Can the charts keep up?

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by Benz

I am not saying that every scientist everywhere has falsified data. I'm saying it's been known to happen, and I'd be interested to see what safeguards against it have been taken in this instance.

In this instance ... the safeguards are the same as every other body of scientific knowledge. But since you are asking, and you genuinely appear not to know how science works, let me give you some idea...

For my part in the project I worked on ...
-I visited 100s of locations in the field looking for suitable sites to sample.
-From them we selected maybe half a dozen of the best from which to take magnetic samples.
-At each of them we took a couple of hundred samples. Each one duplicated and if possible from different orientations.
-Each sample was was then divided into two and prepared for two independent tests.
-The laboratory machines were calibrated using known standards before running any samples.
-I visited the locations sampled by rival research groups looking at how their sampling techniques relate to the rocks, and how their rocks compared to ours.
-We took samples from these sites as well so that our results could be cross-referenced to theirs.
-I have challenged them face to face on the minutiae of their methods findings and conclusions.
-I have presented at conferences where they have challenged me on our methods findings and conclusions.
-Our results were submitted to a journal with a reputation for scientific integrity in the field.
-Our published results have been critiqued and reviewed by experts in the field. some of whom put their name to their comments, and some of whom (although known to the publishers) remained anonymous to us.
-Any comments by the reviewers had to be addressed, either by rewriting or by conducting more research, to the satisfaction of the editors.
-Anyone who reads the published results can submit a commentary with counter arguments to the journal, which (subject to editorial control and peer-review) will be published in a subsequent edition of the journal.

And this work that we did is but one of thousands of studies that add up to our combined knowledge in the field. Even for such a small study, lets add up the people who had a vested interest in our data being honest ...

1 - The lab we used that would be out of business overnight if there was even a hint of them falsifying results.
2 - Four different universities involved in the project in two countries, who likewise would have to spend years rebuilding reputations if their researchers were found to be disingenuous.
3 - My colleagues who all have their own reputations and careers to maintain ... getting caught publishing false data would not only be the end of that career, but an indelible stain on the CV if you tried to get another one.
3 - Researchers from rival institutions who would end up wasting their time chasing up false results rather than actually getting on with meaningful work ... it would also put their future funding and jobs in jeopardy if the field of research became discredited.
4 - The publishing house who also has a reputation they need to maintain if anyone is going to read their journals.
5 - The editors at the journal whose reputations will also nose-dive if they let fake research get through.
6 - The journal peer-reviewers ... it is most specifically their job to provide expert testimony that the research looks genuine.
7 - Anyone who tries to make use of the results in future work is going to be scrutinising it for inconsistencies. Data that appears to be valuable will very quickly get called out if there are any errors or inconsistencies. Incorrect data that sits around for a long time without getting called out is usually because it is uninteresting data that nobody cares about anyway. Palaeomagnetic research has been going on for over 50 years now, the number of scientists who have been using and examining the data numbers in the thousands ... if the underlying data were dodgy someone would surely have noticed by now.
8 - The people who funded the project. They want return on their investment, and that return is measured in honest results, fake results are of no value to them either, so they will also examine the work for anything unsatisfactory.
9 - Finally ... me ... Collecting data is easy, it just takes time and money. Creating false data that will fool all those listed people above has gotta be really hard ... you'd still need to procure the funding and spend the time, or people will become suspicious. You'd still need intimate knowledge of the field locations, sampling techniques, laboratory processes etc, or you'll be exposed in the most simple questioning, and you'd still need to have data with all the natural errors, uncertainties and distributions produced by natural rocks run through real machines, or someone is going to question it. It's way easier just to collect some real samples and run them.

That's the everyday reality of science ... that particular project that I worked on ... and every other one ... there's no conspiracy trying to feed fake ideas to the public ... just thousands of ordinary honest people doing their jobs. And just like every other profession, the bad apples start to smell and quickly get thrown out, But just like every other profession, if one person isn't doing their job properly the whole system has a strong enough foundation not to come crumbling down.

I get it that you don't care about the processes that operate in the earth, and unless it interests you, there's really no reason that you should. But I do, and the knowledge that is gained from Earth Science is leveraged by the oil industry to put fuel in your tank, and by the mining industry to provide the metals in your tools, and by the water industry to tap fresh water aquifers for the world to drink, and by the construction industry to provide secure foundations for buildings and infrastructure, and not least by the regulatory agencies and environmental groups who try to see that these potentially damaging industries don't completely destroy the earth in the pursuit of profit while still contributing value to society. So if your life has ever been impacted by one of these industries either positively or negatively, then it is in your best interest that the people who work for them do understand it, and that they are using the best information available. And there are thousands of people in the academic research and publishing industry, working tirelessly to see that it is so, so that you don't have to. It may appear to you that we are "just guessing" but the whole scientific process assures that we're damn good at it.

there's no need for anyone to get sensitive when no affront was offered

You asserted that "a good deal" of the time scientists are "falsifying information just to get attention". An apology would have been nice once the affront was pointed out to you ... or do you still not see it?


out.

[Jim Cate]

A very good post, Kelkara, one that hints at the amount of careful work that goes into all sorts of research. Well explained, without rancor. Good one!

Jim

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

A very good post, Kelkara, one that hints at the amount of careful work that goes into all sorts of research. Well explained, without rancor. Good one!

Jim

Second that. I am constantly amazed at the wide range of knowledge and skills represented by the members of this forum.

[AKA-None]

To be clear the end result is not an hypothesis. That’s step two. First is something like “that’s odd”, then the hypothesis followed by research then ultimately a theory. A theory is where you might end.

[Benz]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

In this instance ... the safeguards are the same as every other body of scientific knowledge. But since you are asking, and you genuinely appear not to know how science works, let me give you some idea...

For my part in the project I worked on ...
-I visited 100s of locations in the field looking for suitable sites to sample.
-From them we selected maybe half a dozen of the best from which to take magnetic samples.
-At each of them we took a couple of hundred samples. Each one duplicated and if possible from different orientations.
-Each sample was was then divided into two and prepared for two independent tests.
-The laboratory machines were calibrated using known standards before running any samples.
-I visited the locations sampled by rival research groups looking at how their sampling techniques relate to the rocks, and how their rocks compared to ours.
-We took samples from these sites as well so that our results could be cross-referenced to theirs.
-I have challenged them face to face on the minutiae of their methods findings and conclusions.
-I have presented at conferences where they have challenged me on our methods findings and conclusions.
-Our results were submitted to a journal with a reputation for scientific integrity in the field.
-Our published results have been critiqued and reviewed by experts in the field. some of whom put their name to their comments, and some of whom (although known to the publishers) remained anonymous to us.
-Any comments by the reviewers had to be addressed, either by rewriting or by conducting more research, to the satisfaction of the editors.
-Anyone who reads the published results can submit a commentary with counter arguments to the journal, which (subject to editorial control and peer-review) will be published in a subsequent edition of the journal.

And this work that we did is but one of thousands of studies that add up to our combined knowledge in the field. Even for such a small study, lets add up the people who had a vested interest in our data being honest ...

1 - The lab we used that would be out of business overnight if there was even a hint of them falsifying results.
2 - Four different universities involved in the project in two countries, who likewise would have to spend years rebuilding reputations if their researchers were found to be disingenuous.
3 - My colleagues who all have their own reputations and careers to maintain ... getting caught publishing false data would not only be the end of that career, but an indelible stain on the CV if you tried to get another one.
3 - Researchers from rival institutions who would end up wasting their time chasing up false results rather than actually getting on with meaningful work ... it would also put their future funding and jobs in jeopardy if the field of research became discredited.
4 - The publishing house who also has a reputation they need to maintain if anyone is going to read their journals.
5 - The editors at the journal whose reputations will also nose-dive if they let fake research get through.
6 - The journal peer-reviewers ... it is most specifically their job to provide expert testimony that the research looks genuine.
7 - Anyone who tries to make use of the results in future work is going to be scrutinising it for inconsistencies. Data that appears to be valuable will very quickly get called out if there are any errors or inconsistencies. Incorrect data that sits around for a long time without getting called out is usually because it is uninteresting data that nobody cares about anyway. Palaeomagnetic research has been going on for over 50 years now, the number of scientists who have been using and examining the data numbers in the thousands ... if the underlying data were dodgy someone would surely have noticed by now.
8 - The people who funded the project. They want return on their investment, and that return is measured in honest results, fake results are of no value to them either, so they will also examine the work for anything unsatisfactory.
9 - Finally ... me ... Collecting data is easy, it just takes time and money. Creating false data that will fool all those listed people above has gotta be really hard ... you'd still need to procure the funding and spend the time, or people will become suspicious. You'd still need intimate knowledge of the field locations, sampling techniques, laboratory processes etc, or you'll be exposed in the most simple questioning, and you'd still need to have data with all the natural errors, uncertainties and distributions produced by natural rocks run through real machines, or someone is going to question it. It's way easier just to collect some real samples and run them.

That's the everyday reality of science ... that particular project that I worked on ... and every other one ... there's no conspiracy trying to feed fake ideas to the public ... just thousands of ordinary honest people doing their jobs. And just like every other profession, the bad apples start to smell and quickly get thrown out, But just like every other profession, if one person isn't doing their job properly the whole system has a strong enough foundation not to come crumbling down.

I get it that you don't care about the processes that operate in the earth, and unless it interests you, there's really no reason that you should. But I do, and the knowledge that is gained from Earth Science is leveraged by the oil industry to put fuel in your tank, and by the mining industry to provide the metals in your tools, and by the water industry to tap fresh water aquifers for the world to drink, and by the construction industry to provide secure foundations for buildings and infrastructure, and not least by the regulatory agencies and environmental groups who try to see that these potentially damaging industries don't completely destroy the earth in the pursuit of profit while still contributing value to society. So if your life has ever been impacted by one of these industries either positively or negatively, then it is in your best interest that the people who work for them do understand it, and that they are using the best information available. And there are thousands of people in the academic research and publishing industry, working tirelessly to see that it is so, so that you don't have to. It may appear to you that we are "just guessing" but the whole scientific process assures that we're damn good at it.

You asserted that "a good deal" of the time scientists are "falsifying information just to get attention". An apology would have been nice once the affront was pointed out to you ... or do you still not see it?


out.

Thanks for taking the time to post this. You state that throughout the process, you endured rigorous questioning. Why fall apart when I ask one simple thing?
You still managed not to answer whether you think that scientists never do falsify data. I think I'm justified in stating that it is so given the ongoing thread on this topic on this very forum at this very time.
I didn't accuse you personally of falsifying data--I just asked about the process. Now, having convinced me that you did collect accurate data and did all your sampling right, there's still the matter of interpreting the data. Surely you realize that with properly collected data, scientists have reached many wrong conclusions?
Having the data before you, and figuring out what it means, are two different things. I believe this works really well in the fields that you mentioned, of prospecting and engineering. But it's a huge failure in figuring out what might have happened Xmillion years ago, and in predicting whether it might happen again, which is the whole topic of this thread.

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by Benz

You still managed not to answer whether you think that scientists never do falsify data.

Here's my answer ... No I don't think that "scientists" have ever falsified data ... notice that like you I have used the plural. The "scientists" are the whole body of people who work collaboratively and competitively towards presenting humanity with the best possible understanding of a subject. And collectively, no I don't believe that they (we) falsify data. To suggest otherwise would be to imply a great conspiracy of misinformation ... that is the role of cult leaders, not "scientists", and to maintain the conspiracy the cult must be closed and secretive - science is as open and transparent as possible, you too are free to contribute. Individuals within this collective however are human, with all human failings ... and if you wish to accuse them, then by all means do, but remember that is a personal accusation, not an accusation against "scientists" in general. The reason we have built up an extensive collaborative and competitive network is the same reason we build redundancy into any system ... to prevent one failing component from driving everything off the rails. Remember "knowledge is power", our knowledge base is too important to have it's foundations vulnerable to a few rogues or saboteurs.

I didn't accuse you personally of falsifying data

Yes you did ... I am part of the "they" that you did accuse ... when you quote "scientists" you are referring to all of us ... if you meant someone specific or a specific piece of work ... then name them and cite their work ... that is how the process works.

I believe this works really well in the fields that you mentioned, of prospecting and engineering. But it's a huge failure in figuring out what might have happened Xmillion years ago, and in predicting whether it might happen again, which is the whole topic of this thread.

The thing you have missed here is that figuring out what happened in the past, and then predicting where and when it might happen again is precisely how prospecting works. Only instead of making predictions for times and places in the future (It's not profitable to predict where the oil will be in the future, but isn't yet), instead we make predictions for times and places that are also in the past but for which we don't yet have any data ... we may be predicting that the same event occurred in another place, or that a similar event would happen in our data's future (but still in our past), or that the event we observed is a future repeat of a previous one. we then test those predictions by digging up the data, and if our predictions were correct then the prospectors job is done ... if not, the data from this null result is built into the model to make better predictions next time. It does work really well .. it is not a "huge failure".

It's ok to be ignorant about a subject, there are many subjects in which my ignorance is extensive ... sailing is one, and that is why I am here ... to learn from experts. I'm sure there are a great many things about sailing that you could teach me and I look forward to reading them on this forum, but I don't judge you, nor sailors in general, by the falsified data in the logbooks of Donald Crowhurst.

[Benz]

^^
Very well, then. Let me amend my statement to say: "Sometimes individual researchers, among whom I don't accuse you of being, since I don't know you and have never met you nor interacted with outside of this forum, have been known to falsify data." I don't know why you're feeling personally the weight of all the evils of science writ large. If someone were to state that sailors are liars, I wouldn't take personal umbrage--there are the Donald Crowhursts and Tristan Joneses out there, and so it's valid to question anything a sailor says. For that matter, it's valid to question everything--questioning is one of the big things of the scientific process!
Anyhow, and I mean this as kindly as possible, if you feel roughed up by this thread--if you can't take Jim's solid advice to shrug it off--you're going to have a hard time on this and other public forums. You may have noticed that given the vastly different worldviews, levels of experience and opinions on public forums, they tend to be the Wild West, and snowflakes melt pretty quickly. Please be assured that for my part I say nothing from a spirit of unkindness: I have opinions that are my own, and I stand by them (and catch a lot of heat for some of them, when they don't align with the general herd), but am not out to personally attack or insult anyone. Not even you, though we disagree on some of the conclusions of, dear me, I'm gonna say it: "scientists."
A good day to you.

[transmitterdan]

Just because there are a few dishonest people amongst a lot of good and honorable people is not sufficient reason to assume they are all dishonest. That's a bridge too far in my opinion. And that kind of thinking is more prevalent now and causes a lot of unnecessary stress in today's society. We have to have healthy skepticism but assuming that everyone is a liar until proven otherwise is an impossible standard.

Anyone who finds themselves thinking "You can't trust anyone these days." may be helped by reading this: https://wiredforhappy.com/the-true-m...-trust-anyone/

[Jim Cate]

"Sometimes individual researchers, among whom I don't accuse you of being, since I don't know you and have never met you nor interacted with outside of this forum, have been known to falsify data.

Ben, what you don't seem to grasp is that the system of checks and balances (peer review, etc) are in place to detect, identify and reveal any such falsification were it to happen. This system has worked pretty successfully for a long time, and it's very existence and pervasiveness is why we object to your using the specter of "falsified data" (fake news?) as a means to discredit scientific research, no matter what the subject.

Does the system work? Perhaps you may remember the great hullabaloo some years back when a pair of researchers claimed to have discovered a means of creating "cold fusion", a discovery which if true would have had enormous consequences. It is no longer clear to me if the data was fudged, the technique flawed or the measurements inadequate... but in very short order, numerous attempts to replicate their experimental results were made, all around the world. When replication proved impossible, their work was roundly discredited and folks again took up whatever jobs they were doing when the bombshell had landed. Their careers were blighted forever.

This is an extreme and well publicized instance, but it shows that the system is alive and well, and that falsified or inept science will be outed.

Your worries are not supported by experience, and your conclusions are indeed demeaning to scientists everywhere. To excuse such behavior by saying that this is the internet and we should get used to it may be practical (I meant it as such), but not a very nice way to interact.

Jim

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by Benz

we disagree on some of the conclusions of, dear me, I'm gonna say it: "scientists."

The relevant data is all published for you to read ... If you have a disagreement with a scientist's work then you should:

Cite the published work and the author(s).
Highlight the conclusion that you disagree with.
And identify some published data (or publish some of your own) that does not match their conclusion.

If you don't do this, then nobody knows what you are disagreeing with, and there is nothing for us to debate with you. And if you can't do this, then you yourself don't actually know what it is you are disagreeing with, and there is nothing for you to debate with us.

Although questioning is good ... if there is no debate then you are asking the wrong questions. Calling people liars and a "huge failure" without explanation is just hot air and antagonises everyone and benefits nobody, and on-line or face-to-face we should all strive not to do that. And since nobody, neither you nor I, benefits from blowing hot air around, I have nothing else to say.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

The relevant data is all published for you to read ... If you have a disagreement with a scientist's work then you should:

Cite the published work and the author(s).
Highlight the conclusion that you disagree with.
And identify some published data (or publish some of your own) that does not match their conclusion.

If you don't do this, then nobody knows what you are disagreeing with, and there is nothing for us to debate with you. And if you can't do this, then you yourself don't actually know what it is you are disagreeing with, and there is nothing for you to debate with us.

Although questioning is good ... if there is no debate then you are asking the wrong questions. Calling people liars and a "huge failure" without explanation is just hot air and antagonises everyone and benefits nobody, and on-line or face-to-face we should all strive not to do that. And since nobody, neither you nor I, benefits from blowing hot air around, I have nothing else to say.

I've asked Benz twice for his alternate explanations the contradicts the findings and resulting conclusions re the magnetic pole reversals in the ocean floor resulting from the spreading at the mid oceanic ridge with no response at all. Seems pretty clear he has nothing beyond a superstitious fear and distrust of science.

[Benz]

With apologies to all parties who took offense; I'd forgotten how insecure people get when the religion they call Science is questioned. It's ironic that there's another thread going on right now about pole reversal where published work is being absolutely derided, and no one is over there moaning about being beyond insulted, and another really long thread about the prevalence of fraud in the scientific community, but it's my small question here that's made everyone eat sour grapes.
I have explained several times that my statement was not meant as a personal affront to any one member, but now several of you have insisted on getting your panties in a bunch. If you all can't put on your big boy pants and learn how to be disagreed with without coming all to pieces, this forum will become nothing more than a chorus of agreement. Which is perhaps what you all want. Good luck with it.

[boatman61]

Benz... If there's one thing I have learnt in my 70yrs it is all things are possible.. and nothing is impossible..
Well thats not true.. I still cannot kiss my ar$e..

[Benz]

Originally Posted by skipmac

I've asked Benz twice for his alternate explanations the contradicts the findings and resulting conclusions re the magnetic pole reversals in the ocean floor resulting from the spreading at the mid oceanic ridge with no response at all. Seems pretty clear he has nothing beyond a superstitious fear and distrust of science.

This is unfair: I did respond, to say that I didn't know what caused the magnetic anomalies, and that it's OK not to know some things.

But since you insist on the citation of published sources, I will tell you that it is impossible for ANYTHING to have happened Choose-your-favorite-amount-of-millions of years ago, because the universe is not more than 10,000 years old.

This has been published in the Book of Genesis, by Moses, who's genealogy gives a timeline for the age of the universe. Discount it if you like, but it's published data that has been widely accepted (peer reviewed), and has at least, at the very least, as much validity as the guesses of scientists postulating unrepeatable events.

I will say it again: I have no problem with legitimate science: the science that learns by repeatable experiment. But the science that guesses at the age of fossils by their location in the sediment column, then turns around and judges the age of the sediment column by the fossils found in it, is completely specious. And it is this sort of science, this fallacy of uniformitarianism that nevertheless credits all sorts of violations of the laws of thermodynamics to explain the origin of the universe that I object to.

No doubt you'll find some cause to doubt my citation, but it is published material, and it is the only explanation of origins and Universal age that's not full of gaping holes.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Benz

This is unfair: I did respond, to say that I didn't know what caused the magnetic anomalies, and that it's OK not to know some things.

But since you insist on the citation of published sources, I will tell you that it is impossible for ANYTHING to have happened Choose-your-favorite-amount-of-millions of years ago, because the universe is not more than 10,000 years old.

Oh my.

All I can say is that it seems illogical to challenge the "religion" of science with the religion of religion.

Science isn't a religion; it's a system.