Pseudoscience is defective

science
 pseudoscience
• pseudoscience is an established body of
knowledge which masquerades as science in
an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it
would not otherwise be able to achieve on its
own terms; it is often known as fringe- or
alternative  science.
 pseudoscience
• The term "established body of knowledge" is important here,
because the pursuit of scientific knowledge usually involves
elements of intuition and guesswork;
• experiments do not always test a theory adequately, and
experimental results can be incorrectly interpreted or even
wrong.
• In legitimate science, however, these problems tend to be self-
correcting, if not by the original researchers themselves, then
through the critical scrutiny of the greater scientific community.
 pseudoscience
• The most important of its defects is usually
the lack of the carefully controlled and
thoughtfully interpreted experiments which
provide the foundation of the natural sciences
and which contribute to their advancement.
 Some other kinds of
defective science
• junk science

• "9944/100% Pure: It Floats"

• Ivory Soap is a classic example of junk science from

the 19th century. Not only is the term "pure"
meaningless when applied to an undefined mixture such
as hand soap, but the implication that its ability to float
is evidence of this purity is deceptive. The low density is
achieved by beating air bubbles into it, actually
reducing the "purity" of the product and in a sense
cheating the consumer.
 Some other kinds of
defective science
• bad science
Bad science describes well-intentioned but incorrect, obsolete,
incomplete, or over-simplified expositions of scientific ideas. An
example would be the statement that electrons revolve in orbits
around the atomic nucleus, a picture that was discredited in the
1920's, but is so much more vivid and easily grasped than the
one that supplanted it that it shows no sign of dying out.
 How can you recognize
pseudoscience?
• The primary goal of science is to achieve a
more complete and more unified
understanding of the physical world.
• Pseudo-sciences are more likely to be driven
by ideological, cultural, or commercial goals.

•
How can you recognize
pseudoscience?
• Most scientific fields are the subjects of
intense research which result in the
continual expansion of knowledge in the
discipline.
• A pseudo-scientific field evolves very
little since it was first established. The
small amount of research and
experimentation that is carried out is
generally done more to justify the belief
than to extend it.
How can you recognize
pseudoscience?
• Scientists commonly seek out
counterexamples or findings that
appear to be inconsistent with accepted
theories.

• In pseudo-sciences, a challenge to
accepted dogma is often considered a
hostile act if not heresy, and leads to
bitter disputes or even schisms.
How can you recognize
pseudoscience?
• In science observations or data that are
not consistent with current scientific
understanding, once shown to be
credible, generate intense interest
among scientists and stimulate additional
studies.
• In a pseudoscience observations or data
that are not consistent with established
beliefs tend to be ignored or actively
suppressed.
 How can you recognize
pseudoscience?
• Science is a process in which each principle
must be tested in the crucible of experience
and remains subject to being questioned or
rejected at any time.
• The major tenets and principles of
pseudoscience are often not falsifiable, and
are unlikely ever to be altered or shown to be
wrong.
 How can you recognize
pseudoscience?
• Scientific ideas and concepts must stand or fall
on their own merits, based on existing
knowledge and on evidence.
• Pseudoscientific concepts tend to be shaped by
individual egos and personalities, almost
always by individuals who are not in contact
with mainstream science. They often invoke
authority (a famous name, for example) for
support.
CARL SAGAN'S BALONEY DETECTION KIT
• Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
• Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable
proponents of all points of view.
• Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no
"authorities").
• Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea
that caught your fancy.
• Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
• Quantify, wherever possible.
• If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
• "Ochkam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data
equally well choose the simpler.
• Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified
(shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is
testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
 Bad Science
• Frequently deliberately dishonest
• Overlooks facts
• Misinterprets
• Presents incorrect data
• Data Incomplete or absent
• Many hidden variables
• Unreliable or anecdotal data
• Exhibits researcher bias
• Poor preparation or inadequate education
 Good Science
Good Science is
• Consistent
• Parsimonious
• Empirically testable
• Progressive
• Retrogressive
• useful
 Examples of Pseudoscience or
Bogus Science
• Dianetics
• Worlds in Collision
• Creationism
• Astrology
* acupuncture
• Bermuda triangle
• biorhythms
• codependency
• creationism and creation science 
• hollow Earth
• hypnosis
• intelligent design
• morphic resonance
Some Examples of Good Science
• Natural Selection
• DNA
• Thermodynamics
• Quanta
• Standard Model of Particle Physics
• Cosmology
• Relativity
 Closed & Open Minded
• Not many scientists are
prepared to take tales of
alien abduction seriously,
but John Mack, a Harvard
professor who was killed
in a road accident in north
London last year, did. Ten
years on from a row which
nearly lost him his job,
hundreds of people who
claim they were abducted
still revere him.
 Good or Bad Science
• Pylons 'may be a leukemia risk'
The researchers looked at high
voltage power lines. Living too
close to overhead power lines
appears to increase the risk
of childhood leukemia,
researchers say. A major study
found children who had lived
within 200 meters of high
voltage lines at birth had a 70%
higher risk of leukemia than
those 600m or more away.
Nano-scientist's dark secret
• One of the most brilliant scientific
researchers of recent years stands accused of
committing an elaborate scientific fraud,
fooling many eminent experts.
•
• Bell's internal inquiry on Schoen was damning

• In 2001, a team led by Hendrik Schoen

appeared to have invented the smallest
organic transistor ever made.

• Only a single molecule in length, it was

hailed as a huge breakthrough, capable of
transforming the world of computers.

• But, as BBC Two's Horizon program shows

this week, the "breakthrough" led to his
disgrace and began a cascade of events
that would result in one of the most
intriguing science stories of recent years.

• When he published his work, Schoen's tiny

transistor was regarded as a discovery
that could have blasted open the world of
nanotechnology - where cheap, powerful
computers could transform the world in
which we live.
 Bad Science

Poly-Water and Cold Fusion

Case Histories
 Outline
• The Russian revolution
– Fedyakin and Deryagin
– Experimental setup
– Results
• Spreading to the West
– Lippincott and Allen
• Involvement of the media
– Donahoe article
• Debunking Poly-Water
– Rousseau et al
 In the Beginning…
• Nikolai N. Fedyakin
– Kostrama Polytechnical Institute
– Found spontaneous water condensation in capillaries
under certain experimental conditions (1962)
• Different properties than normal water
• Boris V. Deryagin
– Surface Forces Laboratory at the Institute of Physical
Chemistry of the Soviet Academy of Sciences
– Took over research
• Perfected experimental technique for production of condensate
Experimental Setup
 Process and Results
• Condensate Properties
– Freezing “Interval” ~ 243 K to 213 K
– Boiling Point ~ 523 K to 573 K
– Density 1.4 g/cm3
– Thermal expansion coefficient ~ 1.5 times normal water
 Spreading to the West
• Ellis R. Lippincott U. of Maryland
– Infrared Spectroscopy
• Very different from normal water
• Taken as evidence of polymeric
structure

Poly-
water

Water

Rousseau 57
 Spreading to the West
• Leland C. Allen
– First methodical theoretical
investigation
– Found feasible structure—
cyclometric water
• Roughly the same internal energy
as normal water
• Compatible with high density and
viscosity of polywater

Franks, F., Polywater, p.93

 Media Involvement
• F. J. Donahoe (1969)
– Most Dangerous Material on Earth
– Mass-media gets involved

The Number of Publications Per Year

Franks, F., Polywater, p. 120
 Lehigh Conference (1970)
• The “Showdown” between believers and doubters
• Nothing much resolved
– Lippincott
• trouble producing spectra without contaminants
– Allen
• new calculations cast doubt on polywater
– Denis L. Rousseau
• introduced theory of organic contaminants
 DeBunking
• Denis Rousseau and Sergio Porto at USC
– Use Raman scattering for spectroscopy
– Condensate turns to black char
• Polywater should not do this
• Combination of Na, Cl, and SO4
– Proponents-contaminants in Rousseau’s but not theirs
– Rousseau uses infrared spectroscopy on sweat

Polywater

Sweat

Rousseau 57
 Discussion and Conclusion
• Polywater as a Pathologic Science
– (Langmuir 1953)

• People remained divided on the subject for

a long time

• The epidemic of poly-water was fuelled by

intense media coverage
 Too Good To
Be True

The Strange, But True, Story of Cold

Fusion
 The Announcement
• March 23, 1989 – Salt Lake City
• “Two scientists have successfully created a sustained
nuclear fusion reaction at room temperature in a chemistry
laboratory at the University of Utah.”
• “The greatest invention
since the discovery of fire.”
 Pons and Fleischmann

Dr. Stanley Pons Dr. Martin Fleischman

 A Nuclear Fusion Primer
• In nuclear fusion two light nuclei are
combined into a heavier nucleus, releasing
energy.
• Deuterium, 2H, can be used in D-D fusion
to release approximately 4.00 MeV per
fusion.
p
n Deuterium
 Two Pathways
D + D  p + 3H D + D  n + 3He

p p p p
n n n n

n n p
p H
3 3
He n n
p p
 Energy Of Fusion
• In the D + D  p + 3H reaction most of the
energy (3 MeV) is carried away by the
proton.
• In the D + D  n + 3He reaction the neutron
carries most of the energy (2.45 MeV).
 Hot Fusion

• Because of the electrostatic repulsion between the

deuterium nuclei high temperatures are used to
bring them together to fuse.
• Magnetically confined plasmas are used to
generate the high temperatures.
Hot Fusion: Tokomak
The Cold Fusion Machine

• The Cold fusion

“machine” was a
beaker of “heavy
water” (D2O) with a
couple of electrodes
and a small power
supply.
The Cold Fusion Experiment

How did they do that?

The Cold Fusion Cell
• The anode is a coil of
platinum and the cathode
a palladium rod.
• The cell is filled with
heavy water and immersed
in a water bath.
• LiOD is added to the
heavy water as the
electrolyte.
 The Cold Fusion Process
• The electric current splits the D2O molecules into D2 gas
and OD– ions at the cathode.
• The ions migrate to the anode and form D2O and O2.
• Palladium has a great affinity for hydrogen and deuterium
ions are absorbed into the cathode – up to a density of
thousands of times that of deuterium gas.
• The closely packed deuterium nuclei fuse and release heat,
neutrons, protons, etc.
 The Signs of Fusion
• Excess Heat*
• Neutrons*
• Tritium* (?)
• 3He

• Protons
The P & F Evidence

Heat and Light

Excess Heat
Neutrons via Gammas
• Some neutrons would
be absorbed by the H
nuclei in the water
releasing a 2.2 MeV
gamma- ray.
• P & F looked for these
gammas.
Gamma-Rays
• The gamma-ray peak
as presented in the
first P & F paper
submitted to the
Journal of
Electroanalytical
Chemistry (JEC).
 The Reaction
Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go
mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one
by one.
-Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions
and the Madness of Crowds,1841
A Media Explosion
• Cold Fusion became a
instant media event.
• P & F were
interviewed on all the
major news networks.
• Congress scheduled
hearings on CF.
The Scramble to Confirm or
Refute
• Numerous physics and
chemistry labs began
experiments using the
limited information
available.
• Large scale efforts at MIT,
Los Alamos, Harwell,
Yale, and Caltech were
launched.
 Confirmations
• Jones, et. al. (BYU Neutrons)
• Georgia Tech – Neutrons
• Texas A & M – Excess Heat
• Seattle – Tritium
• Small colleges and independent researchers
• Bob’s Discount House of Knowledge
 Doubts
• Why are they still breathing?
– Heat vs. neutron output.
• Are the nuclei really any closer?
• Where are the control runs?
• What’s wrong with that peak?
– The MIT gang goes to the video replay.
Gamma-Rays
• The gamma-ray peak
as presented in the
first P & F paper
submitted to the
Journal of
Electroanalytical
Chemistry (JEC).

2200
The Video Peak
Comparing Peaks
 The APS Meeting
• Caltech: Steve Koonin and Nathan Lewis
• Questions about the Calorimetry
– Closed cell vs. Open cell
– Raw data?
• A lot of negative results.
Excess Heat
 Retractions
• Georgia Tech – Temperature (not Neutrons)
• Texas A & M – Ungrounded thermistor (not
Excess Heat )
• Seattle – “Remind me how a mass spec
works again.” (not Tritium )
 Harwell
• Working with advice from Fleischmann the
Harwell Nuclear Lab conducted the most
extensive set of cold fusion tests in the world.
• Cells were tested in numerous configurations for
heat, neutrons, gammas, tritium, and Helium-3.
• No evidence for nuclear processes in any of the
experiments.
• “Sometimes brilliant people have mad ideas” – J.
Williams, Dir. Harwell Lab
 The Utah Physicists
• Mike Salamon lead a team of physicists from the
University of Utah to make extensive radiation
measurements in Pons’ laboratory.
• Na(I) detectors searched for Gamma-rays from
neutrons, and protons.
• No signal was seen above background after 831
hours of measurement.
• “upper bound of 10 picowatts of energy generated
by any known nuclear process”
What Happened?

And what can we learn?

 Pons & Fleischmann
• Was it a fraud?
• The rush to announce.
• “The explosion.”
• Isolation from peers.
• “Sometimes brilliant people have mad
ideas.”
 The Science Community
• Meeting expectations.
• The good, the bad and the normal
distribution.
• “Seek simplicity, and distrust it”
A. N. Whitehead
 Desktop apparatus yields stream of neutrons

• Now Putterman, a physicist at the

University of California, Los Angeles,
has turned a tiny crystal into a
particle accelerator. When its
electric field is focused by a
tungsten needle, it fires deuterium
ions into a target so fast that the
colliding nuclei fuse to create a
stream of neutrons.Putterman is not
claiming to have created a source of QuickTime™ and a
virtually unlimited energy, because TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
the reaction isn't self-sustaining. But
until now, achieving any kind of
fusion in the lab has required bulky
accelerators with large electricity
supplies. Replacing that with a small
crystal is revolutionary. "The
amazing thing is that the crystal can
be used as an accelerator without
plugging it in to a power station,"
says Putterman.
 Table-top fusion
'demonstrated'
• Previous claims for
desktop fusion have
been highly
controversial. A US
team has created a QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
"pocket-sized" are needed to see this picture.
nuclear fusion reactor
that generates
neutrons, Nature
magazine reports.
 The Bowen Technique
Some Personal Experiences of What It Is, What It Does,
and What It Doesn’t
• The Bowen Technique addresses the whole body, which
responds to the degree to which it is able. The Technique
involves a sequence of light pressure movements of the
practitioner's fingers and thumbs over the skin of the patient, at
precise locations. Muscles are "twanged" like the strings of a
guitar. The technique involves a basic treatment, with add-ons
for particular ailments, including Frozen Shoulder, Tennis
Elbow, or Strained Hamstrings. The sequence of moves is
punctuated by intervals, during which time the patient's body is
given time to respond to the moves.
• At first Tim Willcocks found he needed the crutch of his notes
on the technique, his "Bowen Bible" and referred to it
continually, even during treatments. However, at an
environmental camp in Slovakia, he had gained enough
confidence to work from his own knowledge.
• He has been using the Bowen Technique for two and a half
years and gives some examples of successful cases, including
cases of: breathing difficulties, Fibromyalgia, lower back pain
and frozen shoulder, all of which responded well to between
two and five treatments.
• Tim went to Bosnia with the Healing Hands Network and was
able to help in relieving the suffering of so many people whose
lives had been damaged by the war. He went to Bosnia full of
enthusiasm for Bowen and return still with that enthusiasm, but
also with the realisation that Bowen is one ray in a rainbow
spectrum of healing modalities.
'intelligent design'

QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
 Marks of Pseudoscience or
Bogus Science
1. A lack of well-controlled, reproducible experimental support.
(by definition)
2. Over reliance on anecdotal evidence.
3. Play on supposed inconsistencies in science.
4. Attempt to explain the (so far) unexplainable. Appeal to
mysteries &
myths.
5. Argument by analogy. Argument by spurious similarity.
6. Abuse of well-known scientists by;
a. inferring they would agree with them.
b. quoting them out of context.

7. Over reliance on surveys and statistical arguments

8. Filtering data. The “grab-bag” approach to data.
9. Use of anachronistic arguments. Arguing against long-dead
theories.
10. Use of irrefutable hypothesis.
11. Refusal to revise in spite of being proven wrong.
12. Lack of controlled experiments
13. Grab bag approach to gathering evidence.
14. Use of irrefutable hypothesis
15. Appeals to mysteries and myths
More marks of Pseudoscience or
Bogus Science
• Makes Pitch to News Media instead of
bona fide Scientific Journals
• Makes claims of suppression
• Proposes effect nearly impossible to detect
• Evidence to support idea is mostly anecdotal
• Works in isolation
• Proposes new law of nature to explain discovery
 Some other kinds of
defective science
pathological science
• N-rays

• Poly-water

• Cold fusion

• Bowen Technique

• Intelligent Design
 Some other kinds of
defective science
pathological science
• N-rays

• Poly-water

• Cold fusion

• Bowen Technique

• Intelligent Design
 Nano-scientist's dark secret

• In 2001, a team led by Hendrik Schoen appeared to have invented the smallest
organic transistor ever made.

• Only a single molecule in length, it was hailed as a huge breakthrough, capable

of transforming the world of computers.

• But, as BBC Two's Horizon programme shows this week, the "breakthrough" led
to his disgrace and began a cascade of events that would result in one of the
most intriguing science stories of recent years.

• When he published his work, Schoen's tiny transistor was regarded as a

discovery that could have blasted open the world of nanotechnology - where
cheap, powerful computers could transform the world in which we live.
 Stuff of legend

• Transistors are the minute "switches" that control the flow of

information in a computer chip. The more you can fit on to a chip, the
more powerful your computer.

• Schoen's transistor was far smaller than anything possible on a silicon

chip, so it seemed to herald a new age when computer power could
grow to undreamed of levels.

• It was the latest in a long line of great discoveries made by Schoen.

He was only in his early 30s and yet had already made advances in
the world of superconductors and lasers.

• His name had become so prominent in the scientific journals that to

many of his rivals he had taken on legendary status.
 Growing doubts

• What he had apparently achieved was a way of connecting up dye-like

molecules in a transistor circuit. When the circuit was switched on,
they found it had the same characteristics as a silicon transistor.

• It was a double breakthrough. Schoen's transistor was not just very

small, it was made from simple organic molecules.

• It promised incredibly cheap computer chips that did not need to be

manufactured in hugely expensive fabrication plants, but instead could
be custom-built, at a fraction of the cost, in simple laboratories.
 Growing doubts

• What he had apparently achieved was a way of connecting up dye-like

molecules in a transistor circuit. When the circuit was switched on,
they found it had the same characteristics as a silicon transistor.

• It was a double breakthrough. Schoen's transistor was not just very

small, it was made from simple organic molecules.

• It promised incredibly cheap computer chips that did not need to be

manufactured in hugely expensive fabrication plants, but instead could
be custom-built, at a fraction of the cost, in simple laboratories.
 doubts

• Many of Hendrik Schoen's fantastic claims just could not be repeated in the lab
by rival scientists, and many were getting frustrated. It had got to the point
where there were serious whisperings about his credibility.

• Analysis of his papers going back through previous years provided more
evidence of suspicious data.

• Schoen's employers, Bell Laboratories, instantly launched an independent

investigation into his conduct and the verdict was damning.

• After its findings were released, Bell fired Schoen. Nature, the journal which had
published much of his work, retracted the suspect papers triggering a huge
amount of soul searching in the scientific community.