11.1 Pathological Science

How to catch bad science.

The Lesson in Context

This lesson teaches students to be cautious of bad science of all kinds and aware of the signs thereof. We ask students to study a few established examples of pathological science in history dressed as science merely in form. The emphasis is on well-intentioned researchers "falling in love" with their own ideas, finding excuses to justify them even when reality has turned out to be contrary to them.

Although blatant pseudoscience such as flat earth, astrology, creationism, and alternative medicine are also included, what deserves particular attention is seemingly genuine science done by seemingly genuine people that is nevertheless incorrect, possibly due to the researchers' own hubris.

1.2 Shared Reality and Modeling

• Everyone in principle has access to the same shared reality. If a certain (amazing) result by one research group cannot seem to be replicated by many other groups, it is a good sign that it does not accurately describe the shared reality.

3.2 Calibration of Credence Levels

• Overstating the confidence level of a scientific result is a sign of bad science.

4.2 Finding Patterns in Random Noise

• It is expected that patterns arise from random noise. Good science can also turn out to be wrong just by chance, but stubbornly sticking with the original result would turn it into bad science.

5.2 Scientific Optimism

• In the spirit of personal persistence and iterative progress, setbacks such as a wrong or disappointing result should be accepted as an inevitable part of this progress.

10.2 Blinding

• Though not yet widely employed in all fields of science, various blind analysis techniques can help reduce the possibility that a scientific result may be contaminated by subtle analysis choices made by the researchers that are (often subconsciously) motivated by the desire for a certain anticipated result.

11.2 When Is Science Suspect

• Bad science is particularly problematic when it concerns the study of human subgroups, as it may be motivated by or may perpetuate preexisting inequitable power structures in society.

Takeaways

Learning GoalsDefinitionsCommon Misconceptions

After this lesson, students should

1. Be able to distinguish roughly among the following:
   1. Good science that gets the wrong answer.
   2. Fraudulent science.
   3. Pathological science.
   4. Poorly-done science.
   5. Pseudo-science.
2. Feel comfortable using Langmuir's Pathological Science Indicators to assess scientific articles.
3. Be able to identify what is wrong in cases of fraudulent, pathological, poorly-done, and pseudo-science.

Spectrum of Poor Research

There are many gradations to poor research and poor results. Several approximate categories are listed below.

• Good Science

This includes good well-done science that gets the wrong result. Even with a confidence interval of 95%, 5% of the time the results will be wrong. This is normal.

• Poorly-done Science

Science done honestly, but not done well.

• Pathological Science

This is what happens when a researcher falls a little too "in love" with their ideas. It is indicated by Langmuir's criteria.

• Pseudo-science

Pseudo-science is characterized by using scientific vocabulary without aligning with the corresponding concepts or engaging in real scientific practices (i.e., science being "skin deep," not scientific below the surface).

• Fraudulent Science

Research that involves intentional deception, such as deliberately fabricating data or deliberately deceiving the reader about the strength of evidence.

Langmuir's Pathological Science Indicators

A set of six indicators that can be used to flag when something might be pathological science.

1. The effect is produced by a barely detectable cause, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
2. The effect is barely detectable, or has very low statistical significance. Claims of great accuracy.
3. Claims of great accuracy.
4. Involving fantastic theories contrary to experience.
5. Criticisms are met with ad hoc excuses.
6. Ratio of supporters to critics rises to near 50%, then drops back to near zero.

There is no set number of Langmuir's criteria that determines whether something is pathological science or not. The criteria serve as a useful guide, but detecting pathological science is ultimately something of an art.

This paper's result could not be replicated by others in the field, therefore the authors have committed pathological science.

There may be a genuine difference in the way the study is conducted between these papers, contributing to a difference in result. The original study may have reached the wrong conclusion from correct analysis simply due to the random noise in the data. The original study may have made an error in their analysis that has not been discovered (e. g. superluminal neutrinos).

Useful Resources

Lecture VideoDiscussion SlidesHandouts and ActivitiesReadings and Assignments

Discussion Slides Template

The discussion slides for this lesson.

Pathological Science Case Studies Handout

Handout for the pathological science case studies activity.

Article A: Arsenic Bacterium

The first article for the pathological science case studies activity.

Article B: Water Memory

The second article for the pathological science case studies activity.

Article C: Superluminal Neutrinos

The third article for the pathological science case studies activity.

Pathological Science

Essay by Irving Langmuir presenting his pathological science indicators.

Cargo Cult Science

Essay by Richard Feynman about cargo cult science.

Recommended Outline

Before Class

Each student will have read one of the three articles that we discuss in this section, as well as an article by Langmuir. Assign each group to one of the three articles one week ahead of time, and then send another reminder to read them one or two days before the lesson. Also make sure to print the handout.

During Class

5 Minutes	Introduce the lesson and go over the plan for the day. Make sure people have groups, spokespeople, etc.
15 Minutes	Review the definitions for this lesson.
15 Minutes	Students review assigned articles in small groups.
20 Minutes	Jigsaw groups so each group has two students who read each article present to the others.
20 Minutes	Run the whole-class discussion.

Lesson Content

Article Review

Students are assigned one of three scientific articles to skim through before class and asked to assess the validity of its methodology, with reference to Langmuir's indicators for pathological science. They may follow the handout.

Pathological Science Case Studies Handout

Handout for the pathological science case studies activity.

Instructions

10 Minutes	Review the article in small groups and answer the questions in the handout. A note taker should be responsible for writing down ideas from the group.
20 Minutes	Since each group has been assigned one of three articles, we now bring three groups with different articles together. Each group's spokesperson will spend 3-5 min presenting their group's article to the other groups using the questions on the handout as a guide.
20 Minutes	Discuss as a whole class. For each

Discussion Questions

These questions are used for each article. They are initially discussed in small groups and then answered collectively by the entire class. The aim is to have answers for each article.

1. Where does this article fall on the poor science scale?
2. Which of Langmuir's criteria (if any) apply to this article?

Study A: Arsenic Bacteria

This paper discussed a novel substitution of arsenic for phosphorus in bacterial DNA, which would have profound implications on requirements for life in any form. They reported the discovery of an unusual microbe that could vary elemental composition of its basic biomolecules by substituting arsenic for phosphorus. Mechanisms for such substitution were unknown. Many criticisms were published as technical comments in Science and online, such as accusing the original team of failing to "meticulously clean up the DNA first". An Israeli team worked out the mechanism by which the bacterium in question discriminated between nearly identical molecules of phosphate and arsenate. Science also published an official statement saying some of the findings in the original paper were incorrect in 2012.

1. Where does this article fall on the poor science scale?

Poorly-done science. Wrong results.

2. Which of Langmuir's criteria (if any) apply to this article?
   1. The effect is produced by a barely detectable cause, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
   2. The effect is barely detectable, or has very low statistical significance. Claims of great accuracy.
   3. Claims of great accuracy.
   4. Involving fantastic theories contrary to experience.
   5. Criticisms are met with ad hoc excuses.
   6. Ratio of supporters to critics rises to near 50%, then drops back to near zero.

1. Where does this article fall on the poor science scale?

2. Which of Langmuir's criteria (if any) apply to this article?
   1. The effect is produced by a barely detectable cause, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
   2. The effect is barely detectable, or has very low statistical significance. Claims of great accuracy.
   3. Claims of great accuracy.
   4. Involving fantastic theories contrary to experience.
   5. Criticisms are met with ad hoc excuses.
   6. Ratio of supporters to critics rises to near 50%, then drops back to near zero.

1. 1. Good scientific practice, right results
   2. Good scientific practice, wrong results
   3. Poor scientific practice, right results
   4. Poor scientific practice, wrong results
   5. Pathological science
   6. Pseudo-science
   7. Fraudulent science
2. Discuss which of Langmuir's criteria (if any) apply to this article, citing quotes and/or evidence from the article to explain your reasoning:
   1. The effect is produced by a barely detectable cause, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
   2. The effect is barely detectable, or has very low statistical significance.
   3. Claims of great accuracy.
   4. Involving fantastic theories contrary to experience.
   5. Criticisms are met with ad hoc excuses.
   6. Ratio of supporters to critics rises to near 1:1, then drops back to near zero.
3. Where, if relevant, did this study go wrong?

Activity 1

[Brief description of and motivation for the activity]

[Common misconception or thing to look out for.]

[Thing you really need to look out for!]

[Title]

[Useful tip, guideline, or other background.]

Instructions

[n] Minutes	[Activity.]
[n] Minutes	[Activity.]

Discussion Questions

[Question 1]

[Possible misconception that may need to be corrected and clarified.]

[Intended answer to the above question.]

---

[Question 2]

[Possible misconception that may need to be corrected and clarified.]

[Intended answer to the above question.]

---

[[[Previous Lesson]|⟨]]

[[[Previous Lesson]|Previous]]

[[[Previous Lesson]]]

[[[Next Lesson]|⟩]]

[[[Next Lesson]|Next]]

[[[Next Lesson]]]