# Fake science, be careful what you believe



## 4metals (Mar 23, 2017)

I was reading an article about people who publish fake science for various reasons, but the end result is their "science" comes up in results from search engines. I realized we often fall prey to that fake science here on the forum. Someone will post a "scholarly article" and we are inclined to accept the science. In this new age we live in we can often get internet hits for our searches from non peer-reviewed journals. We all balk at having to pay for an article so we tend to gravitate towards the free stuff. Well, that is where the bad science comes into play. 

Just like anyone can post a youtube video about refining and it is more fiction than fact, we see that often. True there are good video's as well but it is up to the viewer to pick out the good from the bad. Well apparently this is quite widespread in internet published journals as well. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/h...atedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

And we wonder why so many people are misinformed today?

Just like that now famous quote by Abe Lincoln, (made up of course) "You can't believe everything you read on the internet"


----------



## Topher_osAUrus (Mar 23, 2017)

"Science is not good, or bad. But it can be used both ways"
That is part of my favorite quote from a kids movie, it too can be said of the internet.

That fact makes it difficult to discern the truth from it all. Double checking all these truth's can become a laborious chore, if it is something as "hot" of a topic as gold. Usually people want stuff handed to them, easiest way possible please. So they search, they see articles confirming that previous one, they also see a forum on gold refining. Well, its much easier to post a question and get a reply, than to sift through 250,000 posts. That's the double edge sword that is the internet.

What ways do you use to make sure what you are reading is valid information?


----------



## 4metals (Mar 23, 2017)

> What ways do you use to make sure what you are reading is valid information?



The answer to this question is different in the internet age than it was just a decade ago. When I went to college I was taught chemistry, but not really specific working chemistry for any specific industry, but enough that I could do the research and understand and apply what I was finding from journals and textbooks. The journals were peer reviewed journals published by established and respected sources. 

The problem today is no-one knows who these authors are or their credentials so without a spirited discussion amongst people who understand the topic and are trustworthy, it is difficult to ferret out the truth vs. the agenda of the writer. 

That is why it is so difficult today to debate with a climate change denier. Most won't have reviewed the scientific basis and just formed opinions from those with an agenda. It's a different topic (than refining) but the same result. Good science ignored for really non scientific reason. Maybe we should start reviewing refining articles and video's and give them the GRF stamp of approval.


----------



## Smack (Mar 23, 2017)

Alternative facts!


----------



## patnor1011 (Mar 23, 2017)

Fake news. 
Hold on, where did that one come from?


----------



## Topher_osAUrus (Mar 23, 2017)

4metals said:


> The answer to this question is different in the internet age than it was just a decade ago. When I went to college I was taught chemistry, but not really specific working chemistry for any specific industry, but enough that I could do the research and understand and apply what I was finding from journals and textbooks. The journals were peer reviewed journals published by established and respected sources.
> 
> ... Good science ignored for really non scientific reason. Maybe we should start reviewing refining articles and video's and give them the GRF stamp of approval.



Agreed

Any Tom, Dick, or Harry can type up an article, throw in some multi-syllable words, and John Q. Public will buy it. If it shows up on page 1 of a google search... Well then, it MUST be bible truth... Hah, well.. If it was on the "scholarly articles" section of googles search function, it could possibly hold some merit. But, those searching for answers (more times than not) will stop at the first answer they find that they WANT to hear.. They may go through 20 that disagree with them and their idealism, but when they find the one that validates them, their pursuit of knowledge is over.

I think forum's are, nowadays, probably the best place to get information. Because there are the lay folk, the chemist, the physicist, the engineer, the machinist, everyone -all together- Ideas and information can be quickly peer reviewed and either confirmed or denied. It is one of the better parts of the world wide web. This forum is a shining example of that.


----------



## rickbb (Mar 23, 2017)

Maybe it's due to being born a skeptic but I won't even start to believe something unless I see it in more than one actual science journal. Anytime I google something I will look at least 5 different hits, if none of them are "real" published sources, I file it under, unknown.

And +1 on GRF seal of approval system!


----------



## aga (Mar 23, 2017)

A GRF 'approved' stamp could easily backfire.

This being internet, it could also be easily faked.

Better to keep the good stuff on the forum and leave the rest of the internet to it's own devices.


----------



## 4metals (Mar 23, 2017)

> Better to keep the good stuff on the forum and leave the rest of the internet to it's own devices.



I would only use something like our own rating for video's and articles we have discussed and had a consensus agreement as to its practicality. For example, (and excuse me if I unintentionally omit any members video's because I am just going off what I remember looking at recently here on the forum) but Geo, Palladium and Kadriver all make excellent video's which I would refer others to. I am not trying to save the world here, I just thought if we had a list or a file of links to video's and articles we feel have value to our members, we could list them or link to them.


----------



## g_axelsson (Mar 23, 2017)

It is a real problem that a lot of good things are hidden behind paywalls while the bad stuff are out in the open.

One way to decide if an article is good or not as good is to measure impact, the amount of citations and from which magazines. It isn't fool proof but a good thing to start with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_impact
Google scholar mentioned above ( http://scholar.google.com/ ) mentions the number of articles that references it as a source.
for example, https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:z1gj9eC6DZYJ:scholar.google.com/&as_sdt=0,5
... and then we are back to the problem with paywalls, spending $30 to realize the article didn't hold anything relevant for you isn't fun.
One site that is trying to alleviate that inequality between rich nations (whose universities have subscriptions to all content for a fixed price) and poor nations without general access is sci-hub, I use it a lot and have donated to it too. It bypasses most paywalls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub

As for a list of youtube videos that we can recommend, I started a small collection at
http://goldrefiningwiki.com/mediawiki/index.php/YouTube

Göran


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Mar 23, 2017)

Topher_osAUrus said:


> 4metals said:
> 
> 
> > Because there are the lay folk, the chemist, the physicist, the engineer, the machinist, everyone -all together


I can't decide if that sounds more like the cast of Gilligan's Island or the Village People! :lol: 

Dave


----------



## upcyclist (Mar 23, 2017)

I think overall it's best to do what we try to do here anyway--if someone comes in with a new method as espoused in some paper, we all read it here, and those of you with the big brains pick it apart. If it survives the scrutiny, yay. If not, one more piece of crap science has been debunked. 

We can't save the world from itself--but we can make sure what is posted _here _is evaluated. 

Besides, there's also some good science out there that just isn't ready for prime time. That is also pointed out here. I remember an article a few months ago that was essentially "a few scientists with no practical refining experience were able to spend lots of money purifying a minuscule amount of gold."


----------



## aga (Mar 23, 2017)

g_axelsson said:


> As for a list of youtube videos that we can recommend, I started a small collection at
> http://goldrefiningwiki.com/mediawiki/index.php/YouTube
> 
> Göran


That sounds like a good way to do it !

Only the good stuff would end up on the GRF Wiki.


----------



## Topher_osAUrus (Mar 23, 2017)

FrugalRefiner said:


> Topher_osAUrus said:
> 
> 
> > 4metals said:
> ...



My word. Can you imagine... The Village People 2.0
:shock: 
I'd probably pirate that album
:lol:


----------



## snoman701 (Mar 23, 2017)

Most can read a journal article and take it the way they want, not the way the author reports. You really have to understand statistics, as well as research models, to understand what is actually being written (in a proper peer reviewed journal article, NOT an editorial or a summary)....otherwise you might as well just read the introduction and conclusion. Therein lies the problem, is that the author is not required to reign in their reader and explain the limitations of the study...it takes someone who questions reality to ask, "what is this author saying". 

Just keep in mind, science has been clashing with the conservative crowd since the world was flat. It's done a reasonably good job at prevailing.


----------



## markmopar (Apr 3, 2017)

snoman701 said:


> Just keep in mind, science has been clashing with the conservative crowd since the world was flat. It's done a reasonably good job at prevailing.



What the heck does that mean?
Science is neither conservative nor liberal, it's just science.


----------



## snoman701 (Apr 3, 2017)

markmopar said:


> snoman701 said:
> 
> 
> > Just keep in mind, science has been clashing with the conservative crowd since the world was flat. It's done a reasonably good job at prevailing.
> ...



You are exactly correct. However, you changed the statement so that the validity of science is to be examined. My statement challenged the ideas and expectations of the conservative ideals.

The first definition of conservative as an adjective.

1.disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Thus, Science, any time it proposes change or challenges traditional values, clashes with the conservative ideals. In the history of science, it is always slow to be accepted, not due to a lack of empirical evidence...but due to ones philosophical values resenting change, and the personal sacrifices that must be made to accept it.


----------



## Palladium (Apr 3, 2017)

Not making this political, though it's getting close!
I don't understand your statement either. So science is only advanced by liberal thinking while conservative thinking impedes the advancement? Why just challenge the thinking of conservative thinkers? I agree with the rest of your statement, but if one group gets thrown under the bus then both groups should. Science is about being non biased and not choosing sides. I think i understand what you are saying, but liberals have done just as much harm to the advancement of science with their ( loose ) thinking as conservatives have with their ( tight ) thinking. I personally find conservative thinking and research as the cornerstone to valid and accurate science where as liberal science tends to be unproven and based not on science, but opinion and feelings with the facts bent to fit the narrative. Science is about facts and not the number of people you can get to agree on something. Science has become politicized to much in the current era and with good reason.

The reason: Science ( knowledge ) is power! Control the narrative and you control the power. Several establishments have had control over science since the dawn of time and each one has used it to benefit it agenda or narrative.


----------



## 4metals (Apr 3, 2017)

I agree with Palladium's point. (as we teeter on the edge of politics!) There is a reluctance of SOME conservatives to accept the science and they are labeled "the deniers" but there is an equal and opposite tendency to overstate the science to make a point. This usually comes from the other side of the argument but it has no label. I think that somewhere between what the "deniers" believe and the "over-staters" believe lies the truth. 

That is why I do not get my news from the headlines which are far too full of both extreme sides of the argument, I get my facts from verifiable scientific publications. 

Although I feel if it is fair to label the deniers as such, we should also label the over-staters as such as well.


----------



## snoman701 (Apr 3, 2017)

I don't disagree with Palladium's point either.

My statement was more in reference to the history of science, whether you wish to start with the Greeks, Bacon, Aristotle, whoever....objective reasoning onward. Completely devoid of the last thirty years, or even the last century which have just gotten ugly, and should likely not even be discussed.


----------



## 4metals (Apr 3, 2017)

As far as science and technology have come, there is still an ugly part of the human genome that we cannot get past. And that seems to be something humans have dealt with in the past and will continue to deal with long into the future. 

Best summed up by an American moral philosopher named Eric Hoffer when he said 
*



"In a time of drastic change, it is the learners who inherit the future. The unlearned usually find themselves equipped to live in a world that no longer exists."

Click to expand...

*
And now we have successfully transitioned from the brink of politics to philosophy. So you can sleep soundly Ralph!


----------



## g_axelsson (Apr 3, 2017)

This discussion is a bit difficult as the term conservative have both political and a more general meaning.

To categorically saying that conservative thinking (in the meaning of status quo) is always wrong is also wrong. There have been a lot of scientific theories put forward that has been proved wrong, but since it takes some time to become an established and well known theory most are proven wrong before it enters the broader public.
In that situation it's often best to sit back, keep a conservative look at things and wait for a "winning" theory to emerge.

One theory that gained quite a lot of momentum until it was proven totally wrong was the aether that transmitted light waves. It was finally put to death by Michelson and Morley.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Today we have a scientific community that is a lot more humble than before, many scientists have come to the conclusion that they are not married to their theories and if proven wrong they will accept that without a lot of fuzz. But most scientists are "conservative" in the meaning that even if a new theory seems to describe a phenomenon slightly better than an old, most would agree that more research is needed. Before a new theory becomes mainstream there has to be compelling proofs and verification.

Quantum physics is over 100 years old but we still hasn't reached a consensus about how to interpret the equations. Is it a collapsing waveform, many worlds or some of the over 20 other interpretations that exist that is the true nature of quantum physics? Conservatism in this case becomes stick with what works the best and then we can sort out the details later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

I think that the best way to approach science is to have a conservative mind but to be open for new ideas until proven faulty.

I watched with great interest but skepticism:
- Cold fusion (false, never consistently repeated)
- Super luminous neutrinos between Cern and Italy (false, a loose cable)
- Martian fossil bacteria (false, geological artefacts)
- Viking lander detecting signs of life (false, peroxides in the surface soil released oxygen) This one I believed at the time, but I was young then.  
- Echoes from the Big Bang detected in the cosmic microwave background by BICEP2 (later attributed to dust but new independent measurements rule that out, the jury is still out on this)
- Gravitational waves detected (true... so far)

Göran


----------



## 4metals (Apr 3, 2017)

Any scientist putting forth a scientific theory is to be applauded because he or she is presenting research and interpretations for the purpose of debate. But the article I posted to start this thread isn't really about science at all but it hides under the thinly veiled guise of science. It is put out there for profit or personal gain, not to advance science. 

We will always have to deal with differences of opinion formed from different interpretations of facts or experimentation, that is just the way we humans are wired. But fraudulent misuse of facts is something we should strive to eliminate. 

Now if i knew how to do that, I could likely get my own Nobel prize.


----------



## Iggy-poo (Apr 7, 2017)

https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/06/08/richard-feynman-caltech-cargo-cult-science/



> Titled The Cargo Cult Science, his exquisite speech uses the Cargo cult religious practices of Melanesian and Micronesian societies — an anthropological curiosity wherein, after WWII, pre-industrial native tribes would simulate and imitate the objects and behaviors they had observed in American and Japanese soldiers, in hopes of bringing back the material wealth soldiers had brought to them during the war — as a metaphor to make an articulate case for integrity over righteousness and sensationalism, a message all the timelier today as the fear of being wrong has swelled into an epidemic and media sensationalism continues to peddle pseudoscience to laymen ill-equipped or unwilling to apply the necessary critical thinking.


----------

