Science vs. Pseudo-Science.
1) “Investigationâ€: What is the difference between Science and Pseudo-Science?
Science is the result of repeatable, confirmable experiments and processes. Pseudo-science may reflect nothing more than the wishful thinking or the agenda (self-promotion) of the pseudo-scientist.
How can you distinguish between a scientific article and a pseudo-scientific one?
A scientific article is replete with references and cross-corroborating studies, experiments, and data. A pseudo-scientific article is obvious by its lack of such things. A pseudo-scientific article is long on assertions, leaps of logic, and hyperbole. A scientific article is, almost without exception, delivered in a calm and measured manner.
2) “Investigation†and “Opinionâ€: Do some research and come up with at least one example of each. The examples could be in the form of articles or topics. Explain why one is scientific while the other is not.
THE GOOD:
Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton. Extremely well-documented; and, irrefutable, fact-based reasoning (imo). Dr. Denton is a world-renowned microbiologist, lecturer, writer, and teacher.
THE BAD:
Q: -- Who was Ernst Haeckel and what was his contribution towards supporting the theory of evolution?
A: -- Ernst Haeckel was a zealous promoter of Darwin's evolutionary theory in Germany. Unfortunately, like others before him (peppered moths and Piltdown Man being examples) he didn't let scientific facts get in the way of a good story. What is even more unfortunate is that his bio-genetic law is still promoted today as fact even though it is based on fraudulent data. His fraud was exposed by contemporary scientists in 1864 soon after it was published.
[Even] Evolutionary scientists are becoming more vocal in exposing Haeckel's fraudulent intent in his infamous embryo drawings.
Haeckel used images of embryos of various species to support his theory that different animals pass through, or 'recapitulate,' similar embryonic stages. But it was recently shown in the scientific journal Nature that Haeckel removed the limbs from the image of a young echidna embryo (and other species also) in order to make the young embryos look more alike than they do in real life. The removal of limbs was selective, as it was done only to particular developmental stages.
Haeckel's evolution-promoting motive is clear from the text accompanying his drawings: 'There is still no trace of the limbs or "extremities" in this stage of development...'. -- Nature, 8 March 2001, p. 144.
Darwin and others have reasoned that descendants along various evolutionary lineages would demonstrate similar embryonic morphologies during the earliest stages. Closely related organisms would show differences only during the latest stages, whereas distantly related ones should display ever widening differences as the embryo develops. Haeckel (1834-1919), a flamboyant German biologist, provided a series of drawings which conveniently demonstrated just this. These pictures appear even today in graduate-level biology textbooks, such as American Academy of Science President Bruce Alberts' Molecular Biology of the Cell, with no statement that this evidence is a well-established blatant fraud, a shameless fake. Even Darwin, who called this his 'strongest single class of facts', was duped.
Photographs of the embryos Haeckel selected demonstrate virtually no resemblance with his drawings. Additionally, Haeckel did not draw the first stage of growth, where closest resemblance was predicted, but selected precisely the stages where five (out of the seven) carefully selected vertebrate classes are least different. For the amphibian class the natural choice would have been a frog, which looks, however, very different than the other four organisms used, so a salamander was used as (uh) representative (ahem) for this class. Apparently all this was not good enough for him. 'In some cases, Haeckel used the same woodcut to print embryos that were supposedly from different classes' (p. 91).
Although the embryos vary in size from less than 1 mm to almost 10 mm, Haeckel portrayed them the same size. Wells points out that the processes of cleavage (subdivision in many separate cells without overall growth) and gastrulation (movement and rearrangement of the cells to form organs and other structures) proceed before the point in time drawn by Haeckel. Here is where Darwin's expectations should be tested, and there is 'certainly not a pattern in which the earliest stages are the most similar and later stages are more different' (p. 97). In fact, the evidence points clearly to unrelated lineages and not a common ancestor.
Another myth is the claim human embryos go through a fish-like stage and display gill slits. These pharyngeal folds are not gills.14 Ironically, they're not even gills in pharyngula-stage fish embryos, although they do develop into these later, 'but in a reptile, mammal, or bird they develop into other structures entirely (such as the inner ear and parathyroid gland)' (p. 107). In reptiles, mammals, and birds they never resemble gills, and what is observed are merely some parallel lines in the neck region.
Professor Douglas Futuyma, author of the 1998 textbook, Evolutionary Biology, responded in February 2000 via an internet forum to a critic who had accused him of lying by using Haeckel's drawings as evidence for evolution. He admitted he had not been aware of Haeckel's dishonesty, a rather staggering admission. It is important to always be skeptical of those endless, but transient 'proofs' for evolution. They reflect over-enthusiastic and selective use of data when it appears to support a pre-conceived evolutionary mind-set. Incidentally, Futuyma's admission was not an example of 'science' correcting itself, but the result of a 'creationist' setting the record straight (p. 109).
Taken from a review of "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathon Wells
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_Ernst_..._evolution
THE UGLY:
Julian Huxley (late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century evolutionist) was so unfathomably bold and shameless in his fraudulent "reconstructions" of archeologically-unearthed skeletal remains -- in an attempt to "manufacture" a "MISSING LINK" -- that he has generated his own icon.
To wit: Julian "HUCKSTER" Huxley.
So, Huxley and Dr. (Jeckyl) Haeckel have assured themselves permanent and prominent places in the Scientific "Hall of SHAME"!
Ethics in the scientific process.
Read Ethics in Science by Henry Bauer, Professor of Chemistry & Science Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, available online at http://www.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/ethics/hb...intro.html .
OR:
Read National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., "On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, Publication, and Openness." http://books.nap.edu/readingroom/books/o...ation.html
3) “Opinionâ€: What did you learn from Professor Bauer's article? Or from the National Academy of Sciences article. Do you agree with his/their views?
I read Dr. Bauer’s article, Ethics in Science, online at the above web address.
http://www.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/ethics/hb...intro.html .
I have been aware of fraud being somewhat prevalent in the scientific community for decades, now. But, I was a bit shocked to learn about Dr. James D. Watson admitting to getting data which he knew that the data’s owner would not have wanted him to see. He wrote about this, confessing freely, in his memoir, The Double Helix. Watson is best remembered, perhaps, as one of the two scientists who collaborated, working together on the early discoveries concerning the double-helix construction of the DNA molecule.
Do you agree with [Dr. Bauer]'s views? ABSOLUTELY!
Explain: In the short article (or excerpt) from Dr. Bauer, he cited no less than NINE separate incidences of tampering with data, tampering with evidence, outright plagiarism, scientific theft and fraud (for motives of personal aggrandizement on the part of the thief/fraudulent pseudo-scientist).
4) “Investigation†and “Opinionâ€: Decide whether each of the following scientific activities is ethical or unethical; and, if you decide they are unethical, explain why you feel that way. Scientist "A" publishes his/her findings and holds a press conference, then releases his/her data to peers.
a) Another scientist "B" reads about the results of "A", and tries to duplicate results without telling "A" about the trials. (Read my announcement titled “Key ideas†before you answer this question) -– UNethical. This is scientific fraud, pure and simple.
b) Scientist "C" writes a review article about the discovery of A, but had nothing himself to do with the discovery. "C" cites the work done by "A." -– Ethical. In this case, Scientist “C†is acting as a journalist, to the benefit of the whole scientific community. Scientist “C†is not claiming any credit. He is merely reporting.
c) Scientist "D" is interviewed by the local media about the discovery, and mentions the evidence but apparently does not cite the work done by "A." – UNethical. Although not making any direct statement about the matter, Scientist “D†is leaving the inference comfortably ensconced that, -- somehow, -- he DID have something to do with the discovery. He could not be convicted in a court of law, but this certainly represents poor judgment, bordering on “unethical.â€
d) Scientist "E" derides "A" for jumping to conclusions, without yet seeing the data."E" is interviewed and publishes an article about why the data are probably wrong. -– Oh, my. How much more UNETHICAL (!!!) could Scientist “E†'s behavior be?!? Somebody’s megalomaniacal complex (not uncommon in fields such as science) is showing!