 |
|
Reply
| |
A good example of the kind of problem that exists, particularly in the biomedical-related scientific disciplines of today, is supplied by journalist Chandler Burr, in his book, "The Emperor of Scent," by (2002). Burr decided to investigate the science of scent perception, learning that at least one scientist, Luca Turin, was advocating an older hypothesis that had fallen out of favor. After garnering an understanding of Turin's argument, he attempted to interview scientists who advocated the "fashionable" claim, the "shape" hypothesis. Here is how he described his endeavor:
"It is thererfore disorienting, almost surreal, to enter a story through one side [meaning his discussions with Turin] and then, gradually - I thought I must be imagining things - find that that side is so loathed by its opponents, so vilified by and toxic to them, and so axiomatically unworthy in their estimation of serious consideration that they actually refuse to share their own view with you. Or are so unremittingly hostile that their attempts to do so fail to qualify as 'thoughtful,' which amounts to the same thing. Or proffer a critique so tendentious as to be substantively worthless. Which leaves you, as a journalist, in the bizarre and infuriating position of knowing, or assuming that there's a second, legitimate side but having effectively no access to it. I began this book as the simple story of the creation of a scientific theory. But I continued it with the growing awareness that it was, in fact, a larger, more complex story of scientific corruption, corruption in the most mundane and systematic and virulent and sadly human sense of jealousy and calcified minds and vest interests. That it was a scientific morality tale." Page 228.
Burr then explained how the "system" is organized in such a way as to make investigations such as his very difficult, if not impossible, because he was unable to even learn who at the journal "Nature" had reviewed and rejected Turin's paper:
"'Nature" naturally will not divulge that information [who the anonymous reviewers of Turin's paper were]. Because of the way scientific peer review is set up, this meant that I couldn't ask Referee 1 through 4 anything. All I had to work with were the reviews themselves. The problem is, the reviews are incoherent... the 'Nature' peer reviewers' comments - as well as those of Philip Campbell, 'Nature's' editor in chief - relied on patent tautological criticism. To reiterate their gist: the biologists said the chemistry was wrong, the chemists said the problem was with the physics, and the physicists said the fault lay with the biology. This is not to mention the casual, obvious, often grotesque inaccuracies filling their readings." Page 229.
This is an interesting situation, because I've found that "experts" will often say that some finding is not within their area of expertise, and they show no interest in actually learning what they would need to in order to understand those findings. Here, Burr is claiming that biologists are making definitive statements about what is possible, chemically, for example, which, if true, is clearly inappropriate. Instead, they should point out whether the claim at hand is possible, biologically, and then "pass the buck" to the chemists and physicists. Burr, as I have done, pointed out that the actual experimental data is what matters most, but that the shape theory advocates, unlike Turin and the vibrationalists, were about as uncooperative as they could possibly be:
"...in the end what matters is the data, which is to say the facts as far as they are discernible. The Vibrationalists gave me the data. Had the Shapists given me, or had I uncovered, plausible counterdata demonstrating that Turin's finding were flawed, or could be explained away, or were factually inaccurate in favor of Shape, I could not have written this book. I tried, repeatedly, to go over the 'Nature' peer reviews with the Shapists. There turned out to be simply no there there." Page 230.
Burr then goes on to describe exactly the kind of "stonewalling" he received from the Shapists:
"I called one of the most highly respected senior olfaction researchers, someone I'd been assured would be an able intellectual match for Turin, at his prestigious New England university. The instant I identified the call as concerning Turin's theory, he immediately said, 'This is off the record' (Why? "That's my business'), which meant that I could print none of it. He then launched into a diatribe against Turin's paper. It consisted of weak criticisms I had already heard countered convincingly by the Turin camp, one of which was anwered by a graphic in the 'Chemical Senses' paper (which Turin was able to get published after 'Nature' took nearly a year to reject it). I pointed that out
"'I haven't seen that graphic,' he snapped.
I paused; the graphic is central to the paper. I asked, You have read the paper, haven't you? 'I don't need to read the paper,' he said sharply. Well, I asked, would you please read the paper [which is about 20 pages long and was available to all online] and then speak with me about it? 'I don't have the time! he said, 'I'm busy.'" Page 230
Then Burr pointed out that, "virtually every Shapist I attempted to interview did exactly this. Page 231. Another Shapist, when asked about Turin's hypothesis, said to Burr, "So basically, if he's right, he's a genius and we're all assholes working on garbage. Right?" Page 231. Burr was incredulous that, "...almost none of the critics of Turin's Vibration paper ever actually read it." Page 232. One biologist, attempting to criticize Turin's idea, appeared to make a fool out of himself:
"'I'd ask Turin this: How can you have two molecules that have different atoms but similar shapes? If they have different atoms, wouldn't they have different shapes automatically?' This is a question of basic chemistry, but Reed is a biologist, not a chemist, and - and this is not at all rare - apparently was unaware that there are examples everywhere of same-shaped molecules with different atoms inside them." Page 233. Later, Burr relates that at a conference for smell scientists, one "expert" couldn't grasp the distinction between attempting to understand what the cells in question are measuring and how they are measuring it, even though Turin made it clear that his investigation was only concerned with the question, what is being measured. One scientists, a molecular biologist who had written a paper supporting the Shape notion, when asked about Turin's hypothesis, stated:
"'There is, as far as I'm concerned, no evidence for this theory at all. It's based on a few correlations. It's imaginery. From what I understand, people who understand the physics part of this theory don't think it makes ansy sense either.'
"I [Burr] responded that UCL's Marshall Stoneham and C.J. Atkins of Cambridge, among other physicists, have spent quite a big of time on it and find the physics solid. Buck seemed not to hear. 'I was just reading about this group that doesn't believe in evolution,' she said, 'and they think that aliens put us here on earth. You can't refute it absolutely, but I doubt it is true. This isn't a theory of olfaction..." Page 234. Buck told Burr that she did not read Turin's paper because she was "busy" writing a grant, but she said she would would listen to a compelling argument, if one appeared. Obviously, this is ludicrous, because how would she know if Turin's argument was "compelling" or not, unless she read the 20 page paper (which she could bring up within seconds on the internet)?
Moreover, Turin's claim is not based upon "correlations," as so much of what the public thinks is "science" today hears about in the "mainstream media's" coverage of biomedical studies. She also stated that it could not be refuted absolutely, which is also a misleading statement. If two molecules of the same shape but different vibrations smelled the same, Turin's claim would be refuted. It's a simple as that. Conversely, if two molecules of the same shape do not smell the same, the Shapists claim is refuted. Again, very simple. one of the things I was thinking about while I was reading this is how confused "scientists" (that is, those with scientific credentials) appear to be regarding the scientific method. You can't claim that there are "exceptions" to rules, unless you supply the mechanism. Until you do, you don't have a theory, but instead a refuted hypothesis. According to Burr, the experiments conducted up to the time of publication of his book favor the Vibration notion and refute the Shapist one.
Another interesting issue raised by Burr is that some of Turin's critics argued that there were other possibilites, but as Burr correctly points out, "...you can always come up with other explanations; the point is coming up with one that fits the data. When you looked at what Sell was saying, you found an immense amount of ... nothing. Or more precisely, everything, an infinitely expanding number of infinite possibilities." Page 236.
Why does it take a journalist to point this out? Why don't "top scientists" know this already? When some criticize the "theory of evolution" and posit that there must be a "creator," these same "scientist" would likely point out that science can only concern itself with what is known, not what might be. But if their "pet project" appears to be threatened in any way, the ridiculous, non-scientific arguments seem to come out of the proverbial woodwork. On page 238, Burr articulates his conclusion:
"...the field's unwillingness to examine his data is, as far as I can see, ultimately based, entirely, on vested self-interest and bad science. And the data, in the end, is what counts." But he then mentions an episode that "sour grapes" are also an issue: "I was asking Tom Pearce... about the refusal to look at Turin's theory. He responded calmly that it was 'because there's a history involved.' He rather clearly meant: We've been slaving away, and suddenly he just waltzes in here? 'There've been over a hundred years of study in smell, and when somebody comes along with no history in the subject and then suddenly announces that there's a solution to all of this that everybody's overlooked, there's boun to be a reaction.'" Then Pearce said that the didn't think there was any good evidence for Vibration, again Burr brought up Turin's paper, but Pearce, as you might have already guessed, said he didn't read it (the whole 20 pages of it).
Burr also makes a point that I have, that is that there is so much "specialization" that "experts" can become trapped in a paradigm that is clearly wrong (to the "objective" observer", but that they cannot escape from because it would involve an "interdisciplinary" approach (see page 282). None of this came as a surprise to me, as I've seen it in many areas of "science," such as the cholesterol-heart disease claims, claims against "saturated fat" (which is not even defined, as is necessary to do in science), claims about "HIV" and "AIDS," and claims about "essential fatty acids" for "starters." What's good about Burr's account is that it demonstrates how a claim that is very simple to validate or refute generates bizarre behavior, rather than scientific investigation (which is similar to the "essential fatty acid" claim, though hardly anyone with "credentials" is arguing against "EFAs" - I remain anonymous because I see no reason to subject myself t what Turin and other "dissidents" have been - eventually, one supposed, the evidence will "win the day"). It is so "cult"-like it is truly frightening. If it deserves to be called a "conspiracy," it is a conspiracy of what is among the most base in "human nature." |
|
 First
Previous
2-7 of 7
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| | From:  gos2u | Sent: 3/16/2008 8:07 AM |
I am a big fan of headless conspiracies: Vast "conspiracies" of people who are largely unaware (at least on a conscious level), that they are co-conspirators. On some deeply-buried subconscious level, I think that they are aware of it, and this is why they respond with hostility to challenges. I find that the movie "Cube" illustrates the sort of conspiracy I'm referring to. In the movie, a handful of people wake up inside of a gigantic mechanical death maze that has been constructed underground somewhere by government(s), corporation(s), and/or individual(s) unknown. One of them, an engineer named Worth, (played by David Hewlett) realizes that he'd actually helped to design the outer shell of this mammoth death machine. When questioned by the others about who had hired him and why this monstrosity had been constructed, he replies, "You don't get it ... This may be hard for you to understand, but there is no conspiracy. Nobody is in charge. It's - it's a headless blunder operating under the illusion of a master plan. Can you grasp that? Big Brother is not watching you. ...I looked and the only conclusion I could come to is that there is nobody 'up there'. ...What [is this] thing? Only we know what it is ... we know more than anybody else. I mean somebody might have known some time before they got fired, or voted out, or sold it, but if this place ever had a purpose, then it got miscommunicated or lost in the shuffle. I mean, this is an accident; a forgotten perpetual Public Works project. You think anybody wants to ask questions? All they want is a clear conscience and a fat paycheck. I mean, I leaned on my shovel for months on this one -- this was a great job! ... Nobody wants to see the big picture -- life's too complicated. I mean, let's face it -- the reason we're here is that it's out of control." I think that Cube is an excellent metaphor for some of the more abstract constructs that we collectively whip up amongst ourselves, many of which cause undue suffering, and some of which (like some of the rooms in Cube) can kill. Does masturbation cause blindness, insanity, dementia, homosexuality, disease, and/or death? No, but how many have lived in misery and/or been persecuted by their peers for the fear of this utterly harmless act of self-gratification? Is there any considerable medical benefit from infant circumcision? No, but how many infants will be sexually mutilated this year in this country alone, on the extremely slight chance that it might prevent penile cancer later in life (a disease which affects only about 1 out of every 10,000 men), or on the poorly-documented chance that it might prevent them from contracting HIV? Can participating in a perverse sexual act result in demonic possession? Highly dubious, but thousands have been beaten, tortured, and/or killed on the weight of confessions to sexual perversion that were in most cases extracted under duress of torture, and under the argument that as demonically possessed people, they posed a threat to the community if allowed to live unexorcised. Does marijuana use contribute to violent crime, property crime, and/or psychosis? If anything, the reverse is true -- if anything, marijuana makes the user too lazy to get off of the couch long enough to commit a crime, and scientific studies dating back for decades have failed to prove any causal correlation at all between marijuana use and psychosis. And yet, how many have been incarcerated, maimed, widowed, orphaned, and/or even killed for the idea that a common plant, once cultivated by the likes of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, would destroy the very fabric of American society? As to the question of whether HIV is the cause of AIDS; if it is not, then we, collectively, as a society, have unknowingly conspired to participate in the stigmatization, persecution, prosecution, incarceration, and/or poisoning of certain members of specific minority groups (particularly gay/bi males, Africans, and non-whites), and at the end of the day, those who lead the march into genocide sleep the sleep of the just, with a clear conscience and a fat paycheck, and none of them wants to see the big picture, because it might mean that they'll have to face the fact that they are the unwitting engineers of a murderous, headless blunder which, as we speak, is out of control. --- Gos --- [email protected]"Nobody here but us heretics..." |
|
Reply
|  0 recommendations | Message 3 of 7 in Discussion |
|
| This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager. |
|
Reply
| |
| One point I think is important here is that those who are in positions to shape "public opinion" often use words or concepts (represented by a phrase or perhaps a sentence or two) in a certain way in one context, then in another way in a different context. The word/concept of conspiracy can be used this way. For example, it is often used to make someone appear paranoid, as in, "So-and-so believes there is some sort of vast conspiracy against him/her." On the other hand, we are told to fear certain people in a way that would imply that there must be a "vast conspiracy," when in fact if there were one, we'd see the consequences of it for ourselves - we would not need anyone to imply that there were unseen or rarely seen dastardly forces at work "behind the scenes." |
|
Reply
| |
In this context, I found another interesting example of a major problem with "science" today, that is, conflicts of interest. In the case of "smell science," there is a lot of money to be made, and this is where the high priests and pushed aside (though they still have their editorial and publishing power, of course), unlike with "HIV/AIDS," where there is money to be lost if Peter Duesberg and the "Perth Group" were given research money and taken seriously by the powerful figures in this establishment. In Turin's book, "The Secret of Scent" (2006), he describes a specific instance of this situation:
"Nature Neuroscience, however, believes the issue resolved. In an extraordinary editorial accompanying the paper, an anonymous writer thunders in the Grand Manner: 'The paper by Keller and Vosshall on page 337 of this issue is unusual; it describes a refutation of a scientific theory [really, at best, a hypothesis - they should know better] that, while provocative, has almost no credence in scientific circles. The only reason for the authors to do the study, or for Nature Neuroscience to publish it, is the extraordinary - and inappropriate - degree of publicity that the theory has received from critical journalists.' Interestingly, the author turned out to be Charles Jennings, founding editor of Nature Neuroscience, who at the time of my submission to Nature in 1995 was junior eidtor in charge of accepting or rejecting neuroscience manuscripts..."
"To declare the debate closed after one article, as Nature did, seems like undue haste...."\
But reality bites these poor excuses for scientists on the proverbial butt: "...our success rate was one product in ten molecules synthesized, two orders of magnitude better than the industry standard of one in a thousand. I guess I'll just carry on using my theory, credence or not..."
Page 188 to189. Note that the content in the brackets was supplied by me, not Turin, who also uses the term "theory" in a way that I consider inaccurate. |
|
Reply
| | | From: gos2u | Sent: 3/24/2008 7:24 PM |
HSWC wrote: "Turin ... also uses the term "theory" in a way that I consider inaccurate." Who doesn't, these days? I have a theory about that.... (lol) --- Gos "Nobody here but us heretics..." |
|
Reply
| |
Here's a good example of how the scientific establishment often "chases its own tail," wasting resources and failing to generate the great "cures" they keep telling us are "just around the corner:"
"...The structure of hemoglobin has been crystallized over and over," says Hamza, "but no one knows how the heme gets into the globin, or how humans absorb iron, which is mostly in the form of heme..."
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416140912.htm |
|
|
First
Previous
2-7 of 7
Next
Last
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to General