Page 155 - James Rodger Fleming - Fixing the sky

Gurwitsch, who claimed to have revealed the secret lives of plants; the extrasen-
sory perception (ESP) of the American parapsychologist Joseph Banks Rhine,
whose work convinced many people that they had this sixth sense; and, begin-
ning in the 1940s, worldwide reports of flying saucers. Focusing his argument
on basic research rather than on popularizations, Langmuir argued that in many
pathological cases there was no dishonesty involved, but researchers were tricked
into false results by a lack of understanding about what human beings can do to
themselves in the way of being led astray by subjective effects, wishful thinking,
or threshold interactions. “Research” is defined as seeking to discover what you
do not know. According to Langmuir, science conducted at the limits of obser-
vation or measurement—precisely where cutting-edge research is done—may
become pathological if the participants make excessive claims for their results.
overly hopeful researchers studying phenomena close to the threshold of delec-
tability may interpret minor variations or even random noise as meaningful
patterns. By attributing causation to events that are barely detectable or poorly
understood, they may convince themselves and co-workers of the reality of their
“discovery.” If they persist, weaving theoretical justifications with claims of great
accuracy and responding to criticisms with ad hoc excuses, they may cross the
boundary into pathological science. If other researchers cannot reproduce any
part of the alleged effect, or of the experiment fails repeatedly in the presence of
an objective observer, the rules of good scientific practice are supposed to kick
in, with support dropping off rapidly until nothing is left to salvage—according
to Langmuir. 2
Many scientists would say that they are working in exciting and rapidly
changing fields, in which a breakthrough or named discovery could establish
their careers or secure them adequate levels of funding. otherwise, why bother?
Under such conditions, external or social pressures may distort the scientific pro-
cess and lead into the realm of pathology. Such pressures may include the rush to
publish questionable or speculative results, to claim priority, or to avoid priority
disputes; intervention of the press, the courts, or government regulators in the
process; or competitions for prizes. The patentability and potential profitability
of proprietary discoveries may also short-circuit the scientific process and result
in the violation or circumvention of established standards of evidence. When
things begin to go awry, investigators may suspect a conspiracy to discredit their
results, which, depending on the personality of the leading figure, may be con-
vincing to others.
Pathological science is by no means limited to esoteric physics experiments done
in darkened rooms or at high temperatures and pressures where the subjectivity of
the experimenter or malfunctioning equipment may be the source of the decep-

138 | PatHoloGiCal SCienCe