Pick up an old engineering book at some point, something from mid 1800's or early 1900's and you'll quickly realize that the trust people put on science isn't what it should be. The scientific method works over a long period of time, but to blindly trust a peer review study that just came out, any study, is almost as much faith as religion, specially if you're not a high level researcher in the same field and have spent a good amount of time reading their methodology yourself. If you go to the social sciences then the amount of crock that gets published is incredible.
As a quick example, any book about electricity from the early 1900's will include quite serious sections about the positive effects of electromagnetic radiation (or "EM field therapies"), teach you about different frequencies and modulations for different illnesses and how doctors are applying them. Today these devices are peddled by scammers of the same ilk as the ones that align your shakras with the right stone on your forehead.
Going to need some citations here since the texts that I'm familiar with from that time period are "A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" by Maxwell (mid-late 1800s) and "A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity" by E. T. Whittaker, neither of which mentions anything of the sort. I suspect you are choosing from texts that at the time likely would not have been considered academic or standard.
Sure, check out Audel's Electric guide, 1927 print, volume 10, for example. This is a series of books intended for practitioners at the time, in wide circulation in the USA. The "Electric Therapeuthics" section changed a lot with each edition so it's even interesting to compare across older versions if you can find multiple. I didn't want to reference specific old niche books but if you're willing to ebay it, I guess you can check. My point was more general than just electric engineering though.
Because those two texts are the two among literally thousands of scientific publications that have survived the test of time, which is exactly the point being made.
This might seem crazy to hear now, but when Maxwell first published A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field in 1865, no one cared, it received very little attention at the time.
It was decades later in 1888 with the work of Hertz that Maxwell's equations started to gain significance within the scientific community.
Your points of memory are not counterpoints.
Those are the ones that lived - and are not indicative of the general quality of science during those times. Obvious survivor bias.
The fact that you can recall those reinforces the point that the value is determined by how long it is useful and remembered, not the fact that it was published.
Indeed, but you are clearly missing the historical context as these were two highly celebrated and referenced texts of the time period by leading scientists. However, it appears that the leading scientific minds (of which Maxwell and Whittaker are) did not include these uses in their texts. I do not dispute that science can be wrong (in fact it is almost always 'wrong' in the end) nor do I dispute that there could have been published research in those applications. I would argue that these applications were likely fringe at best within the scientific community by the mid 1800s.
There are of course incredible scientists that went down disappointing paths (eg Shockley, Dyson, Pauling) in terms of their research output later on, though one must remember that typically this occurs outside their original field of expertise.
If you read my comment you will see that I am asking for the references to the claims the previous author made. I simply provided my own references which werew written at the time and are representative of the times that do not corroborate the tall tale of the previous author. If you have any references to support their claim I would be interested in perusing them.
And what's to say that other highly celebrated and highly referenced texts from that time were not based on bad science or were outright frauds? Your memory of them?
Picking the winners as examples is not good sampling.
The originator explicitly said that 'any engineering book' would contain these references, thus it would seem that this was at least a widespread belief among physicists and engineers at the time. Do you have any example?
Again, you and the original poster seem to have this understanding that scientists and engineers from the mid 1800s to early 1900s are not to be trusted. I think that this assertion should be backed by considerable evidence, and that burden is of course mostly on you
I don't dispute that there were doctors applying electricity and/or magnetism to the body in an "un"-rigorous manner, but is there documentation that suggests that the scientists at the time had come to the conclusion that it worked?
Also notably, Whittaker's work was a 'loser'. I chose it specifically for this purpose. I had read parts of it previously because it was a 'loser' as he chose to dispute Einstein's contributions to special relativity.
We've gotten into the territory of just repeating ourselves, so I don't want to do that.
I will say that
> Again, you and the original poster seem to have this understanding that scientists and engineers from the mid 1800s to early 1900s are not to be trusted.
Is not correct as far as I believe. Instead, we're saying that there's no reason to believe any study until it has stood the test of time. The longer it remains impactful the better.
I am building from this statement:
> The scientific method works over a long period of time, but to blindly trust a peer review study that just came out, any study, is almost as much faith as religion, specially if you're not a high level researcher in the same field and have spent a good amount of time reading their methodology yourself.
Saying that textbooks from Maxwell's era had misunderstandings and bad information is not saying they are inept, it's saying that that is how it works, it always has and always will be that way. That's it, really. The fact that good science came from it is to be expected, and the fact that bad science existed is also not to be suprising.
I think you interpreted the statement about the 1900s textbooks being wrong as a slander against the entire era, which is not how I read it, and certainly not what I meant to imply by any of my comments.
>Is not correct as far as I believe. Instead, we're saying that there's no reason to believe any study until it has stood the test of time. The longer it remains impactful the better.
Upon rereading I agree, I apologize to you and OP for my misunderstanding. However, ultimately in general I still have to disagree at least semantically with "standing the test of time". I am not really familiar with the processes in biological or social sciences, but from a physical science background, any result of interest will need to be built upon quite quickly. Either some kind of design will be reproduced to improve it or use it, or in the case of a theoretical result it will be awaiting some kind of experiment to validate it.
>> The scientific method works over a long period of time, but to blindly trust a peer review study that just came out, any study, is almost as much faith as religion, specially if you're not a high level researcher in the same field and have spent a good amount of time reading their methodology yourself.
I don't necessarily disagree with this statement (besides the 'long period of time'). Though I would also say that simply mistrusting the result has the same issue, so the only correct way forward seems to me to be to act as if it does not exist until you gain the expertise.
>Saying that textbooks from Maxwell's era had misunderstandings and bad information is not saying they are inept, it's saying that that is how it works, it always has and always will be that way. That's it, really. The fact that good science came from it is to be expected, and the fact that bad science existed is also not to be suprising.
I'm not familiar with textbooks of that era as through personal curiosity I've only read a few. I would still like to see an example of such an occurrence to understand the context under which these treatments are discussed. If these fallacious techniques were widespread enough to be popular in textbooks there must be some kind of literature supporting them?
>I think you interpreted the statement about the 1900s textbooks being wrong as a slander against the entire era, which is not how I read it, and certainly not what I meant to imply by any of my comments.
I will admit to being a bit hotheaded in the initial response, which I apologize for.
You have made so many mistakes in your reading that I would urge you next time to carefully re-read people's posts before responding to them. Also never quote someone without using their actual words. For example, it was not explicitly said that any engineering book would contain those references, it was a general statement not a categorical statement.
>Again, you and the original poster seem to have this understanding that scientists and engineers from the mid 1800s to early 1900s are not to be trusted.
No, once again that's not what was said. The concept being communicated is that the scientific method works over long periods of time, not short ones. Over long periods of time, such as 200 years, the work that survives peer review and remains significant today are things like Maxwell's work on electromagnetism as opposed to Dr. Franz Mesmer's work on animal magnetism.
You are taking little bits and pieces of what people are saying, misconstruing them and reinterpreting them, and then forming an argument that is not a genuine representation of the original comment.
>You have made so many mistakes in your reading that I would urge you next time to carefully re-read people's posts before responding to them. Also never quote someone without using their actual words. For example, it was not explicitly said that any engineering book would contain those references, it was a general statement not a categorical statement.
I will admit to some mistakes in comprehension and a poor literal quoting, though I will also maintain that I captured the majority of the essence of what was written in the quote. In the case of "any book about electricity..." vs "any engineering book" the only books that would be relevant to the discussion should be engineering OR science books relating to electricity.
>No, once again that's not what was said. The concept being communicated is that the scientific method works over long periods of time, not short ones. Over long periods of time, such as 200 years, the work that survives peer review and remains significant today are things like Maxwell's work on electromagnetism as opposed to Dr. Franz Mesmer's work on animal magnetism.
With respect to "time" I will refer to another comment I made below in response to the previous OP.
I think it's interesting that you use Mesmer as an example because his work failed to gain the acceptance of the scientific societies of the time, and was in the late 1700s, significantly earlier than the proposed mid 1800s to early 1900s
Here's a more recent (1950) example that I think makes parent's point quite well:
> I assume that the reader is familiar with the idea of extra-sensory perception, and the meaning of the four items of it, viz. telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and psycho-kinesis. These disturbing phenomena seem to deny all our usual scientific ideas. How we should like to discredit them! Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming. It is very difficult to rearrange one's ideas so as to fit these new facts in. Once one has accepted them it does not seem a very big step to believe in ghosts and bogies. The idea that our bodies move simply according to the known laws of physics, together with some others not yet discovered but somewhat similar, would be one of the first to go.
Anyone on this site who doesn't know what this is from should feel a bit of shame in the current era of hype around machine intelligence, so I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader if you aren't already familiar with this paper.
Alan Turing was an incredible computer scientist and mathematician.
Unfortunately he is out of his area of expertise in physics and human biology/neuroscience (? not sure where telepathy would be if it was to be rigorously studied). This is akin to Freeman Dyson on global warming.
That scientists can have strange ideas is something nobody can dispute. That those strange ideas enter into scientific legitimacy is another story entirely.
The point is that I don't believe Turing's ideas were widely considered strange at the time. The point is more that, even under conditions of honest actions, it's very easy for educated, smart, and sincere thinkers to take for fact something that with time we believe is wildly not fact.
Science even at it's most sincere should always be approached with thoughtful skepticism. The phrase that I hear touted often these days "trust the science", is in essence not how science should be thought of.
There is a difference between "not considered strange at the time" and "science" via scientific publication and subsequent consensus validating the idea. I have mentioned that luminaries can have odd ideas multiple times in this thread, it's not something I seek to deny. However, as I continue to reiterate, these ideas are generally:
1. outside their areas of expertise
2. not validated by independent scientific research
I completely agree that science should be approached with thoughtful skepticism, and I agree that 'trust the science' might not necessarily be the best semantics to use. However, it is not clear that skepticism by all parties should be considered with equal weight. Most of the times, people should "trust the science" because they are not equipped to be skeptical.
Exactly, but the problem is that everyone has to be the first to publish about something and then every paper after that which deals with the same thing is relegated to second-level venues (or lower). So whatever is the first word about something becomes the accepted and is super hard to contest.
The default state of the human brain almost seems to be a form of anti-science, blind faith in what you already believe, especially if you stand to gain personally from what you believe being true.
What is most incredible to me is even knowing and believing the above, I fall prey to this all the time.
the best example is psychology. the entire field needs to be scrapped and started over, nothing you read on any of those papers can be trusted, it's just heaping piles of bad research dressed with a thin veil of statistical respectability.
I treat the field like medicine in 19th century. Nice motive, but unless someone drag me to operating room because I've just been shot, I won't have any surgery.
We use EM radiation for illnesses and doctors apply them. It's one of the most important diagnostic and treatment options we have. I think what you're referring to is invalid therapies ("woo" or snake oil or just plain ignorance/greed) but it's hard to distinguish those from legitimate therapies at times.
Gamma knife? Basically the entire field of radiotherapy?
TMS is magnetic, not EM (the coil generates a magnetic field, which induces localized currents in the body being treated)
OP is making a distinction between "EM Radiation" (i.e. "light") and "Quasistatic fields".
This is warranted because they are pretty different - light has a frequency distribution, diffracts, etc, and can be focused to propagate energy over distances large compared to its source, whereas quasistatic fields (by definition) have no frequency distribution, and die as 1/r^2 or faster
I can't parse what you are saying, but there's a difference between EM radiation and a magnetic field (and the resulting locally induced currents).
Think in terms of an MRI machine: it puts you in a giant magnet (causing the various nuclear spins to align with the field) and then sends a bunch of EM radiation (radiofrequency). The former is a magnetic field, not EM radiation.
As a quick example, any book about electricity from the early 1900's will include quite serious sections about the positive effects of electromagnetic radiation (or "EM field therapies"), teach you about different frequencies and modulations for different illnesses and how doctors are applying them. Today these devices are peddled by scammers of the same ilk as the ones that align your shakras with the right stone on your forehead.