"Respected" Journal Supports ESP

[Pennies for Thoughts]

Uri Geller, Mars' effect on athletic performance, water having a memory, vaccines as a cause of autism: Publication of "research" in respected journals has been a major, if intellectually disappointing, factor in fixing these pseudosciences in the public's mind. Now The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology is poised to hop on the extra-sensory perception bandwagon.

The editor of the journal, Charles Judd, a psychologist at the University of Colorado, said the paper went through the journal's regular review process. "Four reviewers made comments on the manuscript," he said, "and these are very trusted people."

All four decided that the paper met the journal's editorial standards, Dr. Judd added, even though "there was no mechanism by which we could understand the results."

:lol: :cry: :facepalm: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/science/06esp.html?ref=science

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Respected journals make mistakes sometimes. They publish an article they should have not done, someone finds the mistakes, points them out to the journal, and the paper gets retracted. Lets see how this unfolds.

 

[borrofburi]

This is the important comment:

Perhaps more important, none were topflight statisticians.

Here's a fun little evisceration. It's worth reading, at least through the first study or two. I think I read the whole thing, though I can't remember much past the first study or two (my memory is awful).

 

[Aught3]

I think it's okay to publish fringe science on occasion. For something like this other scientists will replicate the experiment and presumably find nothing, publish their work, and embarrass the group responsible for the original paper. The problems with error, statistics, and interpretation will hopefully be pointed out in letters to the journal editor (amongst other places). The paper will be thoroughly eviscerated by the scientific process, not within the 24hr news cycle but soon enough.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

I think it's okay to publish fringe science on occasion. For something like this other scientists will replicate the experiment and presumably find nothing, publish their work, and embarrass the group responsible for the original paper. The problems with error, statistics, and interpretation will hopefully be pointed out in letters to the journal editor (amongst other places). The paper will be thoroughly eviscerated by the scientific process, not within the 24hr news cycle but soon enough.

They should publish fringe science a whole lot more. It will prompt more scientists to disprove the fringe and publish papers embarrassing the claimants. Only then more people will stop believing ridiculous nonsense like ESP and staring at goats.

Ok the staring at goats part comes from the movie "The Men Who Stares At Goats."

 

[Baranduin]

They should publish fringe science a whole lot more. It will prompt more scientists to disprove the fringe and publish papers embarrassing the claimants.

As I see it, whenever one of this kind of papers goes through, we learn about new sources of bias or possible errors on the peer review process. It's not just that science is a self correcting process, but that the own process of self-correction is self correcting. Next time, they'll make sure to send the paper to a statistician as well.

I think that's an even better benefit than just embarrass fringe-believers.

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

Come again on the world needing more pseudo-science in science journals? As if woo-woo market wasn't saturated enough!

Justification for more woo in science journals relies on the ever-weak "Well, what harm can it do?" rationalization. The woo, in theory, would fade in the light of science -- except it never does, as any creationist would be happy to remind us.

The Wakefield case (connecting vaccinations to autism) exposed the "what harm" theory for the fraud it always was. It took eleven years for The Lancet to admit its mistake in publishing Wakefield's nonsense, which provided plenty of time for the anti-vaccination movement to take root and thrive. Isn't that harm enough?

Extraordinary claims still require extraordinary proof and science journal editors have a moral obligation to hold shady claims to the highest standards.

 

[Aught3]

The Wakefield case was not a scientific controversy, it is one that was created and sustained by the media. The journal acted pretty much correctly. They published a concerning finding (and it would have been concerning if it was true), the study was replicated but the same results did not materialise, and when it was shown that Wakefield used fraudulent data the paper was retracted.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

The Wakefield case was not a scientific controversy, it is one that was created and sustained by the media. The journal acted pretty much correctly. They published a concerning finding (and it would have been concerning if it was true), the study was replicated but the same results did not materialise, and when it was shown that Wakefield used fraudulent data the paper was retracted.

That is why I believe the media should always have an expert to help them. The expert can inform them that what they say may not be scientifically correct.

 

[Baranduin]

Come again on the world needing more pseudo-science in science journals? As if woo-woo market wasn't saturated enough!

We are biased around here. We are aware in some degree of the controversies within the scientific community, and the cultural wars. Most people isn't. We know the difference between academic research and commercially-sponsored developments. Most people doesn't. And none of us would mistake a science journal and DailyMail or Cosmo. And the list goes on and on.
If you read the references of any woo-woo product, you will see articles from newspapers, testimonials and celebrities. These three are the source of our problems. As for "scientific studies", I've rarely seen a scam linking directly to an actual research journal, and we know that if they don't have a study they can twist for their own purposes, they will just make shit up, because it doesn't matter: people is never going to check the reference.

So the number of cases where the paper is going to enworsen the situation is reduced. The market is going to be saturated, with scientific evidence or despite it.

Justification for more woo in science journals relies on the ever-weak "Well, what harm can it do?" rationalization.

Uh, no. There are benefits: for one, it's a great opportunity for scientists to appear on the media and explain why the study is wrong, and educate the public. Secondly, it's a perfect test of how academic journals work. If the paper made it through, that means that something's failing somewhere. Thirdly, it tests if the prestige a given journal has is deserved; if a journal were to publish many of these articles in a short time, we would immediately start questioning the standards used (and the journal would start losing subscriptions, etc; which guaranties in some degree its integrity). It also provides us with plenty of examples where a fringe paper has gone through, allowing to establish a point of reference for how unlikely are the fringe studies that don't. And finally, it reminds us that the price we must pay is eternal vigilance.

Overall, I consider that the benefits compensate the harm. Of course, I'd love if they never went through: that would mean no harm, that the review process is perfect enough, that the journals are doing a damn good job, and that we never needed to point out that while homeopathy and EPS has showed up on the literature (and only once or twice, with thousands against them), there's nothing about perpetual movement machines, ID, or whatever other fringe theory. But for that matter, I'd also love that people were critic and had an average scientific literacy...

The woo, in theory, would fade in the light of science -- except it never does, as any creationist would be happy to remind us.

And how many creationist published papers do you know? Exactly. They don't need a journal to publish their wackery; they'll twist and quotemine extant, perfectly legit studies, or just make stuff up. That doesn't mean that a study wouldn't help them, but they won't just fade away in absence of them.

Also, I dispute the interpretation you are giving to "the light of science". For me, if includes concepts like "fallibility of the scientists, just like other people", "regression to the mean", and "possibility of a paper to be retracted if the results can't be repeated". They are just part of what science is and how it works, and people should be able to grasp them. Your problem is not these papers, it's the scientific illiteracy of most people about how science works.

The Wakefield case (connecting vaccinations to autism) exposed the "what harm" theory for the fraud it always was. It took eleven years for The Lancet to admit its mistake in publishing Wakefield's nonsense, which provided plenty of time for the anti-vaccination movement to take root and thrive. Isn't that harm enough?

And, according GTrends, the problem didn't exist until 2007 (except for a small peak in 2005; the problem is also specifically English, specially centered in America: the same search in spanish shows no result, and more than half of the articles containing "vacunas" and "autismo" also contain "fraude". Haven't searched for related terms).

Wakefield is a fraud. True. He has acted irresponsibly and despicably. Also true. But he is just the expert the antivaxxers have found. If he had had a bit of integrity and had rejected to participate in this circus, other so called expert would have occupied his place. The antivaxxer movement would have used other irresponsible doctor, or a naturopath, or a quantum misticist, anyone who could cast an impression of "prestige and trustworthiness".
Take the creationist Dissent from Darwinism as an example of what I mean.

Not to mention the power a celebrity like Jenny McCarthy can have in a program like Oprah's, addressing the hearts of the audience instead of their heads. Jenny could have done it all by herself: just look at PowerBalance.

Extraordinary claims still require extraordinary proof and science journal editors have a moral obligation to hold shady claims to the highest standards.

Agreed. And these studies going through are what we need for them to be wary about that. The Lancet will look twice next time they receive something about vaccines, and this journal will make sure to send their papers to a statistician. Otherwise, we will stop using them as a trustworthy source, and that will hurt their pockets.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Come again on the world needing more pseudo-science in science journals? As if woo-woo market wasn't saturated enough!

Justification for more woo in science journals relies on the ever-weak "Well, what harm can it do?" rationalization. The woo, in theory, would fade in the light of science -- except it never does, as any creationist would be happy to remind us.

My point in having more fringe science (pseudo-science) in science journal is not to endorse it, but to debunk it.

They should publish fringe science a whole lot more. It will prompt more scientists to disprove the fringe and publish papers embarrassing the claimants. Only then more people will stop believing ridiculous nonsense like ESP [...]

Great journal articles that debunk the woo-woo would actually help dispel the myths among the common man, and it has never been easier to do so than right now with the help of the Web.

Same goes for introducing more scientific television programmes that talk about fringe science. The show is real science, but its purpose is to debunk pseudo-science (woo-woo as you call it).

Also, Baranduin's reply.

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

The Wakefield case was not a scientific controversy, it is one that was created and sustained by the media. The journal acted pretty much correctly.

The Wakefield case has generated considerable scientific controversy and, as mentioned, public harm that will continue long beyond this day. The Lancet's initial publication of Wakefield is not as blatantly irresponsible as The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology's pending publication of another ESP myth because ESP has a history of self-deceit and fraud (as Borrofburi's link reminded us), which the vaccines-and-autism scam did not.

However, giving a single set of the data any benefit of the doubt in the context of an extraordinary claim is irresponsible. What if someone submitted a paper claiming a correlation between eating chocolate fudge sundaes and autism? Well, that just "sounds" ridiculous so you can bet they'd want to know more prior to publication regardless of how much "fudged" data backed the claim. Substituting vaccines for chocolate fudge sundaes does not make the claim any less extraordinary. Compound this with the The Lancet waiting eleven years to correct itself and that alone will suffice to shame the journal for its irresponsible behavior.

For something like this other scientists will replicate the experiment and presumably find nothing, publish their work, and embarrass the group responsible for the original paper.

Great journal articles that debunk the woo-woo would actually help dispel the myths among the common man"¦

These sentiments conflate damage undone in the scientific community with damage rarely if ever undone among the public. Mountains of scientific papers refute ESP, creationism, the many faces of quackery, and on and on, yet the public appetite for such woo has never been greater.

Still supporting woo-woo in science journals? Bad League of Reasoner! No logic puzzles!!!

 

[Aught3]

The Wakefield case has generated considerable scientific controversy

Really? As far as I can tell neither the scientific nor medical community recommended against getting vaccinated or promoted the vaccine-autism myth. Wakefield's methods were repeated and the findings failed to be replicated, that's about it.

The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology's pending publication of another ESP myth because ESP has a history of self-deceit and fraud (as Borrofburi's link reminded us), which the vaccines-and-autism scam did not.

I agree with this point, the journal should be very wary given the failure of such studies in the past. There is a risk that credible scientists will simply ignore the paper as not worth their time to discredit.

However, giving a single set of the data any benefit of the doubt in the context of an extraordinary claim is irresponsible. What if someone submitted a paper claiming a correlation between eating chocolate fudge sundaes and autism? Well, that just "sounds" ridiculous so you can bet they'd want to know more prior to publication regardless of how much "fudged" data backed the claim. Substituting vaccines for chocolate fudge sundaes does not make the claim any less extraordinary.

No, I think it's important to report any symptoms that develop after a vaccination (or after taking any medicine) because they are designed to interact with the very very complicated body chemistry that keeps you ticking. It's impossible to predict all the side effects that will be caused and there may be different reactions among different segments of the population. That certain vaccines can trigger Guillain-Barre syndrome was noticed because of careful documentation of vaccine side-effects.

There was already a partial retraction printed in the Lancet signed by 10 of the 12 authors saying they demonstrated no link between autism and the MMR vaccine. The full retraction came only after the data were shown to be fraudulent.

 

[Baranduin]

The Wakefield case was not a scientific controversy, it is one that was created and sustained by the media. The journal acted pretty much correctly.

The Wakefield case has generated considerable scientific controversy and, as mentioned, public harm that will continue long beyond this day. The Lancet's initial publication of Wakefield is not as blatantly irresponsible as The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology's pending publication of another ESP myth because ESP has a history of self-deceit and fraud (as Borrofburi's link reminded us), which the vaccines-and-autism scam did not.

So? Now do we judge fields (the whole field!) according to the morality of the persons who conducted earlier experiments? Should we reject any study regarding autism because Wakefield and others falsified their data? How many misconducts are necessary to invalidate any study on a whole field? Isn't that a genetic fallacy?

Notice that so far there's no evidence of fraud in this study, but a methodological flaw. Next time, as I said, they'll check with a statistician, or they'll risk to be sokalized again, forcing serious scientists to start ignoring the journal.

However, giving a single set of the data any benefit of the doubt in the context of an extraordinary claim is irresponsible.

You keep paraphrasing Sagan. Let me remind you about this one:

[...] Now, these ideas are almost certainly wrong. [...] There are many hypothesis in Science which are wrong; that's perfectly right, they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process: to be accepted new ideas most survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny. The worst aspect of the Velikovsky's affair is not that many of these ideas were wrong or silly or in gross contradiction with the facts; rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place for it in the endeavour of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely Solar System. [...] Fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources.
(Cosmos, chapter 4. My transliteration, so my apologies if I've got any word wrong )

And yes, it's relevant. You are proposing that Journals should ban experiments done in EPS; if not, how else do you expect them to gather enough evidence to overturn the current paradigm, that is, the "extraordinary evidence"? Unless, of course, you've already decided that they won't.

What it's irresponsible is to state that an extraordinary claim is true before there's enough extraordinary evidence. And to deny the chance to someone to even gather the evidence they require to support their hypothesis, no matter how unlikely it seems. I know it's sort of a recurrent topic, but remember plate tectonics.

What if someone submitted a paper claiming a correlation between eating chocolate fudge sundaes and autism?

Then there are two possible scenarios:
* The paper doesn't comply with the requirements of the publication. In that case, it's rejected, no one hears about it, and it has no consequence, except for perhaps the egos of the researchers. Note that this says nothing about the validity of the paper: a valid paper could still be rejected as well.
* The paper complies with the requirements of the publication. If it does, it shall be published. It may have some impact, or it may be ignored. If it has some impact, it will be subjected to deep analysis, and other researchers will try to replicate it. If they do it, the current model may be modified according to the new data; if they can't, then the paper is discarded - not necessarily retracted. Note that if in case other groups are unable to repeat the experiment, that doesn't automatically mean it's a fraud: sometimes can be a statistical fluke (so we observe a regression to the mean), sometimes can be an unaccounted variable.... Scientists don't pay attention to the paper anymore, and that's all.

Wakefield's work is such an example, and it would have remained ignored and forgotten if it hadn't been for Jenny et al.

Well, that just "sounds" ridiculous so you can bet they'd want to know more prior to publication regardless of how much "fudged" data backed the claim. Substituting vaccines for chocolate fudge sundaes does not make the claim any less extraordinary. Compound this with the The Lancet waiting eleven years to correct itself and that alone will suffice to shame the journal for its irresponsible behavior.

Journals are not a place where studies are always true. They are a tool for scientists on a field to exchange ideas and results. Some of those ideas are correct, some of them are not. They can be wrong for many reasons: statistical flukes, unaccounted variables, procedural errors, sample contaminations, and yes, also fraud, monetary interest, statistical nitpicking, and lots of other distasteful practices. But as a general rule, a non-replicated study doesn't imply a fault on the researcher.

So if a study can't be replicated it's not automatically retracted. The study could be perfectly legit, or still have any utility. The Lancet waited for eleven years to retract the paper because it took four years to examinate the data and conclude that any attempt of replication or confirmation had failed (which by itself doesn't mean the study is not legit), two years more to show that Wakefield had an economical conflict of interests, and start an investigation which, after five years, showed misconduct and irresponsibility. You are judging the events knowing that Wakefield forged the data, but actually there was no reason to retract the paper until the last year. As Aught3 has said, they acted as they had. It takes time to corroborate a study, and checking someone's background is too expensive to make it a standard procedure (and the idea of using policial-state-like measures on the scientific community is not very appealing, truth be said).
The irony here is that hadn't he become a public person involved with the antivaxxer movement, probably no investigation on his background would have been done, and he would still have his license. Somehow I'm feeling weirded just thinking that antivaxxers have done something for the society after all :?

Furthermore, I'd like to ask how was the state of affairs concerning the causes of autism in 1998. I know there have been a few studies recently that seems to point to a genetic cause, but I have no idea how unlikely would have been back then for someone on the pertinent field.

For something like this other scientists will replicate the experiment and presumably find nothing, publish their work, and embarrass the group responsible for the original paper.

Great journal articles that debunk the woo-woo would actually help dispel the myths among the common man"¦

These sentiments conflate damage undone in the scientific community with damage rarely if ever undone among the public. Mountains of scientific papers refute ESP, creationism, the many faces of quackery, and on and on, yet the public appetite for such woo has never been greater.

Which pretty much proves that scientific papers are irrelevant for the general public, and their existence or lack of it doesn't change anything. The media has far more impact on them. And that's why I think that scientific research should be published on a journal, not on a press conference; but that's another discussion.

Still supporting woo-woo in science journals? Bad League of Reasoner! No logic puzzles!!!

It's not about supporting woo woo. It's about allowing the scientific process to work.

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

Say wha', Aught? Sorry compadre, but there are more strawmen in that last post than in a field of scarecrows.

As far as I can tell neither the scientific nor medical community recommended against getting vaccinated or promoted the vaccine-autism myth. Wakefield's methods were repeated and the findings failed to be replicated, that's about it.

To the contrary, anti-vaccination is now a world-wide movement complete with playboy spokes-models, a non-profit advocacy association, and licensed pediatricians spreading the myth -- far, far from "about it".

We more or less agree that the The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology "should be very wary given the failure of such studies in the past" (though I think it is more appropriate to use "fraud" instead of "failure"). But we disagree that, "There is a risk that credible scientists will simply ignore the paper as not worth their time to discredit." The implication that scientific discredit carries any weight against public opinion is fantasy, a point to be returned to. Meanwhile, the ESP paper in question has made the rounds prior to publication and been criticized far and wide including by Ray Hyman, the foremost debunker of psych-woo. Publication at this point isn't just irresponsible, it's dishonest.

I think it's important to report any symptoms that develop after a vaccination (or after taking any medicine) because they are designed to interact with the very very complicated body chemistry that keeps you ticking. It's impossible to predict all the side effects that will be caused and there may be different reactions among different segments of the population. That certain vaccines can trigger Guillain-Barre syndrome was noticed because of careful documentation of vaccine side-effects.

(Ouch! due to the sharp ends of the straw.) The worthy study of treatments' side-effects (science) has nothing to do with the vaccines and autism scare (woo). Conflating them is the fallacy of composition.

Now do we judge fields (the whole field!) according to the morality of the persons who conducted earlier experiments? Should we reject any study regarding autism because Wakefield and others falsified their data? How many misconducts are necessary to invalidate any study on a whole field? ... Notice that so far there's no evidence of fraud in this study...

Ouch, ouch and ouch again! Conflating the Wakefield non-study with the study of autism in general is the inductive fallacy. The implication that keeping out the woo will also keep out the science is certainly wrong as the entire history of science publication attests. The Wakefield paper was pure fraud and the courts agreed. Search "wakefield" and "fraud" to find more.

I don't know why Carl Sagan was brought into this. As much as I respect the man, he was simply wrong to equate scientific refutation of Velikovsky's nutball ideas about solar system formation with "suppression" as though the planetary astronomers were the Catholic Church and Velikovsky was Galileo. Not even close! Sagan, BTW, took heat in mid-career for being soft on woo, particularly on Velikovsky; something he made strides to correct when he wrote The Demon-Haunted World.

Returning to the fantasy of scientific discredit carrying any weight against public opinion, and scientific journals publishing woo being irresponsible, I cite and stand by the vaccines/autism debacle as proof positive of the harm that it can do. Down-playing that harm is straw and, more important, it just ain't right.

So I issue this challenge: can anyone identify any scientific publication of woo whose subsequent refutation did the public more good than harm? Uri Geller? No, the guy has made quite a living off of it. Chiropractic? Nope, it seems like there's a chiropractic chop-shop on every corner. Vaccines causing autism? Nope, see above. Water having a memory? Nope, the homeopaths' offices are right next to the chiropractors'. C'mon woo-in-science advocates. Take your best shot. Cold fusion and N-rays weren't classic woo since they didn't have extensive histories of fraud like ESP. They are at least examples of refutations that don't seem to have had repercussions. At best they were ties in the public mind, but they certainly weren't big wins.

In general, the publication of woo in science journals does nothing to advance science. If anything it draws scientists away from progress-oriented research in order to refute nonsense that never should have tarnished the pages of any journal professing a reputation. Publication of woo does, unfortunately, advance the woo; refutations be damned. Such publication is invariably a bonanza for quote miners and a public relations disaster for science.

 

[Aught3]

Say wha', Aught? Sorry compadre, but there are more strawmen in that last post than in a field of scarecrows.

Sorry if you think I'm strawmanning your arguments. I do see the dilemma and have some sympathy for your side of it, I just have more sympathy for my side =P

To the contrary, anti-vaccination is now a world-wide movement complete with playboy spokes-models, a non-profit advocacy association, and licensed pediatricians spreading the myth -- far, far from "about it".

None of that is a scientific controversy. A controversy within the media or a controversy within the public, but not a controversy within science.

we disagree that, "There is a risk that credible scientists will simply ignore the paper as not worth their time to discredit." The implication that scientific discredit carries any weight against public opinion is fantasy, a point to be returned to. Meanwhile, the ESP paper in question has made the rounds prior to publication and been criticized far and wide including by Ray Hyman, the foremost debunker of psych-woo. Publication at this point isn't just irresponsible, it's dishonest.

I am not maintaining that scientific discredit carries weight with the public. What I've said is that it carries weight in the scientific community. Science journals are primarily for communicating results to other scientists and I think they should keep this as their main role. If scientists start worrying about how the public will respond to their results it introduces bias that the scientific community can do without.

(Ouch! due to the sharp ends of the straw.) The worthy study of treatments' side-effects (science) has nothing to do with the vaccines and autism scare (woo). Conflating them is the fallacy of composition.

This seems to be a bit of hindsight bias. You're looking back from our perspective in the present and applying it to the past. Now that we have scientific studies that show no link between vaccines and autism we are justified in calling it woo. Back in 1998 no such studies existed and it was possible that autism was a genuine side effect from vaccines. It's unlikely, but the so is developing Guillian-Barre from a shot.

So I issue this challenge: can anyone identify any scientific publication of woo whose subsequent refutation did the public more good than harm?

I can't think of an example off the top of my head and I don't want to go looking because I think this question misses the point. The publication of occasional papers which turn out to be woo is the price paid for allowing controversial ideas of any kind to be published, as long as they are backed up by data. Plate tectonics has already been brought up but more modern examples include transposons, endosymbiotic organelles, and quarks. All these ideas were ridiculed as the equivalent of woo, yet all were allowed to be published and subsequently turned out to be correct. This does mean some truly crackpot ideas will get through but science has a self-correcting mechanism which refutes those ideas - we're not scared of being wrong. If science is primarily about the pursuit of truth, then allowing fringe science to be published, on occasion, has an immense benefit towards that goal.

 

[Baranduin]

As far as I can tell neither the scientific nor medical community recommended against getting vaccinated or promoted the vaccine-autism myth. Wakefield's methods were repeated and the findings failed to be replicated, that's about it.

To the contrary, anti-vaccination is now a world-wide movement complete with playboy spokes-models, a non-profit advocacy association, and licensed pediatricians spreading the myth -- far, far from "about it".

I beg your pardon? That's like saying that creationism is a world-wide movement Yeah, every country has at least one creationist or one antivaxxer, but that doesn't mean that even the general public is aware of their existence. For instance, our antivaxxer is a little nun, microbiologist, who has appeared a couple of times in La Sexta warning against the swine flu shots. Almost certainly, her concern is in no way related to Wakefield's study, since her arguments have completely different and target other entirely different type of vaccines.

But let's do a Breakfast ResearchTM. If it were as you say, we should expect worried mothers searching for "vaccine autism" in Google and asking it in Yahoo in their vernacular languages, skeptic groups to report on this and write articles in the national languages to reach as many as possible, all those pediatricians warning about them, and national magazines to report what those top models have said and blogs to gossip or criticize about that. That must generate some visible traffic in many languages. Doing searches in Spanish ('vacuna autismo'), Portuguese ('vacina autismo') and French ('vaccin autisme') (which you will agree are quite international and span accross very different countries) shows no impact nor in Google, nor in Google News, and actually shows 0 in Google Trends. So no, there's no "world wide antivaccine movement"; actually it looks pretty restricted to English speaking countries.

And, oh, yes, then we have people who rejects vaccines based on their religious beliefs, but they nor require nor use scientific literature to back up their rejection, they've being around since the invention of the vaccine, and the modern nontroversy certainly is unrelated to these persons.

The implication that scientific discredit carries any weight against public opinion is fantasy, a point to be returned to.

And precisely what I'm saying is that scientific literature carries no weight in public opinion in any case. Media does, but scientific literature, sadly, doesn't influences media either.

Publication at this point isn't just irresponsible, it's dishonest.

And non-profitable as well. If they publish it, now that it's known that there's a statistical failure, scientists will start questioning the journal, and probably ignoring it.

But realize that the reason it is dishonest and non-profitable to publish it is that it's known to contain errors, not that it's about EPS.

The worthy study of treatments' side-effects (science) has nothing to do with the vaccines and autism scare (woo).

How was supposed The Lancet to know that Wakefield had forged the data? And how do you know it is a fraud or woo unless it is published so others can fail to repeat the experiment?

Conflating the Wakefield non-study with the study of autism in general is the inductive fallacy.

So it is to delegitimate this specific study just because EPS has failed in the past.

The implication that keeping out the woo will also keep out the science is certainly wrong as the entire history of science publication attests. The Wakefield paper was pure fraud and the courts agreed. Search "wakefield" and "fraud" to find more..

See above.

Returning to the fantasy of scientific discredit carrying any weight against public opinion,

And the fantasy that scientific publications have a non negligible impact in public opinion...

I cite and stand by the vaccines/autism debacle as proof positive of the harm that it can do. Down-playing that harm is straw and, more important, it just ain't right.

Scientific knowledge is accepted or rejected according to evidence, not the harm or benefits it can bring.

So I issue this challenge: can anyone identify any scientific publication of woo whose subsequent refutation did the public more good than harm? Uri Geller? No, the guy has made quite a living off of it. Chiropractic? Nope, it seems like there's a chiropractic chop-shop on every corner. Vaccines causing autism? Nope, see above. Water having a memory? Nope, the homeopaths' offices are right next to the chiropractors'. C'mon woo-in-science advocates. Take your best shot. Cold fusion and N-rays weren't classic woo since they didn't have extensive histories of fraud like ESP. They are at least examples of refutations that don't seem to have had repercussions. At best they were ties in the public mind, but they certainly weren't big wins.

The implication is the other way back. You must start with the fringe people. This fringe people search for anything (published on a respected journal or not), and discard anything (including the parts of the own study they are using!) disproving their position. If they find none, they make it up. They don't need a scientific study to support their position, and one scientific study doesn't improve their performance. They exist without them.

Tell us. What scientific publications do sindonists use? What about holocaust deniers? Dowsers? Truthers? Quantum mysticists? Bearers of resonant holografic stuff? UFOlogists?Have IDers better performance than plain creationists? Is any of these less mainstream than other forms of woo with one or two papers in a journal?

Or on the subject of vaccines, what had more impact: Wakefield on MMR or the American Academy of Pediatricians on timerosal? Did the fact that one was published on a scientific journal and the other not make any difference at all? Did anyone discriminate between them because of the source? Or was the Media what caused no reaction for years for the former, but an immediate reaction for the latter?

Check potholer54's videos on climate change. Do you really think that they need yet another paper predicting, say, global cooling? And whenever a scientist finds out such a possible scenario on his models, should he or the journal censor it just because the harm that could be derived?

In short: you've cherrypicked those fringe areas with a paper to back them up, while ignoring all the claims (in those same or other areas) without any, while there's no actual difference between them.

And oh, how were the journals going to foresee beforehand that cold fusion is not possible, N-rays was a selfdelusion, and Beneviste and Wakefield had forged their data?

If anything it draws scientists away from progress-oriented research in order to refute nonsense that never should have tarnished the pages of any journal professing a reputation. Publication of woo does, unfortunately, advance the woo; refutations be damned. Such publication is invariably a bonanza for quote miners and a public relations disaster for science.

Can you back up the claim that things would be different if they lacked of a paper supporting them? How do you explain all the woo that exists despite not having one?

I see stupid to quotemine a paper that supports your position, but: can you back up the claim that a paper supporting your woo-position improves their quotemining? Absurd: IDers and creationists quote Darwin more often than to any other, including papers supposedly supporting their positions.

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

I enjoyed these responses. There is a gap between our estimations of the value of scientific refutation and the public harm it generates, about which further discussion here would be repetition.

I really do understand the pro position about woo in science journals. I used to favor the idea myself. Give 'em a fair hearing, let science do its thing, maybe they'll find a useful nugget, surely the woo-merchants will get their comeuppance, and all that which I now view as pie in the sky because of my Susan Blackmore moment.

Blackmore, a qualified and fair minded researcher with a PhD in parapsychology no less, began her career looking for nuggets in the world of ESP, telekinesis, and related forms of psychic powers. She came up empty and said so. For me, her work, which many have done in bits and pieces before and since, placed the responsibility for evidence firmly in the woo merchants' court: put up or shut up.

But of course they've done neither while profiting quite nicely from telling people what they want to hear; much like any religion. Also like a religion, woo is a rubber ducky that science will never sink. Worse, the ducky grows stronger when powered by science because quote miners and science deniers continue to extol scientific support for their woo long after scientists have burned their straw houses to the ground.

I expected there would be difficulty finding examples where scientific publication of woo has helped science or the public. This really is the fly in the ointment of open hearings for woo. At some point science has to draw the line which raises another concern about support for woo in science journals: namely, where would it stop? If science were to let the ESPers in then what would keep the astrologers, alchemists, quacks, spirit talkers and aroma therapists out?

I hope all supporters of mixing woo and science will have their Susan Blackmore moment, and the sooner the better. As for me, well, considering the lack of woo in science journals, I'm content with being on the same side of this issue as the overwhelming majority of science journal editors.

 

[Aught3]

At some point science has to draw the line which raises another concern about support for woo in science journals: namely, where would it stop? If science were to let the ESPers in then what would keep the astrologers, alchemists, quacks, spirit talkers and aroma therapists out?

Data.