SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES, PATHOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND SCIENCE RIGHTING ITSELFMichael BassCREOL, The College of Optics and PhotonicsUniversity of Central FloridaOrlando, FL 32816

Clashes of culture• Science and technology made possible the renaissance.

• Perspective in art, study of the human body, printing, telescopes, microscopes …

• The renaissance made possible the development of science.• Relaxation of religious restrictions on scientific inquiry, encouraged

communication, mathematics and logic to find the simplest explanation.

• Coppernicanism was a break with the existing culture.• The Church and Galileo is a powerful clash with

significant outcomes.

Heliocentrism vs Geocentrism• Except for the calendar shifting geocentrism worked for

every day life.• Copernicus comes along and says the earth goes around

the sun, not the reverse.• Astronomers accepted this view because it was much

simpler than geocentrism.• Tycho Brahe however, while having his own data, objected.

• If the earth is moving one should see parallax in the shifting of the stars during an orbit of the earth about the sun.

• Galileo, with a telescope, showed that the stars were too far away to result in an observable parallax so Tycho’s objection was invalid.

• By 1838 with much improved telescopes parallax for some stars was observed.

The power of belief – holding on to the model

• Some scientists could not give up the model and would not even look through Galileo’s telescope.

• Others came up with wild models to reject heliocentrism.• In the 17th century Copernicus’ ideas were generally

accepted by scientists.• However, it took until the 18th century for the idea to be

accepted by the public.• Keep in mind that the Catholic Church did not

acknowledge that it had done Galileo wrong until the end of the 20th century.

Science and politics – Galileo and the Church

• In 1615 Cardinal Robert Bellarmine stated that we should admit that we did not understand scripture rather than declare false something that we know to be true.• A very interesting statement at the time of the Inquisition.

• Then in 1616 he officially declared Copernicanism false.• He claimed there was no evidence to support it even in the face of

Galileo’s observations.• Galileo was taken to Rome to stand trial before the

Inquisition and forced to recant his defense of Copernicanism.• He was sentenced to house arrest and there lived out his

remaining years.• Legend has it that he said as he was near death that the earth still

went around the sun.

Consequences• As we mentioned before –science and technology in the

Catholic countries of Europe and their colonies in the Americas fell behind.

• In the Protestant countries of Europe (mostly northern Europe) tremendous scientific and technological progress took place.• This is where we will concentrate our discussions because this is where

science as we know it developed.• In Russia, held back by the very strict, Russian Orthodox

Church very little science was done.• Mendeleyev and the periodic table was an exception.

Muslim (10th to 12th centuries) and Chinese contributions to science did not lead to historically transformative syntheses into basic principles or inventions.

Still today• Northern European countries and the United States and

Canada generally have strong economies and high standards of living.

• Southern European countries and countries in Latin America generally have weak economies and lower standards of living.

• Not all of this is due to science and technology.• Much has to do with styles of government, attitudes

towards education and the structure of each society.

Next: Pathological Science

Pathological Science• Pathological Science is something that is too good to

be true and which the scientists involved insist is true because they can explain it even though they are the only ones who can do the experiment.

• The scientists are pathologically involved in something because if it is true they will get very rich, win very prestigious prizes and be considered heroes by one and all.

• We will examine the case of cold fusion.• Pathological science gone wild.

Errors in science created by a loss of objectivity are called

• PATHOLOGICAL SCIENCE and is distinguished by:• 1. The effect studied is at the limit of detectability and has very low statistical significance.

• 2. There is a readiness to disregard prevailing ideas and theories and dismiss or ignore criticism.

• 3. The investigators find it nearly impossible to conduct critical, definitive experiments.

What do we expect?• A scientist would be:

• Committed to the truth!• Unbiased by emotion.• Open to new ideas.• Professionally and personally unselfish.

• A scientist should:• Painstakingly take objective data.• Test every side of a question.• Disregard personal interests when doing science.

• As with other archetypes this flawlessly competent and dispassionate scientist does not exist.

Sometimes we get scientists who can’t see their own errors.They become pathologically involved with being right even

though they are wrong.

For example

Pathological science experiments

• Difficult to do experiments that reliably test the effect.• Subjective (visual) observations instead of objective

instrumental readings.• No consistent relationship between the magnitude of the

effect and the causative agent.

Typically are in the limit of detectability or low statistical significance

The pathological scientist will attribute these problems to “incomplete understanding of all of the variables” or the need for

some special technique that only he/she knows.

Disregard prevailing ideas and theories and dismiss or ignore criticism

• Concocts fantastic theories to account for the new phenomenon.• Usually in violation of a multitude of established physical

principles.• Offers ad hoc excuses.• Becomes enmeshed in the issue because major prizes and financial rewards are possible.

What is this?

• Such science gone bad is not

• but is a scientist suffering

• He/she has lost his/her objectivity.

• While there are many examples of pathological science, fraudulent science is very rare.

DELIBERATE FRAUD

SELF DELUSION.

Three examples of pathological science

• Polywater• Infinite dilution• Cold fusion• We will concentrate on Cold Fusion as it provoked major

madness in the early 1990s because if it were true then all our energy problems were over.

Cold Fusion

• Time: Late 1980s – early 1990s• Originator: B. Stanley Pons University of Utah

Martin Fleishmann U. of Southampton• Observation: Deuterons liberated from the electrolyte in

an electrolytic cell using a palladium cathode undergo nuclear fusion – liberates a great deal of energy.

If true, this would solve all the world’s energy needs forever.

It started a run on palladium and many people tried to reproduce it.

The experimentThis is a very basic, well understood, electrolytic cell. When you run a current between the electrodes something happens to the electrolyte (the solution) and something happens to the electrodes.

P & F claimed to measure more heat out than the product of current times voltage.

Other facts• It is well known that palladium absorbs deuterium.

• A current run through a solution of LiOD in D2O would liberate D+ ions.

• The D+ ions would enter the cathode.• Then things get squirrely.

P & F explanation for their result• In the cathode the D+ ions would pack together so closely that they would fuse.

• They, P & F, used a “special” technique to “load” the cathode with D.

• In the very best case they claimed to see 4.5x the input energy but no neutrons or protons!!

If their model were correct

How can fusion take place• The only available reactions are:• D + D 3He + n + energy

orD + D T + p + energy

• What is more is that these two are equally likely.

• If fusion had occurred then there had to be 3He, T, neutrons and protons.

• Where were they?

Contradictory data• If P & F had seen the amount of fusion that they claimed then the flux of energetic neutrons would have• Killed them!• Killed everyone at the University of Utah!• Killed everyone in Salt Lake City!

The strange model and the even stranger outcomes

• P & F claimed• “The bulk of the energy release is due to a hitherto unknown nuclear process”.

• The Utah State Legislature voted a huge sum of money for cold fusion research. (later withdrawn).

• The price of palladium went through the roof (later back to normal).• Lots of fools lost lots of money

Independent tests• No reputable laboratory ever got P & F’s results.• Interestingly those that were most hungry for funds came closest to getting the results they wished for.

• P & F claimed they all were not “loading” their electrodes properly.

• There is now a Society for Cold Fusion. They have meetings and claim to see the process. As of yet no confirmable evidence has been offered.

Summary of Cold Fusion• Most measurements that claimed to see any evidence of it were barely above the background noise.

• Negative results in P&F’s lab as well as others were ignored.

• Proponents concocted a strange theory to explain it.• They took unfair advantage of a scientifically unsophisticated public to secure notoriety and funding.

Recent evidence from BICEP* of cosmic inflation in the polarization of the microwave background radiation• The Big Bang theory of the universe alone can not account for

the broad scale uniformity of the universe.• Look out in any direction and it looks pretty much the same but these

places could not have been in contact with each other.• In the 1980s Alan Guth, now at MIT, suggested that the

universe’s underwent an incredibly rapid, exponential, faster than light inflation between 10-36 and 10-32 sec.

• The inflation accounted for the uniformity and for tiny gravitational non-uniformities that became galactic clusters, galaxies and us.

• These made gravitational waves that polarized the light that today we see as the microwave background. Called B modes.

• In early 2014 researchers reported seeing the polarization as Guth’s model would have it. VERY EXCITING.

*Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization*

Wait a moment!• Astronomers pointed out that dust in the galaxy could produce deceivingly similar polarization.

• More observations were needed and were undertaken.

• Observers used space telescopes looked at polarization and more BICEP measurements in winter 2015 at the South Pole were planned.

• This is what science is supposed to be – self checking.

• Perhaps the announcement was premature.

The moral of the story – from an article about the process• Overall, the B-modes story demonstrates how progress in science is truly achieved. Rather than through a direct march to the truth, science advances in a zigzag path that involves many false starts, detours, and blind alleys. Crucially, the scientific method requires that theories should make falsifiable predictions that can be tested through subsequent experiments or observations. Science therefore allows for self-corrections.

Friday, January 29, 2015• Data from the ESA/Planck collaboration shows that dust

in the galaxy could produce the pattern seen by BICEP.• There may be a pattern left over from the inflation but• It is too small to be sure it is there.• More work is needed.• More work will be done.

We, the scientists, have a responsibility

• Be sure the data is incontrovertible.• Be sure the models are based on established principles

and are compatible with the data.• The models explain and predict.

• Communicate this to the public without using the phrases• In my opinion, or• Such and such percent of scientists agree…

• Remember that those who agreed with Galileo or Einstein when their ideas first came out were the precious few.

Something to think about• By next time be ready to discuss• WHAT IS NOT SO GREEN ABOUT

• Windmills to generate electricity.• Solar electric generation.• Electric automobiles.• Hybrid automobiles.

• What is the best way to reduce humankind’s carbon footprint?

• What is the major source of methane in the atmosphere?