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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , May 2, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      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.


      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").



      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.


      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


      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?


      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

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