he didn't, and for the women's resulting behavior to be subjectively judged by a few people with apparent financial interests to the product. This was probably the worst designed study anyone could imagine. It could be fudged in any number of ways and I'd be willing to bet it was and was designed to be.


        JK: Why do you think that a group that includes one of the most recognized experts on human pheromones (Martha McClintock) would incorporate our study design into their work? For comparison, what study design showed that mutations are involved in adaptive evolution? What has obviously occurred is that statistical analyses have been used to fudge the entire concept of adaptive evolution and make it appear as if it is not nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled, which it obviously is.

        James V. Kohl
        Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
        Independent researcher
        Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.





        On May 1, 2013, at 7:12 AM, james kohl wrote:


        From: Edgar Owen
        >Don,

        Good post. Are you implying some legitimate scientists should try to replicate Kohl's clearly amateurish and likely fraudulent test of his pheromone elixirs with a legitimate double blind study?

        JK: I think he is implying that someone should make both an original attempt and replication attempt to "revolutionize" science by showing how mutations cause adaptive evolution, since this is how scientific progress is made. For example, based on findings presented by Linda Kelahan in 2007 at AChemS, our study design was incorporated by others into a study of androstadienone. Whereas our results (using an androsterone/androstenol mix) showed statistically significant increases in flirting behavior, they reported (see below): "The current results reject the idea that Androstadienone enhances flirting behavior within couples."

        Although their results clearly suggest a replication attempt be made using our androstenol/androsterone mix, the ridiculous theory of mutation-caused adaptive evolution (a theory that some now say never existed) may have prevented others from making advances based on my model. Thus, evolutionary theorists and mutations theory have clearly deterred interest in revolutionary science, which remains my concern as the role of the microRNA/messenger RNA balance (in my model) becomes clearer in the context of cancer research.

        If not for my antagonists here, for example, the potential for increased understanding of pheromone-controlled cell differentiation and cell proliferation might already have led to revolutionary science. Instead, we have a ridiculous untested theory to guide all but the least gullible of researchers -- as well as the comments of fools.

        Effects of androstadienone and menstrual cycle phase on flirting behavior in random couples.
        Olsson, MJ
        Lundstrom, JN
        Esteves, F
        Arriaga, P
        McClintock, MK
        International Symposium on Olfaction and Taste (2008)

        Abstract: "Although the existence of human pheromones is widely accepted among layman, scant evidences for overt behavioral effects in humans exist in the literature. Aim: The aim was to test possible effects of androstadienone on non-verbal flirtatious behavior in a controlled social-interaction situation. Method: Sixty-five male and 65 female, heterosexual individuals, aged 19-34 (mean 23 years), were randomly assigned to the experimental group (exposed to androstadienone) or the control condition. None of the women were taking hormonal contraceptives, and menstrual cycle data were collected from all. Using a double-blind experimental design, male-female pairs were instructed by a female experimenter to perform two collaborative tasks, and each pair was subsequently left alone in a room and videotaped during the task execution. The videotapes were analyzed for signs of non-verbal flirtatious behavior by two independent raters. Measures of behavior included the calculated frequencies of specific behaviors (e.g., head tilt, object caress) and several subjective ratings (e.g., level of eye contact) made independently by the raters, using visual analog scales. Results: Analyses will focus on differences in flirtatious behavior between the experimental group and the control group, as a function of gender and of menstrual cycle phase.

        James V. Kohl
        Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
        Independent researcher
        Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience Psychology, 2: 17338




        On Apr 30, 2013, at 5:15 PM, Don Zimmerman wrote:

        Some extremely troublesome problems in the interpretation of scientific findings occur at what might be called the interface between authentic science and crackpot science. There is a fine line between the two, and it is often quite difficult to differentiate between them. Editors of scientific journals constantly face the task of coming to terms with what Kiuhn called "normal science" and "revolutionary science," both of which are authentic, although the latter may not readily appear to be authentic. What usually happens, unfortunately, is that both "revolutionary science" and "crackpot science" are alike dismissed and rejected for publication by mainstream journals. Usually the former takes considerably longer to prevail than it should.

        There is another important category, and I am not sure whether or not Kuhn described it. It could be called "fraudulent science." The prime example of this category is a pharmaceutical company's research report concerning a new drug that overstates its effectiveness or omits findings about limitations and side effects. Another example would be the report about a new diet that plays up a few people who have successfully lost weight using it and fails to mention the countless failures. Any dishonest report of scientific research that distorts the actual findings with subsequent financial gain in mind would fall in this category.

        Historically, a very significant antidote to both crackpot science and fraudulent science has been the attempted replication of reported findings by other investigators. Unfortunately, in modern times, especially in social sciences and psychology, replication of new research has been minimal. Every investigator wants to make original discoveries not merely repeat an experiment conducted by someone else.

        The motivation for conducting original research, to some extent at least, is an enhanced reputation, promotion, successful application for research grants, and ultimate financial gain. The prevalent lack of replication promotes both crackpot science and fraudulent science. For this reason, it could be thought of as itself an attitude closely related to fraudulent science--or as a kind of second-order fraudulent science.

        Best regards,

        Donald W. Zimmerman
        Vancouver, BC, Canada
        dwzimm@...
        http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899




      • charles beck
        A good antidote to the yen for recog of original work is to replicate and then extend the peer reviewed published original. We always require this of graduate
        Message 3 of 12 , May 1, 2013

          A good antidote to the yen for recog of original work is to replicate and then extend the peer reviewed published original. We always require this of graduate theses.

          Charles

           

           

          From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar Owen
          Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:57 PM
          To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [evol-psych] authentic science, crackpot science, and fraudulent science

           



          Don,

           

          Good post. Are you implying some legitimate scientists should try to replicate Kohl's clearly amateurish and likely fraudulent test of his pheromone elixirs with a legitimate double blind study?

           

          Edgar

           

           

          On Apr 30, 2013, at 5:15 PM, Don Zimmerman wrote:



           

          Some extremely troublesome problems in the interpretation of scientific findings occur at what might be called the interface between authentic science and crackpot science. There is a fine line between the two, and it is often quite difficult to differentiate between them. Editors of scientific journals constantly face the task of coming to terms with what Kiuhn called "normal science" and "revolutionary science," both of which are authentic, although the latter may not readily appear to be authentic. What usually happens, unfortunately, is that both "revolutionary science" and "crackpot science" are alike dismissed and rejected for publication by mainstream journals. Usually the former takes considerably longer to prevail than it should.

          There is another important category, and I am not sure whether or not Kuhn described it. It could be called "fraudulent science." The prime example of this category is a pharmaceutical company's research report concerning a new drug that overstates its effectiveness or omits findings about limitations and side effects. Another example would be the report about a new diet that plays up a few people who have successfully lost weight using it and fails to mention the countless failures. Any dishonest report of scientific research that distorts the actual findings with subsequent financial gain in mind would fall in this category.

          Historically, a very significant antidote to both crackpot science and fraudulent science has been the attempted replication of reported findings by other investigators. Unfortunately, in modern times, especially in social sciences and psychology, replication of new research has been minimal. Every investigator wants to make original discoveries not merely repeat an experiment conducted by someone else.

          The motivation for conducting original research, to some extent at least, is an enhanced reputation, promotion, successful application for research grants, and ultimate financial gain. The prevalent lack of replication promotes both crackpot science and fraudulent science. For this reason, it could be thought of as itself an attitude closely related to fraudulent science--or as a kind of second-order fraudulent science.

          Best regards,

          Donald W. Zimmerman
          Vancouver, BC, Canada
          dwzimm@...
          http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899

           




        • Sussa Björkholm
          There should be some standardized way of attaching a not yet replicated stamp on all research articles published online, which then could be replaced with a
          Message 4 of 12 , May 1, 2013
            There should be some standardized way of attaching a "not yet replicated" stamp on all research articles published online, which then could be replaced with a reference to the attempt at replication. This would increase the incentive both to do replications (since the "stamp" would work as an extra advertisment to your article leading to more citations) and for journals to publish them (since they are likely to sell more articles that have replicated results than those "pending").

            Sunshine!
            Sussa


            On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:01 PM, charles beck <cbeck@...> wrote:


            A good antidote to the yen for recog of original work is to replicate and then extend the peer reviewed published original. We always require this of graduate theses.

            Charles

             

             

            From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar Owen
            Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:57 PM
            To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [evol-psych] authentic science, crackpot science, and fraudulent science

             



            Don,

             

            Good post. Are you implying some legitimate scientists should try to replicate Kohl's clearly amateurish and likely fraudulent test of his pheromone elixirs with a legitimate double blind study?

             

            Edgar

             

             

            On Apr 30, 2013, at 5:15 PM, Don Zimmerman wrote:



             

            Some extremely troublesome problems in the interpretation of scientific findings occur at what might be called the interface between authentic science and crackpot science. There is a fine line between the two, and it is often quite difficult to differentiate between them. Editors of scientific journals constantly face the task of coming to terms with what Kiuhn called "normal science" and "revolutionary science," both of which are authentic, although the latter may not readily appear to be authentic. What usually happens, unfortunately, is that both "revolutionary science" and "crackpot science" are alike dismissed and rejected for publication by mainstream journals. Usually the former takes considerably longer to prevail than it should.

            There is another important category, and I am not sure whether or not Kuhn described it. It could be called "fraudulent science." The prime example of this category is a pharmaceutical company's research report concerning a new drug that overstates its effectiveness or omits findings about limitations and side effects. Another example would be the report about a new diet that plays up a few people who have successfully lost weight using it and fails to mention the countless failures. Any dishonest report of scientific research that distorts the actual findings with subsequent financial gain in mind would fall in this category.

            Historically, a very significant antidote to both crackpot science and fraudulent science has been the attempted replication of reported findings by other investigators. Unfortunately, in modern times, especially in social sciences and psychology, replication of new research has been minimal. Every investigator wants to make original discoveries not merely repeat an experiment conducted by someone else.

            The motivation for conducting original research, to some extent at least, is an enhanced reputation, promotion, successful application for research grants, and ultimate financial gain. The prevalent lack of replication promotes both crackpot science and fraudulent science. For this reason, it could be thought of as itself an attitude closely related to fraudulent science--or as a kind of second-order fraudulent science.

            Best regards,

            Donald W. Zimmerman
            Vancouver, BC, Canada
            dwzimm@...
            http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899

             







          • Don Zimmerman
            ... DWZ: Any data reported by someone with an indirect financial interest in the outcome should have to be replicated 5 times by independent researchers. Any
            Message 5 of 12 , May 1, 2013
              --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:

              > Good post. Are you implying some legitimate scientists should try to replicate Kohl's clearly amateurish and likely fraudulent test of his pheromone elixirs with a legitimate double blind study?


              DWZ:
              Any data reported by someone with an indirect financial interest in the outcome should have to be replicated 5 times by independent researchers. Any data reported by someone with a direct financial interest in the outcome should have to be replicated 10 times, preferably by aliens on another planet.

              Best regards,

              Donald W. Zimmerman
              Vancouver, BC, Canada
              dwzimm@...
              http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
            • Don Zimmerman
              ... DWZ: That seems like an excellent plan. In my day a graduate thesis most often was an extension of research already done by the student s thesis advisor.
              Message 6 of 12 , May 1, 2013
                --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "charles beck" <cbeck@...> wrote:

                > A good antidote to the yen for recog of original work is to replicate and
                > then extend the peer reviewed published original. We always require this of
                > graduate theses.


                DWZ:
                That seems like an excellent plan. In my day a graduate thesis most often was an extension of research already done by the student's thesis advisor. It was usually original, but not too original, because it could be predicted that the result would support the theoretical interpretation of the thesis advisor.

                Best regards,

                Donald W. Zimmerman
                Vancouver, BC, Canada
                dwzimm@...
                http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
              • JVKohl
                ... What s interesting about all the required replications is that none have resulted in any model of adaptive evolution that incorporates what s currently
                Message 7 of 12 , May 1, 2013
                  On 5/1/2013 11:01 AM, charles beck wrote:
                  >
                  > A good antidote to the yen for recog of original work is to replicate
                  > and then extend the peer reviewed published original. We always
                  > require this of graduate theses.
                  >
                  > Charles
                  >
                  What's interesting about all the required replications is that none have resulted in any model of adaptive evolution that incorporates what's currently known about the common molecular mechanisms in species from microbes to man. Instead, we have a ridiculous theory of evolution that's been bastardized with replications of story lines and statistical analyses that never considered Darwin's nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled 'conditions of existence,' which obviously precede Natural Selection. Does the collective "We" that always requires replication of graduate theses every stop to consider what's being replicated is nonsensical theory?

                  Who replicated the study that led to Edgar's logico-mathematical
                  universe, which exists because if it didn't it wouldn't?

                  --
                  James V. Kohl
                  Medical laboratory scientist
                  ASCP AMT ASCLS
                  Independent researcher

                  ===============================================

                  >
                  > DWZ:
                  > Any data reported by someone with an indirect financial interest in the outcome should have to be replicated 5 times by independent researchers. Any data reported by someone with a direct financial interest in the outcome should have to be replicated 10 times, preferably by aliens on another planet.

                  JVK
                  Can you give an example where this has ever occurred? I think you just portrayed your ignorance of scientific progress. An indirect financial interest is present whenever a professor is in a publish or perish situation. A direct financial interest results when someone competes with government funded researchers to complete the human genome. The intelligence level of your comments seems to be declining. Have aliens on another planet somehow planted ridiculous thoughts into your brain?


                  ===============================================

                  On 5/1/2013 12:27 PM, Sussa Björkholm wrote:
                  >
                  > There should be some standardized way of attaching a "not yet replicated" stamp on all research articles published online, which then could be replaced with a reference to the attempt at replication. This would increase the incentive both to do replications (since the "stamp" would work as an extra advertisment to your article leading to more citations) and for journals to publish them (since they are likely to sell more articles that have replicated results than those "pending").
                  >
                  > Sunshine!
                  > Sussa

                  JK: Are you not aware of how rarely study results are replicated? The problem is significant enough in social science to make biologists look at most study results and simply laugh them off as if they were being told something foolish by a child, or by someone like Edgar. The problem with replication has been detailed in several articles published recently that specifically address the problem. The fact that we replicated our work makes no difference, of course. Independent replication is required, and few people are interested in replicating the work of others. That's why our study design was co-opted for work with androstadienone, which was touted to be a human pheromone for more than a decade (as part of a well-funded marketing ploy).

                  -- James V. Kohl Medical laboratory scientist ASCP AMT ASCLS Independent researcher Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors... Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338. http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338

                  =======================================

                  >
                  >
                  > Kohl and Don,
                  >
                  > Your one single 'study' was simply to have one man appear before a small group of women twice, once when he wore your pheromone product and once when he didn't, and for the women's resulting behavior to be subjectively judged by a few people with apparent financial interests to the product. This was probably the worst designed study anyone could imagine. It could be fudged in any number of ways and I'd be willing to bet it was and was designed to be.
                  >
                  > Edgar
                  >
                  >
                  That's the most ridiculous misrepresentation of our work that I can imagine, Edgar. Thanks for being consistent. Here's the replicated work.

                  Human pheromones, epigenetics, physiology, and the development of animal behavior

                  Again, however, you are making libelous claims against others involved in this work and in other similar studies, and in peer-reviewed publications on the role of olfaction in adaptive evolution. What qualifies you to comment on anything at all?

                  -- James V. Kohl
                  Medical laboratory scientist
                  ASCP AMT ASCLS
                  Independent researcher
                  Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors...
                  Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                  http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338
                • charles beck
                  Excellent idea re replication stamp – and easy to do w post-pub modifiable online postings. The closest we have now is the journal’s reputation for
                  Message 8 of 12 , May 2, 2013

                    Excellent idea re replication stamp – and easy to do w post-pub modifiable online postings. The closest we have now is the journal’s reputation for thorough peer review. Many of the top ranked journals require that the original present several variable-tweaking in-house replications of original results e.g., Science/Nature. Currently one can also search for outhouse replications in the lists of subsequent citing articles.

                    Another approach would be to afford publication to authors of pieces that convincingly show failure to replicate. Currently many such articles are rejected.

                    Charles

                     

                    From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sussa Björkholm
                    Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 10:27 AM
                    To: Evolutionary-Psychology
                    Subject: Re: [evol-psych] authentic science, crackpot science, and fraudulent science

                     




                    There should be some standardized way of attaching a "not yet replicated" stamp on all research articles published online, which then could be replaced with a reference to the attempt at replication. This would increase the incentive both to do replications (since the "stamp" would work as an extra advertisment to your article leading to more citations) and for journals to publish them (since they are likely to sell more articles that have replicated results than those "pending").

                     

                    Sunshine!

                    Sussa

                     

                    On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:01 PM, charles beck <cbeck@...> wrote:

                     

                    A good antidote to the yen for recog of original work is to replicate and then extend the peer reviewed published original. We always require this of graduate theses.

                    Charles

                     

                     

                    From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar Owen
                    Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:57 PM
                    To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [evol-psych] authentic science, crackpot science, and fraudulent science

                     



                    Don,

                     

                    Good post. Are you implying some legitimate scientists should try to replicate Kohl's clearly amateurish and likely fraudulent test of his pheromone elixirs with a legitimate double blind study?

                     

                    Edgar

                     

                     

                    On Apr 30, 2013, at 5:15 PM, Don Zimmerman wrote:

                     

                     

                    Some extremely troublesome problems in the interpretation of scientific findings occur at what might be called the interface between authentic science and crackpot science. There is a fine line between the two, and it is often quite difficult to differentiate between them. Editors of scientific journals constantly face the task of coming to terms with what Kiuhn called "normal science" and "revolutionary science," both of which are authentic, although the latter may not readily appear to be authentic. What usually happens, unfortunately, is that both "revolutionary science" and "crackpot science" are alike dismissed and rejected for publication by mainstream journals. Usually the former takes considerably longer to prevail than it should.

                    There is another important category, and I am not sure whether or not Kuhn described it. It could be called "fraudulent science." The prime example of this category is a pharmaceutical company's research report concerning a new drug that overstates its effectiveness or omits findings about limitations and side effects. Another example would be the report about a new diet that plays up a few people who have successfully lost weight using it and fails to mention the countless failures. Any dishonest report of scientific research that distorts the actual findings with subsequent financial gain in mind would fall in this category.

                    Historically, a very significant antidote to both crackpot science and fraudulent science has been the attempted replication of reported findings by other investigators. Unfortunately, in modern times, especially in social sciences and psychology, replication of new research has been minimal. Every investigator wants to make original discoveries not merely repeat an experiment conducted by someone else.

                    The motivation for conducting original research, to some extent at least, is an enhanced reputation, promotion, successful application for research grants, and ultimate financial gain. The prevalent lack of replication promotes both crackpot science and fraudulent science. For this reason, it could be thought of as itself an attitude closely related to fraudulent science--or as a kind of second-order fraudulent science.

                    Best regards,

                    Donald W. Zimmerman
                    Vancouver, BC, Canada
                    dwzimm@...
                    http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899

                     



                     

                     




                  • james kohl
                    From: charles beck To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, May 2, 2013 6:38:50 PM Subject: RE: [evol-psych] authentic
                    Message 9 of 12 , May 2, 2013
                      From: charles beck
                      To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Thu, May 2, 2013 6:38:50 PM
                      Subject: RE: [evol-psych] authentic science, crackpot science, and fraudulent science

                      Excellent idea re replication stamp – and easy to do w post-pub modifiable online postings. The closest we have now is the journal’s reputation for thorough peer review. Many of the top ranked journals require that the original present several variable-tweaking in-house replications of original results e.g., Science/Nature. Currently one can also search for outhouse replications in the lists of subsequent citing articles.

                      Another approach would be to afford publication to authors of pieces that convincingly show failure to replicate. Currently many such articles are rejected.

                      Charles


                      JK: Is everyone else here so woefully under informed about

                      1) The issue of replication?
                      2) The issue of peer-review?
                      3) The difference between theory and fact?

                      4) Rejection rates for articles that later establish new concepts?

                      James V. Kohl
                      Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
                      Independent researcher
                      Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.

                      From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sussa Björkholm
                      Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 10:27 AM
                      To: Evolutionary-Psychology
                      Subject: Re: [evol-psych] authentic science, crackpot science, and fraudulent science




                      There should be some standardized way of attaching a "not yet replicated" stamp on all research articles published online, which then could be replaced with a reference to the attempt at replication. This would increase the incentive both to do replications (since the "stamp" would work as an extra advertisment to your article leading to more citations) and for journals to publish them (since they are likely to sell more articles that have replicated results than those "pending").

                      Sunshine!

                      Sussa

                      On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:01 PM, charles beck <cbeck@...> wrote:

                      A good antidote to the yen for recog of original work is to replicate and then extend the peer reviewed published original. We always require this of graduate theses.

                      Charles

                      From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar Owen
                      Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:57 PM
                      To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [evol-psych] authentic science, crackpot science, and fraudulent science



                      Don,

                      Good post. Are you implying some legitimate scientists should try to replicate Kohl's clearly amateurish and likely fraudulent test of his pheromone elixirs with a legitimate double blind study?

                      Edgar

                      On Apr 30, 2013, at 5:15 PM, Don Zimmerman wrote:

                      Some extremely troublesome problems in the interpretation of scientific findings occur at what might be called the interface between authentic science and crackpot science. There is a fine line between the two, and it is often quite difficult to differentiate between them. Editors of scientific journals constantly face the task of coming to terms with what Kiuhn called "normal science" and "revolutionary science," both of which are authentic, although the latter may not readily appear to be authentic. What usually happens, unfortunately, is that both "revolutionary science" and "crackpot science" are alike dismissed and rejected for publication by mainstream journals. Usually the former takes considerably longer to prevail than it should.

                      There is another important category, and I am not sure whether or not Kuhn described it. It could be called "fraudulent science." The prime example of this category is a pharmaceutical company's research report concerning a new drug that overstates its effectiveness or omits findings about limitations and side effects. Another example would be the report about a new diet that plays up a few people who have successfully lost weight using it and fails to mention the countless failures. Any dishonest report of scientific research that distorts the actual findings with subsequent financial gain in mind would fall in this category.

                      Historically, a very significant antidote to both crackpot science and fraudulent science has been the attempted replication of reported findings by other investigators. Unfortunately, in modern times, especially in social sciences and psychology, replication of new research has been minimal. Every investigator wants to make original discoveries not merely repeat an experiment conducted by someone else.

                      The motivation for conducting original research, to some extent at least, is an enhanced reputation, promotion, successful application for research grants, and ultimate financial gain. The prevalent lack of replication promotes both crackpot science and fraudulent science. For this reason, it could be thought of as itself an attitude closely related to fraudulent science--or as a kind of second-order fraudulent science.

                      Best regards,

                      Donald W. Zimmerman
                      Vancouver, BC, Canada
                      dwzimm@...
                      http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899






                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.