Fight fire with psychology
In response, psychologists are trying to flip the incentives by using their knowledge of transparency, accountability and personal gain.
For instance, right now there's no incentive for researchers to share their data, and a 2006 study found that of 141 researchers who had previously agreed to share their data, only 38 did so when asked.
But Nosek and his colleagues hope to encourage such sharing by making it standard practice. They are developing a project called the Open Science Framework, and one goal is to encourage researchers to publicly post their data and to have journals require such transparency in their published studies. That should make researchers less likely to tweak their data.
"We know that behavior changes as a function of accountability, and the best way to increase accountability is to create transparency," Nosek said.
One journal, Social Psychology, is dangling the lure of guaranteed publication to motivate replication studies. Researchers send proposals for replication studies to the journal, and if they're approved, the authors are guaranteed publication in advance. That would encourage less fiddling with the protocol after the fact.
And the Laura and John Arnold Foundation now offers grant money specifically for replication studies, Nosek said.
As we all know, anything and everything can be twisted and convoluted.
Like everyone else, my opinions are mine, your are yours, but nothing could convince me that there is every any good that comed from predjudice and racism.
I believe that ones ability to accept others, as they are, and as they are not, indicates their own ability to love themselves.
I you cannot love and accept yourself, you can't love and accept anyone else.
As you know, I'm no spring chick, and I have studied psychology extensively through the course of my life.
There are principles, and the principles which have evolved from extemsive Scientific studies in the filed of psychology, have been around for a very long time, resulting from work by very brilliant men and women, and those principles are at work in your life, regardless of whether you believe in them, or not.
Life is all about people, and nature, of course. I find few things are as important to ones life, as the study of human behavior, particularly ones own, which is of course, the study of psychology, and IMHO, as I have written, a Science indicates the process, not the subject of any particular study.
Understanding human behavior is a tremendously valuable tool in ones life. It allows one to be at cause, in ones own life, rather than at effect. This view is something that Buddhists understand very well, and understanding it is a very powerful tool.
Human behaviour iz important -- but it aint science. The best place to find bias iz inside a psychologysts head. I woz blown away by a science dogma paper which i karnt find right now. But here iz a tidbit i found on ethix.
Ethics and the Scientific Worldview
Strictly speaking, the terms “good” and “bad” used to describe ethics are purely subjective and have no place in scientific discourse. What is good for the fox is bad for the rabbit and vice versa. Scientists, on the other hand, are often thought to have the highest ethical standards. Why is that? Our standards are high for a very practical reason: our only mistress is truth. In science, we define truth as the relative agreement with observation and experiment. Good scientists try to be aware of the truths discovered by their predecessors and followers. We constantly are looking over our shoulders, making sure that unwarranted subjectivity does not enter our analyses and interpretations. We are to discover the truth and tell no lies. Any failure in that department gets around. Fudging data can result in disbarment from the scientific community. That gets to the guts of what ethics really are.
Ethics, as I define them, are maps that we use to negotiate the environment. Ethics tell us what is allowed and what is not allowed—based on historical knowledge. Most of us could use some help with this. At the same time, each ethical decision is an experiment performed on an ever-changing environment. Like all maps, these are humanly derived and not without errors and dead-ends. Despite the claims of indeterminists, ethics are never absolute, for they are always changing with the changes in the environment. Thus, under feudalism stoning an adulteress was considered ethical and necessary for enforcing marital loyalty in the community. Now we do it in more subtle and more complicated ways, although sometimes with a similarly unfortunate result.
Ethics also are used to control human behavior for subjective ends. In my opinion, those who shout the loudest about ethics should receive the most scrutiny by the rest of us. Whether scientists, guided by their definition of “truth,” should receive special attention is questionable. The truth is that ethics are determined by everyone. Your ethics are as good as mine (unless you have served jail time for actions I deem inappropriate). Of course, some folks are more influential than others—it is now considered, for instance, to be ethical to lower taxes for the rich and wages for the poor. Some poor folks may not think that is ethical. So you see how it works: ethics are purely subjective. On the other hand, we will see how certain ethical principles work out. Ethics ultimately involves the age-old political question suited to every economic system: Should we do it together or do it apart? Every answer to that question amounts to an experiment. With an environment that increasingly contains more people, what do you think the answer to that question will be in the current period? You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Thank you so much! This couldn't have come at a better moment, I literally just finished watching a fractal zoom on the order of e.214 [ http://vimeo.com/1908224?hd=1 ]. From the author's description, "a magnification of e.12 would increase the size of a particle to the same as the earths orbit! e.21 would make a particle look the same size as the milky way and e.42 would be equal to the universe." I was struck by the immensity of what e.214 could represent, and then your message arrived, and I saw it: the local mega-vortex!
Of course, this moment is not the ideal for that reason alone. I'm a student of physics and mathematics that recently changed major studies to philosophy. Forgive the boring details, but I'm compelled to express my disappointment and regret towards the scientific culture. I'm amazed at the level of dogma in physics today, which is in no doubt due to the complete blackout of education in philosophy for physicists (and I suspect, science in general). It's an intellectual death sentence to march forward without at least an awareness of the premises under which one works. Your mentioning of Kuhn's work, which I am familiar with, is a breath of fresh air. Truly, paradigm shifts are defined in large part by the premises (or scientific assumptions, ch.3) that get overturned, be they epistemological, metaphysical, etc. I had many conversations with professors and grad students; my anecdotal impression is that science is not simply ignorant of these things, science looks upon them with contempt.
In the past I was a computer science (engineering) student at a top 5 university. I went on to do software at a major laboratory, where I was exposed to all kinds of research, a lot of cool machines and a lot of very smart people from all around the world. I thought it was 'engineering culture' that bothered me, the focus on tangible results, ends over means, and so on. I quit my job after 3 years and returned to school, thinking physics (pure science) is what I was looking for. Unfortunately, upon my return, it was never clearer to me that our universities are recruiting grounds for these large entities like the national labs and military contractors. I don't mean to stir up political topics - but, seriously, how are we to pursue truth if our universities are infected by these kinds of interests?
The Aging “Crisis” in Physics
The silliness of relativity and the Big Bang Theory (BBT) has been plaguing thinkers for over a century. Some consider this a “crisis” in physics. If so, this crisis is certainly quite elderly. I imagine the flat-earth and the geocentric theories also overstayed their heyday as well. Once established, traditional mythology tends to stick around—with the various religions being among the better examples. In science, however, bad theories are supposed to get the boot even before they can be published. So we ask the question: How can regressive physics survive, producing much of the remarkable results of the 20th and 21st centuries without its flawed foundations being discarded as ineffective?
This is one of the tougher questions. A proper answer would involve a lot of detailed work that surely would be worth a Ph.D. or two. I guess the short answer would be the usual one: Any theory will do. As I explained in one of my most popular blogs, “Theory Formulation,” even a grossly incorrect theory can get us out of the office, interacting with the external world. Recent exponential growth in these interactions has led to corresponding growth in data accumulation. Most of our observations and experiments have nothing whatsoever to do with relativity or the BBT. The ones that do, invariably are interpreted from the indeterministic viewpoint. All the same, the ever-widening, progressive exploration of the universe nonetheless impinges upon both theories. The one characteristic of the theories—aether denial—is being inundated by rapidly accumulating data to the contrary. Regressive physicists not looking for aether have found it anyway. This cannot be openly admitted, of course, because use of the word is grounds for academic dismissal. Physicists necessarily working under the old paradigm have learned to handle these findings adroitly, as Kemp (2012) says so well:
“Various models of the aether are being published in current scientific journals under different names: Quintessence, Higgs Field, Vacuum Expectation Value Energy, Zero Point Energy, Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs), and Ground State Energy. All are Aether Theories at their core, each with their own twist, but Aether theories never-the-less!”
All these are signs of the aging crisis in physics, which might have been averted altogether if Einstein’s (1920) public relations slip-up had not been swept under the rug: “There is a weighty reason in favour of ether. To deny ether is to ultimately assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever." It is not quite that simple, of course. Einstein’s corpuscular theory of light actually requires the absence of aether. Once aether is reinstated as the medium for the wave motion of light, both relativity and the BBT will be but museum curiosities. In the meantime, physics will remain retarded, spending vast sums on all sorts of dead ends that nonetheless wrest huge amounts of data from the universe. The main difference between an incorrect theory and a correct one is the efficiency with which that is accomplished.
Indeterminists, of course, would not agree that there is a “crisis in physics.” It is what was desired all along. The foundational assumptions of regressive physics and of the greater society are similar. For instance, Big Bang theorists and most folks on the planet believe in creation, in opposition to the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). Many have tried to ameliorate this by proposing mathematical singularities, parallel universes, multiverses, or other embellishments. These only serve to highlight their desperation. As scientists, they know they should believe in conservation, but they just cannot. It is an assumption after all. There can be no proof that conservation holds at all times and in all places. Besides, they have been told to avoid assumptions. Better to stick with what you believe to be empiricism. At least you won’t get fired for sticking your nose into philosophy, which mostly is defunct anyway.
Censorship in Regressive Physics
As expected, we have had some recent negative critiques by various modern physicists on the Amazon website where UCT (see below for acronyms) is sold. So far, none has been substantial—mostly just complaints about TTAOS. These exchanges remind me of the one that was related by John Chappell as #3 in the founding principles of the NPA:
"#3 DO NOT ASSUME THAT IF SPECIAL RELATIVITY WERE INVALID, THIS FACT WOULD LONG AGO HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED WITHIN ESTABLISHMENT PHYSICS.
The reason it has not been is that almost everyone with a sufficiently bold and critical view of the subject to develop sound arguments against SR has not been allowed to flourish within the establishment. Great numbers of reliable accounts of such intolerance have been told.
One of the most recent comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since. I ran into it in 1985, when I read a paper arguing for absolute simultaneity at that year’s International Congress on the History of Science. After I finished, the Danish chairman made some courteous remarks about dissidents he had learned about in Scandinavia, and then turned to the audience for questions. The first speaker was one of a group of about 4 young physics students in the back. He launched immediately into a horrible tirade of verbal abuse, accusing me of being entirely wrong in my analysis, a simplification of the Melbourne Evans analysis–”Evans is wrong; you are wrong,” he shouted. He accused me of being way out of line to present my “faulty” arguments on his prestigious campus. When I started to ask him “Then how would you explain…”, he loudly interrupted me with “I don’t have to explain anything.” The rest of the audience felt so disturbed by all this, that the question session was essentially destroyed."
The complete list of principles is at: http://www.worldnpa.org/site/principals/. They are still good advice 20 years later.
The complete list of principles is at: http://www.worldnpa.org/site/principals/. They are still good advice 20 years later.
As far as I can tell, the story above still is an accurate reflection on the deplorable state of physics at UC Berkeley, "the world's greatest public university." This hits me pretty hard since I was a visiting prof there in 1990, founded PSI in Berkeley, used UC libraries for researching TSW, and announced its publication there on March 13, 2007. That was the day Hawking gave his talk on his briefer history of time. All 3,800 freshmen were given free copies of the book by some kindly benefactor. They were supposed to read it during the holidays and get ready for the great man himself. A splendid gang of suits from the university guided him into Dwinelle Hall. Unfortunately, due to the deplorable state of his health, the entire presentation was just a recording--I didn't see him move more than a centimeter. To his credit, the recording did spend some time stumbling over what came before the Big Bang. About the only thing I got out of the whole thing was his quote from Woody Allen: "Infinity is a very long time, especially near the end." The questions and answers were also canned, so I never got a chance to ask him about the contradiction between the BBT and the First Law of Thermodynamics. He was quickly hustled out of the auditorium, surrounded by guards, so I never got the chance to give him my signed copy of TSW either.
I think the key to all this is John's implication that, like Woodward and Bernstein, all we need to do is "follow the money." One does not simply go to a Congress of indeterminists with hat in hand along with opposing assumptions that eventually will destroy their cherished, mutually agreed upon cosmogony. We should not kid ourselves. The monetary corruption in the electoral system also extends to our great universities. It is all bought and paid for.
What is to be done? We must realize that the revolution proposed by TSW and UCT requires great macrocosmic changes in society, which will come about very slowly. My prediction is that the BBT will be viable for at least another 30 years (TSW, p. 290). Our logic and their logic are founded on opposing assumptions. To the indeterminist, our assumptions make no sense; they are "delusional," "unbelievable," "crazy," "pseudoscience," and still to come: "crackpot." Regressive physicists have already conquered the intellectual (and financial) territory; now they only have to defend it. That's why they commonly say such things as "I don't have to explain it!" and "I don't have to read your unbelievable book!" Most are just repeating what Berkeley stuffed in their heads. What we must do is to continually point out the contradictions:
1. How could the universe explode out of nothing?
2. How could there be more than 3 dimensions?
3. How can a thing or a motion be both a particle and a wave?
4. How can a photon be massless?
5. If time is not an object, how can it be said to dilate?
6. Add more here.
There will always be a few extremely curious, especially young physicists who are working on these contradictions. Like the graduate students who switched majors to something more believable, they will be the ones most likely to seek solutions outside the Ivory Tower.
Next week, about a hundred dissidents will be meeting at the University of Maryland to discuss the crisis in modern physics. This will be the 18th annual meeting of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, which is composed of retired physicists, engineers, and other independent thinkers who are not financially dependent on mainstream physics. Most simply cannot stomach claims that the universe exploded out of nothing, that there are more than three dimensions, that time dilates, and that we should believe much of the other nonsense promulgated by Einstein and his academic cohorts. Speakers range from the usual positivists and solipsists to a few univironmental determinists. There is little censorship of ideas, so everyone gets a chance to propose alternatives for getting out of what I call “Regressive Physics.” The NPA presents a smorgasbord of the philosophy of science. There is no party line, although about 80% of the members assume that there must be an ether. The quality of the papers varies from totally confusing to absolutely brilliant. This year, Steve Bryant and I are trying for the latter category with the following:
From Rick Dutkiewicz:
I couldn't help but think of you when I read this quote.
It made me smile a bit, and I thought that I should share it with you.
Thanks so much for your great insights and down-to-earth revelations.
"These scientisms, as I shall call them, are clusters of scientific ideas which come together and almost surprise themselves into creeds of belief, scientific mythologies…. And they share with religions many of their most obvious characteristics: a rational splendor that explains everything, a charismatic leader or succession of leaders who are highly visible and beyond criticism, certain gestures of idea and rituals of interpretation, and a requirement of total commitment. In return the adherent receives what the religions had once given him more universally: a world view, a hierarchy of importances, and an auguring place where he may find out what to do and think, in short, a total explanation of man. And this totality is obtained not by actually explaining everything, but by an encasement of its activity, a severe and absolute restriction of attention, such that everything that is not explained is not in view."
—Jaynes, J., The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, Mariner Books
Why do you use the term "scientific philosophy" instead of "philosophy of science"?
Traditionally, the philosophy of science is studied and taught by philosophers, not working scientists. I know hundreds of scientists, but few admit to having studied the philosophy of science. Although mistaken, some of them claim to have no philosophy at all. All of them recognize that science can advance only by interacting with the external world through observation and experiment. They seem to view philosophy as too mixed up with religion and thus irrelevant for their work.
However, in view of the numerous silly so-called "scientific" hypotheses we suffer today (time as a dimension, banging universes, etc.), it is obvious that working scientists need to improve their theoretical foundations. Today's philosophy of science is a mishmash of conflicting presuppositions that have been of little help in cleaning up the theoretical mess left over from the 20th century. Perhaps by using the less popular term "scientific philosophy" we can at least put science first literally if not actually.