Pathological science

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Under pathological science is understood by the inventor of the term, the Nobel Prize winner for chemistry Irving Langmuir (1881-1957), research on non-existing phenomena in which the scientific self-control failed for a while. Due to wishful thinking , an alleged phenomenon is taken so seriously that an increasing flood of publications and research sets in, which then finally comes to a standstill due to increasing doubts.

It differs from pseudoscience in that the phenomenon is not presupposed and presented as scientifically recognized, but rather a seemingly real, startling discovery. The difference to para-science is that there the discovery takes place and is discussed in an already established area, so that the discoverers do not have to fight for recognition of their work from the outset.

criteria

Langmuir listed several criteria in a lecture at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL) on December 18, 1953:

  • The maximum observable effect is brought about by a cause of hardly observable intensity; the size of the effect is generally independent of the size of the cause.
  • The effect is of a magnitude that is on the limit of observability; Because of the low statistical significance of the results, a large number of measurements are necessary.
  • A claim is made for very high experimental accuracy.
  • Fantastic theories, often contradicting experience, are put forward.
  • Criticism is responded to with ad hoc statements .
  • The ratio of supporters to critics initially increases and then gradually approaches zero again.

Examples

Often cited examples of pathological science are:

reasons

An often common denominator are emotional reasons that lead to a phenomenon being taken seriously. During the period of nationalism , the French felt snubbed by German successes and were eager to make new scientific discoveries. It is significant that the N-rays, named after the city of Nancy, were mainly studied in France. In the case of Polywasser , after the initial successes and the self-overestimation of the Russian scientists, the necessary internal criticism was lacking; the existing warning signs of some employees were deliberately ignored. Because of their years of personal commitment, it was very difficult for the Soviet scientists to drop the thesis (see also escalating commitment ).

literature

  • Irving Langmuir: Pathological science . General Electric Research and Development Center report 68-C-035. Publisher: RN Hall pp. 1-13

Web links