I had not seen this good defense before. I will ask the author if I can
post up the chunk on cf.
On 5/9/13 3:11 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct
(nor is it pathological)
Henry H. Bauer*
Abstract: ‘Pathological’ science implies scientific misconduct: it
should not happen and the scientists concerned ought to know better.
However, there are no clear and generally agreed definitions of
pathological science or of scientific misconduct. The canonical
exemplars of pathological science in chemistry (N-rays, polywater) as
well as the recent case of cold fusion in electrochemistry involved
research practices not clearly distinguishable from those in
(revolutionary) science. The concept of ‘pathological science’ was put
forth nearly half a century ago in a seminar and lacks justification
in contemporary understanding of science studies (history, philosophy,
and sociology of science). It is time to abandon the phrase.
http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/8-1/bauer.htm
--
Ruby Carat
r...@coldfusionnow.org <mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org>
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org <http://www.coldfusionnow.org>
