Gilles Tran wrote:
> Peer-reviewed journals about bogus science (homeopathy, chiropraxy...) 
> do exist in the medical field. I just read one paper about an homeopathy 
> trial, which ended positively but with the disclaimer "This study cannot 
> be conclusive because there is no control group. Neither the physician, 
> nor the patient was blinded."

There's a book I happen to have an e-text version of, 'Fabulous Science' 
by John Waller, which begins "The great biologist Louis Pasteur 
suppressed 'awkward' data because it didn't support the case he was 
making.  Gregor Mendel, the supposed 'father of genetics', was no 
Mendelian.  Joseph Lister's famously clean hospital wards were actually 
notoriously dirty.  Alexander Fleming misled the world about his role in 
the discovery of penicillin.  And Einstein's general relativity was only 
'confirmed' in 1919 because an eminent British scientist ruthlessly 
massaged his figures."

I don't think we'd be where we are today if someone went back in time 
and introduced the notion of peer reviewed double-blind tests as an 
absolute necessity for accepting statements to, say, Aristotle.  Forget 
those who conveniently blame religion-in-general for holding us back a 
hundred years or so technologically--we'd be held back a thousand years 
or so if rigourous science had held sway instead.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message