About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Case Western explains why it withdrew press release about Andrulis origin of life paper

with 143 comments

The wild and woolly saga of the paper that claims to solve “the puzzle of the origin and evolution of cellular life in the universe” continues.

Yesterday, Ivan wrote on his Tumblr about Case Western’s Erik D. Andrulis‘ paper, “Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life:”

The paper is 105 pages, which includes a whopping 800 references. It depends heavily on the gyre:

In the theory proposed herein, I use the heterodox yet simple gyre—a spiral, vortex, whorl, or similar circular pattern—as a core model for understanding life. Because many elements of the gyre model (gyromodel) are alien, I introduce neologisms and important terms in bold italics to identify them; a theoretical lexicon is presented in Table 1. The central idea of this theory is that all physical reality, stretching from the so-called inanimate into the animate realm and from micro- to meso- to macrocosmic scales, can be interpreted and modeled as manifestations of a single geometric entity, the gyre.

Andrulis concludes:

…this catholic theory provides an innovative and elegant solution to the origin, evolution, and nature of life in the cosmos. I humbly proffer my theory as a viable system for knowing life.

Our humble author also includes paragraphs like this, which led some on Twitter to wonder if the paper was for real:

The philosopher Bachelard claimed that scientific history is replete with unconsciously constructed or immanent “epistemological obstacles,” that are eventually broken through and shed during “epistemological rupture [796].” I conclude that my theoretical work elicits a Bachelardian rupture of intradisciplinary noöspheres and interdisciplinary boundaries. Kuhn proposed a related concept of “paradigm shift” to explain the process surrounding worldview conversion during a scientific revolution [797]. Whether the advent of this theory elicits a Kuhnian gestalt switch is debatable, though such an iconoclastic event has been foretold [798-800].

On Thursday, Case Western had put out a press release about the study. That release is still available on ScienceDaily and other sites, but the medical school removed it from their own site. Today, Liz Lear, senior director, School of Medicine Marketing and Communications, tells us:

The School of Medicine’s public affairs office promotes all faculty research as possible. We have been evaluating our processes regarding media outreach and elected to remove the release from our website while we assess our policies surrounding promotional communications.

We’ll continue to update this story as we find out more. In the meantime, you can read PZ Myers’ take, in which he suggests that “the comparison to jabberwocky” is inevitable, and John Timmer’s, in which he wonders “How the craziest f#@!ing “theory of everything” got published and promoted.”

Update, 5:45 p.m. Eastern, 1/31/12: Carl Zimmer reports that a number of the journal’s editors have resigned.

About these ads

Written by Ivan Oransky

January 28, 2012 at 2:01 pm

143 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Whoever is accusing Andrullis of being crazy, psychothic, manaic, etc. is wrong not because he suffers none of these afflictions, but because ad-ominen accusations should never, and I insist, never, be brought up either in philosophy or science. It is low, and the minimum of self discipline a thinker should have is to prevent him or herself from this form of bullying. Do not comment on the article, no one forces you to do this, but do not drag the entire discussion into the terrain of slander and contempt. Mr. Andrullis did not begin his article by qualifying the readers and their capacity to understand it, so now, you who read it, do not qualify the author, just stay on the level and comment the article alone.

    Saint Clair Cemin

    February 19, 2012 at 9:53 am

  2. I agree that Andrulis is not crazy. He’s just wrong, in much the same way that Josephson, Sheldrake, and Montagnier are wrong.

    D^2

    February 20, 2012 at 2:40 am

  3. Dear D^2

    I did not say that Andrulis is not crazy. What I’m saying is that how the man can be called, crazy or boring, is besides the point.
    We should discuss his argument, not his brain or the brand of his underwear. Also, why is he wrong “the same way” Josephson, Sheldrake and Montagnier? Is there any similitude between his paper and the theories of the men you mentioned? Because if there isn’t you could say that he is as wrong “the same way” a rabbit is wrong in trying to eat a dollar bill, which amounts to strictly nothing.

    Saint Clair Cemin

    February 20, 2012 at 3:13 am

  4. I said “in much the same way”, not “the same way”.

    D^2

    February 20, 2012 at 3:39 am

  5. Dialogue between a Lunatic and a Scientist
    A Farce in One Act

    Lunatic: Whaaaaargarble! Whaaaaargarble! Whaaaaargarble!
    Scientist: What?
    Lunatic: WhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarGARBLE!
    Scientist: Do you have any experiments to test this? After all, scientific theories are tested by specific experiments based on hypotheses derived from the theories, that’s how science is distinguished from arguments among NASCAR fans and from theology. What are the experiments proposed in this case?
    Lunatic: You cannot understand the Whaaaaaaaaaaargarble! Science is dishonest! It is filled with rampant fraud!!!!
    Scientist: Really? Where? We need specifics.
    Lunatic: Whaaaaaargarble!!!!! I cannot be bothered to give evidence to back up my accusations. You are close-minded!!!! WhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarGARBLEBARBLEYARBLE!!!!

    Bryan Maloney

    February 20, 2012 at 9:09 am

    • Bryan,

      You prove yourself not just intellectually lazy but also shamelessly /dishonest./

      I hope that the only person you are fooling is yourself.

      You have not read the paper.

      You lack the desire to read the paper.

      You lack the mental tenacity to study the paper.

      You mock the paper in your ignorance.

      You make up a foolish exchange which contributes negatively to an informed debate.

      “A Farce in One Act” is a misleading , as you have farcical content in up to (being generous here) six of your other posts. One gem worth another look is “It is not the responsibility of those who do not blindly accept a new proposal to propose experiments. It is the responsibility of the proponents to propose the experiments. That is how science works.”

      Beautifully absurd.

      “What are the experiments proposed in this case?” See my first line.

      You conveniently ignore the 800 references many of which refer to experiments and the resulting data. See my first line.

      You caterwaul about no data in the paper, but the entire paper is based upon the available data. See my first line.

      You are ignorant of or conveniently the fraud of Imanishi-Kari and the NIH. See my first line.

      By the way, Imanishi-Kari is now a tenured professor. That outcome does not reflect a scientist who proved herself disreputable. It sounds more like a reward despite (for?) the fraud.

      I could not find any information, save an association with the fraud for the whistleblower who called her out.

      Whistleblowers almost always take a hit. No one likes a snitch (with notable exceptions like Markopolous) or wants to hire a boss-killer.

      So, I would think twice about ratting someone out, and my hunch is that others do too.

      Thus, fraud persists.

      You didn’t even bother to /google/ for fraud in science. See my first line

      Here is the link (I suspect you to be too lazy too google, so I did this puny task for you. See my first line.): http://www.google.com/search?q=fraud+in+science
      And the first two hits follow

      http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001616

      http://www.economist.com/node/13776974

      I post two quotations below because, I suspect you are too lazy not just to click on the google link, but also to click on the other links I provided. Just maybe you at least read what is posted here. See my first line.

      From the first link, “It can’t happen here. That’s what most scientists will tell you about fraud in science. Science is magically self-correcting, fraudsters are isolated incidents, fraud is something that happens in those other professions. Well, they’re all wrong, as Horace Freeland Judson shows in his new book The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science. While estimates of fraud — faking evidence, omitting or distorting evidence, and plagiarism — are naturally hard to come by, even very conservative studies place it as high as 10% — a staggering number to those who place their trust in Science.”

      From the second link (the Economist is a very reputable paper by the way — and don’t tell me it’s a magazine. It calls itself a paper.),
      “Lower-level fraud, however, is much harder to detect”

      Time to eat crow dude.

      If you were a plane’s inspector, you would fly on that plane that was, conservatively speaking, 10% broken, because you would be /willfully/ ignorant of the problem. See my first line.

      You are derelict in duty when it comes to studious analysis – even just of my posts. See my first line.

      Careful criticism even of the /true/ should be omnipresent and continual.

      If you want to look increasingly fatuous, just continue to post /your/ “Whaaaaargarble! ”

      You demonstrate with regard to the paper where the lunacy lies in this forum. Also, see my first line.

      nettle

      February 20, 2012 at 10:42 am

  6. Saint Clair Cemin
    Thanks for trying to keep the forum focused on the substance of the paper.

    “Do not comment on the article, no one forces you to do this, but do not drag the entire discussion into the terrain of slander and contempt.”
    Could you clarify your statement.

    I think you meant,
    Do not comment on the article, no one forces you to do this, /or if you do then/ do not drag the entire discussion into the terrain of slander and contempt.
    Am I wrong in this interpretation?

    D^2
    You may have read the paper, but you clearly don’t understand it.

    The paper is not wrong. You are — in your conclusions.

    The problem with the paper, and this point is critically important, is that the reader either needs to be a pan-sophist (as I have been told I am; I know a lot about many fields) or a /very/ diligent student of Erik’s work.

    Since I am both, and have had /years/ of exposure to the material, Erik being my good friend, I have had a huge advantage over others in understanding the paper.

    Were I not to know Erik, I would take passing interest at best in the paper. I would have a hard time understanding it, and I would lose interest in it quickly.

    I would at least have the wisdom (and despite my knowledge and experience, I don’t have that much wisdom in me, at least in my opinion) to say /nothing/ about that which I don’t comprehend.

    What we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence. ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein

    Erik has heard from about thirty others who express their appreciation of the material, though I suspect most of them only have inklings about the paper’s implications if even its contents. The paper relates science in a radically new way that is alien to the present paradigm.

    One conclusion that I draw from the paper is that life will necessarily emerge elsewhere under proper conditions (water must be liquid, e.g.) and in /exactly/ the same way as on Earth.

    The degree to and manner in which it evolves depends, naturally, on its environment — just as it does on Earth.

    nettle

    February 20, 2012 at 9:38 am

    • Dear Nettle,

      I’m glad to read your last entry. Yes, i’m sorry for the imprecision, but I meant that no one is forced to comment on the work of this man. There are so many things one can talk about, but to speculate about the sanity of the author is not constructive. On the other hand, I find that to come up with a theory that could potentially unify different fields and at very different scales, is fascinating. If you, personally see truth in the work of Erik,( which I do not quite understand) then it is encouraging. Intuitively I always felt that there must be a continuity from the inorganic to the organic, and that life is not an accident. I also believe that at this time it is important to keep alive interesting ideas, no matter how strange they may seem, and, most of all to do research on areas that are not the fashion of the moment and are not lavishly funded.
      I’m interested in many fields of enquiry, being in contact with philosophers, artists (I’m an artist myself) and cosmologists. I will be glad to share with you your views on Erik’s work and on other subjects.

      Saint Clair Cemin

      February 20, 2012 at 10:19 am

      • Dear Saint Clair Cemin,

        Thanks for calling me dear. I return the favor. I wrote with spaces for Bryan because I recognized his difficulty with reasoning and wanted to make my reply to him easy to read and understand. You show no such difficulty, so I will write more normally.

        Your fascination with the outre is admirable. Yours is a precious mind. To say you don’t understand the paper is a necessary outcome. Unless you are a pansophist /and/ have an open mind, you can not understand the paper without it being explained to you. Heck, I am a pansophist (I know a lot about a lot), and trained in and have practiced science, and /I/ don’t fully understand the paper. The oxygyre was a particular boggle for me. Erik took about an hour explaining it to me, and though I “got it” (much but not all) at the time, I need to revist the oxygyre. Geez. I need to revisit all the gyres.

        As you suspect, necessarily we must have an interlinking of /all/ systems somehow. Otherwise, they could not function as the magnificent concert known, tellingly, as the /uni/verse. The vortex is an ancient concept. In fact, Erik is only the first person to understand and /know/ the gyre systems; he is /not/ the first person to believe in them. Ancient Greece had at least one philosopher (whose name escapes me) who held that the vortex was the fundamental element of life (not earth, wind, fire, and water as Aristotle taught, simplistically but to a degree accurately). I remember that others held such a belief, but I did not commit their names to memory.

        The logical outcome of the (much bigger) work on which the paper is based is, in my opinion but not in Erik’s,. beyond the capability of human understanding — except for Erik. Even he keeps himself in the present paradigm (he pays his bills with fiat currency). He started to put his foot a bit too firmly in The Paradigm — i.e. this is /It/, the Eschaton, The Great End of Science, at least as we know it — and proceeded to bother people. I have urged him to pull back and stick in the present paradigm, and he has.

        As to The Great End of Science, I am /not/ making too strong a claim here. Science can not persist — even in the present paradigm — when only 8% (!) of proposals get grant money. Think of how you would function if your transportation worked 8% of the time — and you didn’t know when either. I asked two scientists what 8% funding meant. Neither knew the other. They both replied that it meant, “the death of science.” Same exact words. Either my thoughts influenced theirs some way, or the blunt conclusion is inescapable.

        Erik has about thirty known supporters, well thirty-two including you and me, both scientists and people like you. I hope you can get the gist of the paper, because that’s really all that anyone needs. You don’t really need to know the mechanisms if you know the relationships and most important, the outcome, which you already have started to consider. So, you’re thinking about the most important part: do these systems really interact in this way? I have managed to go many steps further, but I have no idea if I will reach full understanding. Perhaps you can help me here.

        If you would like to have an exchange here about each and every gyre, I would be pleased to go through the effort. This will be tough for me, but I have taught a lot to a lot, and thus I became very knowledgeable about the subjects I taught. In helping you, I will be helping me.

        Not coincidentally this gyre is the necessary (and humorous, wonderful, and absurd) point of Erik’s grand work — further discussion of which is not on the table right now. I will say, that our exchange is a gyre. We have the high energy learning state (man, this is hard) and the low energy memory state (oh, now I get it). Just as our posts oscillate and interlink (comment-reply—reply to reply—reply to reply to reply—…), so do our minds. I am in the low energy memory state of the gyre (having read your reply completed mine, and you are too, as you await (knowingly or not) this post. As you read it you will be in a high energy state of a gyre, but as you understand it, your mind will move to the low energy state of the gyre. Importantly, many (most, all?) gyres collapse, as I suspect my and Bryan’s gyre will soon after he tires of making himself look foolish. Gyres become unstable and collapse, you see, /exactly/ as a tornado dissipates.

        By the way, congratulations on your canonization. To my knowledge, I’ve never had an exchange with a saint before.

        nettle

        February 20, 2012 at 11:48 am

    • nettle: Are you a member of the Natural Philosophy Alliance by any chance? If not, you might consider joining.

      D^2

      February 20, 2012 at 11:16 am

      • D^2
        No thank you.

        I would commend to you a club that encourages traits like having an open mind and skills like critical, analytical reading, but I don’t find it strange that I don’t know of one.

        nettle

        February 20, 2012 at 11:51 am

        • Are you saying the Natural Philosophy Alliance isn’t open-minded? I think they would have some issue with that assessment.

          D^2

          February 20, 2012 at 11:54 am

          • D^2
            I am saying that /you/ aren’t open-minded.

            nettle

            February 20, 2012 at 1:26 pm

            • Are you open-minded to the possibility that the kinematics equation, “v = v_0 + at”, is correct for one-dimensional motion under constant acceleration? You don’t appear to be on your website.

              D^2

              February 20, 2012 at 1:32 pm

              • D^2
                “Are you open-minded to the possibility that the kinematics equation, “v = v_0 + at”, is correct for one-dimensional motion under constant acceleration?”
                I am ignorant of kinematics, and too preoccupied with other matters, alas. So, I am in no position for /any/ judgment or consideration.

                “You don’t appear to be on your website.”
                Uhm, I don’t have one, and I can’t be on what I don’t have.

                nettle

                February 20, 2012 at 2:11 pm

                • My mistake. I thought http://http://milesmathis.com/ was your website. Outsider scientists tend to be relentless self-promoters.

                  D^2

                  February 20, 2012 at 2:27 pm

                  • D^2
                    Yeah. We all make mistakes. I’ve found one in the paper that should not have gone past a thoughtful editor. See if you can find it without hints.

                    nettle

                    February 20, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    • Well, I thought that might happen. It seems Andrulis’s work is of a religious/philosophical nature (rather than science), and in order to get it one needs to have some sort of privileged “character” (e.g. to be a “pan-sophist”). That must be why nettle is unable to communicate any simple ideas or observations (the formation and nature of ATP, ADP and their interconversion; the nature of the hydrogen bond) in terms of Andrulis’ theory since these are (apparently) inexplicable in simple terms in the context of Andrulis’ theory….and that’s despite a virtual avalanche of nettle posting on these threads

      That’s fine. If one doesn’t have a clue about rather basic biochemistry (ATP, its formation and structure and interconversions, or the beautiful insight of the hydrogen bond from decades of hard-won, Nobel-prize-winning knowledge), that’s O.K. because one can simply assert that this is all contained (if not communicable) in terms of Andrulis’ theory (even if one is unable to explain how) and in one fell swoop one can raise oneself above all that trivial knowledge….after all a “pan-sophist” doesn’t really have to know anything since he’s attained the state of privilege. According to nettles exhausting posts here nothing needs to be explained…only asserted or claimed…a bit priest-y in fact.

      Simply put, if one can’t explain ideas in biology in simple terms it ain’t science. I think we knew that from the outset, but it’s good to have nettle confirm it so completely!

      chris

      February 20, 2012 at 11:50 am

      • Chris,
        “religious/philosophical nature (rather than science)”
        The paper is loaded with science; it just describes the science in a format beyond your comprehension.

        “in order to get it one needs to have some sort of privileged “character” (e.g. to be a “pan-sophist””
        Right. I don’t pretend to “get” Relativity. I am not a privileged character who understands that sort of math.

        “That must be why nettle is unable to communicate any simple ideas or observations (the formation and nature of ATP, ADP and their interconversion; the nature of the hydrogen bond) in terms of Andrulis’ theory since these are (apparently) inexplicable in simple terms in the context of Andrulis’ theory”
        Another reason may be that you are simply unable to understand the basic biochemistry that I posted on February 14, 2012. What is your education or training in biochemistry? Do you have extensive education of how DNA replicates and is used to produce RNA which produces proteins which then run the cell’s day to day operations?

        If you don’t you won’t be able to understand me, I understand. If you do, you’ve forgotten basic stuff. Either way, don’t say “nettle is unable to communicate,” say I just don’t have the ability to understand.

        “If one doesn’t have a clue about rather basic biochemistry”
        You are the one demonstrating such. My lengthy post on February 14, 2012 showed that indeed I have more than a clue about basic biochem.

        “one can simply assert that this is all contained (if not communicable) in terms of Andrulis’ theory (even if one is unable to explain how”
        Right on both points.
        I think you mean that I am unable to explain. I readily concede that I am unable to explain anything to those who do not want to read what I write, or who misread what I write, as you have with my February 14, 2012 post, which I commend to you to read.

        “after all a “pan-sophist” doesn’t really have to know anything since he’s attained the state of privilege. ”
        Uh, pan-sophist means one very knowledgeable in all fields. The paper does not include all fields, anyway. It only included physics, chemistry, biochemistry/molecular biology and cellular biology.

        “Simply put, if one can’t explain ideas in biology in simple terms it ain’t science.”
        Wrong. Silly too.
        If you put “how DNA replicates and is used to produce RNA which produces proteins which then run the cell’s day to day operations” in simple terms you will leave out the preponderance of what’s going on. Thus, you will under inform. For instance, you will have to leave out the workings of the golgi bodies, the chemistry occurring in the mitochondria, and of course mitosis and meiosis.

        How are the universe of ‘omes (ribosome, e.g) explainable in simple terms?

        “According to nettles exhausting posts here nothing needs to be explained…only asserted or claimed…a bit priest-y in fact. ”
        Life is tough, ain’t it? If you find my posts exhausting, you must have been a wreck in school what with those textbooks and all.
        I have explained a lot. You have been unable or unwilling to understand.
        I so indeed assert that the paper is correct. I do claim to be Erik’s friend. Correct on two of three counts.
        Nothing “priest-y” about it, save in the closed mind of a person who doesn’t understand the paper (and, let’s be honest here) is more interested in debating (not merely arguing, though, I’ll grant you that) something that he clearly has not taken the time to understand.

        The paper is tough. I understand that you would not understand. I do not understand how you can’t understand my posts, though. Oh well. I have limits of understanding too.

        “but it’s good to have nettle confirm it so completely!”
        What I have confirmed is your willful ignorance of the paper, your lack of desire to take it seriously, and your misunderstanding of this subject in general.

        Ignorance is not a shameful thing, save when it is willful.

        nettle

        February 20, 2012 at 2:06 pm

  7. Response to nettle’s post on February 19, 2012 at 9:30
    > “Oliver Wendell Holmes conclusion (The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic) was given in 1919, so this 1957 case is superfluous.”

    Causing a panic and possibly consequent loss of life is a completely different category to dissemination of obscene material, therefore the 1957 case is NOT superfluous. Being able to discern between categories is essential to clear thinking.

    > “You attacking parts of the paper when you must understand it works as a whole. You can’t pick and choose.”

    That is the same attitude espoused by religious nutters and victims entrapped by various cultic “philosophies”. Within the scientific/mathematical domain, one rotten idea within a paper can spoil the whole damn paper, especially if that idea is one of those upon which others are based. Those who have valid claims to scientific credentials should know this. Trying to “understand” the “truth of the whole” when major parts are obviously incorrect or are just plain gibberish, is to court insanity. Attempting to achieve such “understanding” is tantamount to brainwashing oneself by suspending the faculties of critical analysis and rationality, thereby inducing a state akin to that of a mental breakdown.

    > “You just don’t like the fact that he is dealing with overarching concepts to describe electromagnetism.”

    Accusing me of being prejudicial is an impertinent, presumptuous projection (psychological meaning). It is not “a FACT that he is dealing with overarching concepts to describe electromagnetism”. It is a fact that he has used the word ‘electromagnetism’ in a paragraph of gibberish and given a reference to further gibberish in what appears to be a vain attempt at justification. He has NOT described Electromagnetism; he misuses the word ‘electricity'; he coins the term “photonic singularity” without giving any definition of it; he does not supply any descriptions of the electric or magnetic fields, and their how their field-strengths vary in space-time; there is no mention of static or dynamic fields , dielectric permittivity, magnetic permeability, Maxwell’s equations, Poynting vector, speed of propagation, retarded or advanced potentials, or amplitude of waves, to name but a few omissions. The information content of reference 91 is zero; it IS nonsense. Within the subject of Electromagnetism there is nothing that could be regarded as a “photonic singularity”, and use of the word “photonic” shows confusion over the difference between Electromagnetism and Quantum mechanics. Within the paper no indication is given of any understanding of Electromagnetism, and the claim that “he is dealing with overarching concepts to describe electromagnetism” unequivocally shows that the person who made that claim also does not understand the subject. Any claim to understanding of what the paper says about the subject is invalid.

    > “1/∞ = 0, which implies that yes, 1/0 = ∞, and more interestingly, 0·∞ = 1.”

    That argument can be extended:
    For any number real number X :
    X/∞ = 0, which implies that X/0 = ∞, and therefore 0·∞ = X.
    But, from the quote immediately above, 0·∞ = 1 therefore X=1; i.e. all real numbers are equal to 1.
    This result is clearly absurd therefore the statement “1/∞ = 0, which implies that yes, 1/0 = ∞, and more interestingly, 0·∞ = 1″ is absurd. The lack of sufficient knowledge to recognise such absurdity indicates that the above quote came from a member of the mathematical illiterati. No theoretical physicist, in their right mind, would write such nonsense to an author of such a paper (assuming that the story is true, which, given the tenor of previous comments, is highly dubious) unless they were trying to indicate to the author that one his statements was logically reducible to absurdity. Given the wording of the email (nettle February 19, 2012 at 9:39) containing the quote above, the astute would likely be correct in assuming that the person who wrote the email had no valid claim to being a theoretical physicist.

    > “Science makes up new words all the time — and they often have /no/ intrinsic meaning. You know that, but you hypocritically say Erik can’t. Baloney.”

    Any author of worth well-defines any neologisms he/she presents, and gives references to relevant papers when employing relatively new words coined by others. There was no hypocrisy in any of my comments about Andrulis. The standards I use to evaluate the works of others are the same standards I use for self-evaluation. Making such a wanton and unsupportable accusation may well result in readers concluding that the accuser may be a flaming troll.

    > “Pick up any copy of Nature or Science. When you see that a new protein is discovered, it gets a new name! How is this naming of proteins (with associated alphabet soup acronyms) not obscurantist?”

    The naming of a new protein is quite different to Andrulis’s use of ill-defined and undefined neologisms. The incapacity to discern the difference is further evidence to the lack of veracity of the claim to scientific credentials. More effort must be exerted to understand the need to WELL-DEFINE any neologisms presented in a scientific paper.

    > ““- new terms, or old words with new meanings, must be well-defined;” I think they are. Other scientists do too. You don’t understand, but the paper is hard to understand, so your not understanding is understandable.”

    A claim to ‘think they are’ is not relevant to whether they actually are or not. As I said in my previous post the word “triquantal” is not defined anywhere in the paper, and as other words have meanings contingent on the meaning of “triquantal” then they also ARE NOT well-defined. The meaning of ‘well-definition’ needs to be properly understood, and the need for it must be appreciated. What other scientists?. Names and institutions?

    > ““- any conclusions must be supported by unequivocal proof.” Erik provides such proof to the satisfaction of me and other scientists.”

    Apparently there is little or no comprehension of what constitutes “unequivocal proof”, which is not surprising. Again the claim of “other scientists” necessitates the question: what other scientists?

    > “If you are not satisfied by 800 references backing up a paper loaded with science — and a radically new way of viewing a variety of systems — you are just hard to please.”

    That an author of a paper may refer to another paper for some purpose, does not mean that that other paper “backs up” the author’s paper. As has been pointed out by others, at least one of those 800 references is irrelevant to the thesis presented in the paper, and as I mentioned in my previous post, reference 91 is not another paper, it is just more gobbledygook. Use of the expression “loaded with science” to describe a paper loaded with a gobbledygook that has all the hallmarks of gibberish, shows that the actual nature of science is not understood. Use of the expression “a radically new way” displays ignorance of the sophistry of other authors who have tried to explain ‘the meaning of life, the universe, and everything’ using ‘vortexes’ – another name for gyres.

    > “According to Erik (I know because I just asked him), about thirty scientists and even non-scientists have called or emailed Erik to express their understanding (even if vague) of the paper and their appreciation of it.”

    Given that one of those “scientists” claimed to be a theoretical physicist but demonstrated that they do not have the mathematical where-with-all to justify such a title, one is left wondering about the calibre of the other 29.

    A comprehensive comprehension of Electromagnetism, Newtonian Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity is an essential prerequisite to making a valid claim of understanding a paper that purports to provide a reformulation of the first two aforementioned topics, and a unifying framework for the last two. The absence of such prerequisite knowledge prevents proper critical evaluation of the relevant parts of the paper, with the result that any claim to being able to understand the paper has no real substance and may well be no more than dishonesty or delusion. The presence of such prerequisite knowledge enables proper critical evaluation of the relevant passages of the paper, and enables the conclusion that those passages indicate the author lacks a working knowledge of the aforementioned areas of physics to a level sufficient for rigorous troubleshooting of the relevant ideas presented.

    DuD

    February 20, 2012 at 11:45 am

    • One of the real howlers in the paper is his attempt to justify his many neologisms by citing Phil Anderson’s classic essay, “More is Different”.

      D^2

      February 20, 2012 at 1:08 pm

      • D^2
        The paper contains much that is risible and even absurd — and correct.
        I am glad to see that you take as much amusement as I do with some of the paper’s claims.
        Humor, intentional or not, can be very enlightening, but I suspect you do not understand, and thus have not been enlightened.

        nettle

        February 20, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    • DuD,
      “Causing a panic and possibly consequent loss of life is a completely different category to dissemination of obscene material, therefore the 1957 case is NOT superfluous.”
      Your inability to understand is shocking. It /is/ superfluous when the matter in question are there limits in speech. The 1919 case demonstrated such. Case closed. The 1957 case just was an elaboration on the point.

      “That is the same attitude espoused by religious nutters and victims entrapped by various cultic “philosophies””
      It may very well be, but being so, does not make the paper wrong.

      “Trying to “understand” the “truth of the whole” when major parts are obviously incorrect or are just plain gibberish, is to court insanity.”
      I understand, dude. The paper is too hard for you to understand, as is gestalt theory, I suppose. I agree the paper is frustrating in its language. Keeping you consistent, you must consider fineteride, lorazapam, and methotrexate gibberish?

      You conveniently ignore my earlier comment which I repeat here.
      Have you ever looked at the names of Drosophila proteins? How about “Mothers against decapentaplegic?” “Bicoid?” “Cheap date?” all of which have graced these and other scientific journals. Oh yea, sure those names explain /precisely/ what those proteins do to a layperson. In the context, those names, including cheap date, inherently make no sense.

      “Accusing me of being prejudicial is an impertinent, presumptuous projection (psychological meaning).”
      No. It’s descriptive. You are in denial because you don’t understand the paper.

      It is not “a FACT that he is dealing with overarching concepts to describe electromagnetism”.”
      Sure it is. You just lack the mental tenacity and open mind even to begin to understand.

      “he coins the term “photonic singularity” without giving any definition of it”
      It has inherent meaning to me This comment and preceding ones just reflect that you don’t understand the paper.

      “therefore the statement “1/∞ = 0, which implies that yes, 1/0 = ∞, and more interestingly, 0·∞ = 1″ is absurd.”
      Couldn’t agree more, but the absurd can be true. Quantum entanglement is absurd. Schroedinger’s Cat is absurd. They both appear to be true, though.

      ##################################################################################
      Importantly, just as random is a cowardly euphemism for science when it lacks understanding (There is something there, but I don’t know how to go further), so absurd is for philosophy (There is something there, but I refuse to go further) and faith and hope are for religion (There is something there, but I want to go further.)
      ##################################################################################

      “The lack of sufficient knowledge to recognize such absurdity”
      Your statement is silly — and illogical.

      “Any author of worth well-defines any neologisms he/she presents, and gives references to relevant papers when employing relatively new words coined by others.”
      Dude, every word was new at some point. Science is pumping out new words all the time. Your comment is therefore illogical.

      “the word “triquantal” is not defined anywhere in the paper”
      You again just don’t get it. In the context of the paper the meaning is almost obvious. We have three quanta; three of the smallest elements in the gyre in question or any three units. For you to miss this easy idea shows you lack the ability to understand even the easy. I will /try/ to help you. Consider; science, philosophy, and religion; attraction, repulsion, immutabily; good, better, best.

      “That an author of a paper may refer to another paper for some purpose, does not mean that that other paper “backs up” the author’s paper. As has been pointed out by others, at least one of those 800 references is irrelevant”
      Wrong.

      “reference 91 is not another paper, it is just more gobbledygook”
      Sorry, it’s a footnote. It is not “gobbledygook.”
      An electron is known to oscillate. An electron that has more energy oscillates faster; less energy, slower. It thus moves through space-time (4D) as a wave. Erik is modeling this wave as a gyre which can be viewed as a spiral through space and time. Boy, that understanding was easy. I have no idea why you didn’t get it.

      “Use of the expression “a radically new way” displays ignorance of the sophistry”
      No it doesn’t. Relavity was a radically new way and it’s not sophistry, at least in my opinion.

      “Given that one of those “scientists” claimed to be a theoretical physicist but demonstrated that they do not have the mathematical where-with-all to justify such a title”
      How are you able to make this conclusion? If you are a mathematician or theoretical physicist then say so.

      “…one is left wondering about the calibre of the other 29″
      Correction, /you/ are left wondering. Their “calibre” doesn’t matter. They understand the paper and you don’t. In fact, you don’t understand at even my posts.

      “A comprehensive comprehension of Electromagnetism, Newtonian Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity is an essential prerequisite to making a valid claim of understanding a paper that purports to provide a reformulation of the first two aforementioned topics, and a unifying framework for the last two.”
      Because you say “this is how things have to be?” Please. You are too stuck in the present paradigm to even consider that there must be /some/ overarching final paradigm that links ever system together — and though it has to include the present paradigm, it need only descibe it sufficient;y enough to give the general idea. Those familiar with quantum mechanics can fill in the blancks just as modern science and engineering filled in the blancks with some of Gallileo’s and Da Vinci’s ideas.

      The absence of such prerequisite knowledge prevents proper critical evaluation of the relevant parts of the paper”
      Wrong. Your lack of intellectual curiosity, mental tenacity, and open mind (a triquantum) prevents /your/ proper critical evaluation of the relevant parts of the paper. Others seem to be able to do so.

      “any claim to being able to understand the paper has no real substance and may well be no more than dishonesty or delusion.”
      Or correct. Once again we have a triquantum. I hope you at least understand that word by now.

      “the conclusion that those passages indicate the author lacks a working knowledge of the aforementioned areas of physics to a level sufficient for rigorous troubleshooting of the relevant ideas presented.”
      Whether the author has this knowledge is irrelevant. You miss the entire point of the paper. If you got the point, you would understand that one need not have profound knowledge of a subject to describe it as a whole. Erik’s paper is not stuck in the minutiae. It is /over/ all these systems and unifies them.

      As an illustration, if you are in a airplane over part of a small village with a camera in your phone, you can’t can’t take street-level pictures (well, unless you have an insane pilot). You can take big pictures and as a mosaic put them all together to describe the big picture of the entire small village.

      The big picture is what the paper is all about.

      nettle

      February 20, 2012 at 1:18 pm

    • This thread seems to have been wrestled away from the RetractionWatch theme of highlighting and discussing papers that shouldn’t be in the scientific literature! However it does illustrate perfectly one of the consequences of deficient peer-review in the lower echelons of the publishing world where pretty much anything can be published.

      The thread has been hijacked by a troll. It’s quite similar to threads on other websites that discuss science related to, for example, global warming or evolution. There is an effort by creationists to get papers that seem to support creationist ideas into the scientific literature, and several papers that support non-scientific interpretations of global warming have been sneaked into publication. This allows a veneer of “respectability” to deficient ideas, and these are “protected” by the trollish behaviour that indicates a delight in the possibility that one doesn’t have to have any evidence in support of ideas, that ignorance can be a virtue, and that people that don’t know very much at all can argue dogmatically and aggressively with those that do.

      Imagine a world in which everyone could get anything published and everything in the literature had equivalent “value”. This thread illustrates what happens. The bullies and agenda-lead take over. It would be a little like the Cultural Revolution in China where academics and other people with talent were shunted off to the country to shovel pig manure by privileged thugs… nice!

      chris

      February 20, 2012 at 1:52 pm

      • Chris,
        “This thread seems to have been wrestled away from the RetractionWatch theme of highlighting and discussing papers that shouldn’t be in the scientific literature!”
        I am trying real hard to stick to those points. You are the one wrestling the thread away from a discussion of the paper and the paper only.

        You are digressing with unnecessary comments as,
        “”There is an effort by creationists to get papers that seem to support creationist ideas into the scientific literature, and several papers that support non-scientific interpretations of global warming have been sneaked into publication.”
        Tell me how this effort relates to the paper. You can’t, because it doesn’t. You may say it was an illustation but it is an unnecessary one as you could have chosen to stay on topic and just used the paper as an example.

        But you didn’t. Your choice. Not mine.

        Just keeping you honest.

        The following sentence does relate, though, so you only swerved off topic for one sentence, I will grant you.

        “This allows a veneer of “respectability” to deficient ideas, and these are “protected” by the trollish behaviour that indicates a delight in the possibility that one doesn’t have to have any evidence in support of ideas, that ignorance can be a virtue, and that people that don’t know very much at all can argue dogmatically and aggressively with those that do.””
        I agree. However, this has nothing to do with a discussion of the contents of a paper that you clearly do not understand, don’t want to understand, and lack the capability of understanding — right now at least.

        I hope you will change your mind.

        Mark my words, the game will change. Erik has already been contacted by other professors curious about his paper. (I am staying on topic.)

        “it does illustrate perfectly one of the consequences of deficient peer-review in the lower echelons of the publishing world where pretty much anything can be published.”
        No. Though other papers do. The imprimatur of peer review hides bad science. Aye, there’s deficiency.

        “The thread has been hijacked by a troll.”
        You couldn’t possibly be referring to someone who has given examples from the paper and defended the paper. I am performing a valuable and needed service in balancing the ignorance of those attacking a paper that they don’t understand one bit. In fact, you are referring to yourself.

        “Imagine a world in which everyone could get anything published and everything in the literature had equivalent “value”.
        You describe yourself. Complaining about the thread being wrestled away

        “This thread illustrates what happens. The bullies and agenda-lead take over.”
        You are the bully. You clearly want to strong arm ignorance over my attempts of addressing points within the paper. Our exchange would be much more productive if /you/ stayed on topic and picked sections of the paper to discuss. Why is such a task so hard for you?

        I (now with Saint Clair Cemin possibly) are the sole defenders of the paper.

        I throw down the gauntlet to see if you have /any/ sincere interest in “highlighting and discussing” this paper instead of dismissing it. Pick any section. I will explain it to you.

        I defend and explain the paper because I am longtime close friends with Erik.

        What is your motivation for your carrying on?

        nettle

        February 20, 2012 at 2:37 pm

  8. Chris
    My reply to you has an omission which I correct here.

    “Imagine a world in which everyone could get anything published and everything in the literature had equivalent “value”.
    You describe yourself. Complaining about the thread being wrestled away while hypocritically wrestling it away himself. How very odd.

    nettle

    February 20, 2012 at 2:43 pm

  9. Chris,
    Another clarification. Quotation marks were missing. Make fun of me if that makes you happy.

    “That must be why nettle is unable to communicate any simple ideas or observations (the formation and nature of ATP, ADP and their interconversion; the nature of the hydrogen bond) in terms of Andrulis’ theory since these are (apparently) inexplicable in simple terms in the context of Andrulis’ theory”
    Another reason may be that you are simply unable to understand the basic biochemistry that I posted on February 14, 2012. What is your education or training in biochemistry? Do you have extensive education of how DNA replicates and is used to produce RNA which produces proteins which then run the cell’s day to day operations?

    If you don’t you won’t be able to understand me, I understand. If you do, you’ve forgotten basic stuff. Either way, don’t say “nettle is unable to communicate,” say “I just don’t have the ability to understand.”

    nettle

    February 20, 2012 at 2:47 pm

  10. Nettle

    You are really engaged with Andruli’s paper. I would suggest that you write a book explaining it to the best of your abilities, with the help of Andruilis himself, hopefully, and anyone who would be willing to do it.
    It would be useful, it would be really good. Try to contact John Brockman from the Edge.org (great science literary agent) with a proposal.
    I will disconnect from this forum that I find of little interest.

    thanks for all
    good buy

    Saint Clair Cemin

    February 21, 2012 at 6:33 pm

    • And still not a single proposed experiment. One can write entire encyclopedias “explaining” purely fictional constructions that have no grounding in reality. Verbosity is not evidence. Victimology is not evidence. Whining about not being “understood” is not evidence. Experiments produce evidence. If it is science, then propose specific experiments. I have seen none, thus, the gyre is not science. It is a religion.

      Bryan Maloney

      February 21, 2012 at 7:43 pm

      • Bryan Maloney
        “And still not a single proposed experiment.”
        No need to propose experiments. You could find them within the 800 references if you were honestly interested.

        You aren’t. So, you won’t.

        “One can write entire encyclopedias “explaining” purely fictional constructions that have no grounding in reality.”
        Sure. Your statement only has bearing on the paper in that it shows you don’t understand the paper. Adjust.

        “Verbosity is not evidence.”
        As we see on this forum.

        Victimology is not evidence. Whining about not being “understood” is not evidence.
        Wrong. (I am presuming you mean Erik being a victim after the paper). Victimology is evidence that Erik has angered some in the academy, begging the question, why? No academic would persecute another unless the former was threatened in some was, as they are. I am not whining. I am describing /willfull/ ignorance, a lack of mental tenacity, and a lack of intellectual curiosity in folks like you.

        “Experiments produce evidence. If it is science, then propose specific experiments.”
        I am going to go out on a limb here and state that you are intelligent and motivated enough to check some of the 800 references for experiments — but clearly too lazy to do so.

        “I have seen none.”
        There are those who see; there are those who seen when they are shown; and there are those who can not see. The last of those three sentence describes you.

        “the gyre is not science. It is a religion.”
        The gyre has science on almost every, if not every page. You are incapable of seeing it because you are confined to a little box afforded by your closed mine. Sure, the gyre logically must subsume religion, but the paper sticks to science.

        You do not understand the paper, you lack the capability to understand the paper, and you lack the mental tenacity to read the paper.

        You don’t let your ignorance stop you from mocking what you don’t understand.

        nettle

        February 21, 2012 at 9:40 pm

  11. Saint Clair Cemin,
    Erik already has a book which is much more expansive in the topics it discusses.

    I guess I could write a book, but only after Erik publishes his. He was astonished to find absolutely no interest from publishers.

    Similarly I think I would have a hard time publishing a book just about the paper because of the controversial nature of its contents.

    “I will disconnect from this forum that I find of little interest.”
    You make me laugh.
    Ironically, you said,
    “On the other hand, I find that to come up with a theory that could potentially unify different fields and at very different scales, is fascinating.”

    So, you find it fascinating, but you turn down my offer to explain it to you further. Contradiction.

    Oh well.

    nettle

    February 21, 2012 at 7:34 pm

  12. Nettle,

    Please write to me directly. I feel dizzy with the forum, it is like being in the middle of a saloon brawl.

    Saint Clair Cemin

    February 21, 2012 at 7:41 pm

  13. Saint Clair Cemin
    My email (for this forum) is wiggles2012@hushmail.com.
    Either send your email there, or give me an alternative, please.

    nettle

    February 21, 2012 at 9:07 pm

  14. Someone on a different thread made a bizarre claim. For the open minded, I post my replies below.

    The first reply follows.

    “The fact that the theory ignores observations that the author doesn’t like is the single biggest weakness.”
    You are upset that a mere 65 page paper ignores observations? What are you expecting from a paper?
    It is not an encyclopedic discussion of gyres; it is a mere introduction, a survey.
    Please, give examples to the “observations that the author doesn’t like,” and I will offer elucidation.

    “I can have the most beautiful theory on paper and if I ignore evidence, it’s just a really advanced form of abstract art.”
    Wrong. You either are not a scientist or are intellectually dishonest.
    When a scientist finds six results, three of which fit the present theory, two of which are a little strange and one of which is way off the bell curve, he or she ignores the outlier (e.g. “I must have contaminated the sample under study”), and explains away the descrepancies of the other two, if he or she even includes them at all. The “funny” is often the foundation of a new realm of science — e.g. Relativity. More typical is “that’s funny, but I don’t have time for funny, I have to support my thesis — graduate or grant).

    More important, defending “that’s funny, but it goes against widely accepted theory” is no fun at all — as Erik is experiencing right now.

    Necessarily, the paper subsumes art — after all what is life if not a orchestra playing a beautiful, terrible, or neutral concert.
    A concert begs the question. Where is the conductor?
    The paper answers that question. The conductor is within, without and overarching the orchestra itself. The concert, let’s remember, involves the performers, the audience, and the location (music hall, half-shell, etc.) all at the same time. Take one out and you don’t have a concert.

    You should have backed /your/ opinion up with examples. How can you blame the author if you /yourself/ are remiss in this important duty. Don’t be hypocritical.
    You imply that claims require /all/ the facts that you deem relevant, then present no facts. Show me the money. Lay your cards on the table. Come clean.

    Until you offer one example, you opinion has no foundation whatsoever. By your own bizarre logic, if you ignore observations that you don’t like (e.g trimergence: RNA, DNA, protein; man, woman, child; good, better, best; etc.), “if [/you/ ] ignore evidence, it’s just a really advanced form of abstract art.” I take your words and show your folly.

    Buck up.

    Offer me /at least/ one purported weakness.

    nettle

    February 22, 2012 at 7:49 pm

    • Beauty and breadth are irrelevant. Propose one experiment that could falsify this theory.

      Bryan Maloney

      February 22, 2012 at 8:16 pm

      • Bryan,

        You wrote, “Beauty and breadth are irrelevant.”

        I guess you like plain and perhaps ugly — as in the ugly truth. Too, I presume you like ad hoc theory, contradiction, and omission. Is there in truth no beauty? Do you not live in the /uni/verse? Would not one predict a /uni/fying theory of the /uni/verse?

        “Propose one experiment that could falsify this theory.”

        You can’t falsify what is true. Every experiment mya support the theory paper as true — or, alternatively may not prove the theory false. Science can only disprove; it can never prove. All you need is /one/ generally accepted physical theory to be not falsifiable to support the idea that a non-falsifiable theory can still be correct. We have at least one.

        To excerpt from the Miles mathis pdf posted earlier, he claims there to be many such physical theories, to wit,

        “Most of contemporary physics isn’t testable, and that includes much of the most feted theory of the past six decades. String theory isn’t testable, but that hasn’t stopped it from steady growth over the last thirty years. Most of QCD isn’t testable, since the quark and gluons and so on can’t be isolated. Symmetry breaking is not testable, virtual particles are not testable, quantum tunneling is not testable, black hole theory is not testable, inflation is not testable, and so on. Leonard Susskind, one of the top dogs of string theory, has told us (in defense of his own postulates) that physical theories don’t need to be falsifiable or testable. They are accepted because top physicists accept them. I don’t expect Susskind will include Andrulis in that defense. If you are at the center of the field, your pronouncements don’t need to be testable, but if you are at Case Western Reserve, they do.”

        I have no idea if he is correct on all of those theories. Again, all you need is one; Mathis shows us many.

        The paper makes no claim that the theory is not falsifiable, regardless. Perhaps it is, though.

        Still, being fair, I turn to your question about some experiments that test Erik’s theory. We can only test the electrogyre for falseness if we look at one individual electron, but we can’t. Similarly, we can not monitor the ejection of a single DNA molecule within or from the single cell. Therefore, the gyre model is unfalsifiable.

        Notice that once I discuss the phosphogyre onwards, the viewpoint is sometimes the reverse of how we presently describe the present systems. I acknowledge that enzymes apply in experiments from the phosphogyre onward, and omit them for explanatory clarity. Note, all the experiments beneath the cellulogyre have been observed only en masse — not singularly. We can only test the electrogyre for falseness if we look at one individual electron.

        Here are the experimental results from which you can find the experiments with a google search. No, I won’t do the searches for you.

        1. Electrogyre. Do electrons absorb photons when photons hit electrons? Yes. Do electrons emit photons when they fall to ground state? Yes. Emission of photon. Prediction, experiment, theory proven correct.

        2. Oxygyre. Do oxygens absorb (“share”) an electron if hydrogen is around and you add a spark (more electrons than simply the one on the hydrogens)? Yes Two experiments, two positives.

        3. Carbogyre. Does carbon attach to oxygen when you burn it? Yes. Is carbon cleaved from oxygen when living cells metabolize carbohydrates? Yes. Two experiments, two positives.

        4. Phosphogyre. Does a phosphate absorb a carbon in the formation of PEP (phosphoenol pyruvate)? Yes. When PEP catabolizes does it eject carbon? Yes, as formaldehyde. More experimental tests, more validation.

        5. Ribogyre. When the nucleotide polymerizes does RNA evict pyrophosphate? Yes, to form the link in the nucleotide polymer. When RNA breaks down to form a ribonucleotide does it the nucleotide reform high-energy phosphate bonds? Yes. You get the gist by now, right?

        6. Aminogyre. Is tRNA absorbed in the formation of polypeptides? Yes, though we tend to think of tRNA absorbing AA’s. Is the RNA ejected from the polypeptide at the end of its formation? Yes, though we tend to think of tRNA releasing the polypeptide. Moreover, sulfur-containing methionine is the first AA in most polypeptide chains — if not all – sometimes, Met gets cleaved off. People who mock the idea that Amino means sulfur along with amino acid and polypeptide conveniently ignore this prevalent, perhaps universal, fact. Shame on them.

        7. Deoxyribogyre. Does DNA absorb a polypeptide in the formation of chromatin? Yes. Does DNA eject the polypeptide when it unravels for the purposes of transcription, recombination, replication, repair? Yes. The consistent results here are pretty repetitive, hunh?

        8. Cellulogyre. Does a cell absorb DNA when a sperm juxtaposes an egg? Yes.  Does a cell eject DNA when it finishes mitosis (e.g. to form an a new cell at G0). Yes, yes it does.

        For each gyre, you now have two predictions, two experiments that have been performed and have come back positive. If you yourself would like to perform those experiments to test the falsity of the theory, be my guest.

        By the way, what brings a sperm and an egg together? What force prevents in humans (often, but not always), the absorption of a second sperm? We have an /overarching/ answer than includes both of these — and the next example too.

        We think we know how lipid fuse. We say van der Waals forces — but they are not generally applicable. They no known relationship to cells fusing — unless you consider the interlinking theory of gyres.

        How does Y universally know how to find X? How does X know how to find Y? I ask the latter question because they may well be looking for one another. How can we tell with present theories — aside from those in the paper?

        If we reject the theory of the paper, we are left with ad hoc theories, contradictory hypotheses, and ignorance.

        Summing up: You asked for one proposal. I exceeded your demand by more than an order of magnitude.

        If you are honest and fair, you will now offer /one/ experiment to the contrary of the sixteen I gave.

        nettleingenting

        February 23, 2012 at 3:16 pm

      • Omission in exaple #2 abobe
        Do oxygens release electrons (back to hydrogen) when a current is present and at least one free radical is available (typically more, HS experiments use a dose of hydrogen peroxide) and a current is applied? Yes, and thus hydrogen and oxygen gas form at opposite electrodes (to be captured by test tubes in HS experiements).

        nettle

        February 27, 2012 at 12:19 pm

  15. The complementing comment follows.

    “”I can have the most beautiful theory on paper and if I ignore evidence, it’s just a really advanced form of abstract art.”
    You are not just wrong, but possibly self-contradicting — or accidentally praising the paper. How can you have “the most beautiful theory” and ignore evidence?
    The theory is not an abstraction. An abstraction by its very nature is not concrete. Concrete is reified and concrete. The theory of gyres is concrete.
    A whirlpool exists. So does a tornado. On a greater scale does a hurricane.
    The symbols of representations but are depictions of what you can touch, see, and experience.

    I will play your game for a moment, even if it is abstract art, being abstract art is not “just” (i.e. merely) abstract art. It can represent something true and sublime.

    A cell, protein, DNA, etc. all all concrete — and modeled in the paper as interlinking gyres.

    Consider,
    “Science is nothing but trained and organized common sense, differing from the latter only as a veteran may differ from a raw recruit: and its methods differ from those of common sense only as far as the guardsman’s cut and thrust differ from the manner in which a savage wields his club.”
    T.H. Huxley

    “There is nothing so tragic as a beautiful theory destroyed by an ugly fact.”
    Sir Conan Doyle and/or T.H. Huxley

    Please, give me one fact that destroys the theory in this paper.

    If you can’t, then you are simply unwilling to accept the beauty and breadth of the theory contained with paper.

    nettle

    February 22, 2012 at 7:52 pm

    • Have you ever heard of Russell’s Teapot?

      You are doing nothing but presenting Invisible Pink Unicorn statements.

      “Beauty” and “breadth” are irrelevant to science. Falsifiability is a fundamental feature of science.

      Indeed, Huxley’s “ugly fact” statement was his own way of making fun of “beautiful” theories.

      Bryan Maloney

      February 27, 2012 at 1:21 pm

      • Bryan,

        You continue to clown around.

        Your are completely wrong with the idea of Russell’s Teapot.
        I am not claiming there is a teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars.
        This conjectural teapot has nothing to do with the results I gave.
        I am saying that experiments can be done and the results measured.

        You consider all sixteen experimental results to be “Invisible Pink Unicorn statements.”
        You bizarrely ignore commonly accepted science.

        ““Beauty” and “breadth” are irrelevant to science.”
        To you.
        Others find the beauty and breadth of e = mc^2 to be wondrous.

        “Huxley’s “ugly fact” statement was his own way of making fun of “beautiful” theories.”
        And my statements make fun of you.

        Give me a fact ugly or otherwise that refutes these experiments or the theory of the paper.

        In the absence of such a fact, if you can not recognize that these sixteen different experimental results are expermentally verifiable, then you reveal yourself as a chalatan.

        nettle

        February 28, 2012 at 10:17 am

  16. What do you want from a theory if not to know? What more are you looking for? All the data fits this paper’s theory.
    What is a theory and why must it be so?
    What is it that you want predict so badly that you must have a theory that describes it?
    What is it ultimately that you generally want?

    nettle

    February 23, 2012 at 3:20 pm

  17. It has become apparent that the self-appointed priest of the Church of the Gyre has no idea how science works, since he is offended by the term “falsify”. Falsifiability is the cornerstone of science. A “theory” that cannot be falsified by any means at all is a statement of religious dogma disguised as a theory.

    Bryan Maloney

    February 27, 2012 at 1:23 pm

  18. You can’t argue the points in the paper, so you create your own world of fantasy interpretation.

    I am not a priest but when you think of the paper (clearly you haven’t read it) you are a scientific apostate.

    I take no offense at the word falsify.

    From Webster: Theory
    A doctrine, or scheme of things, which terminates in
    speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice;
    hypothesis; speculation.

    You are imparting a new meaning on the word theory.

    Nothng anywhere in the word theory or in Erik’s paper has any mention or anything to do with dogma.

    “A “theory” that cannot be falsified by any means at all is a statement of religious dogma disguised as a theory.”
    Wrong.
    You’ve dug yourself into a hopelessly deep hole of ignorance from which you do not want to escape.

    Falsify General Relativity.

    Falsify Darwn’s Theory of Natural Selection.

    nettle

    February 28, 2012 at 10:29 am

    • nettle, it’s unfortunate that you are unable to provide a single example of a molecular/biological phenomenon that the Andrulis theory gives insight into in a way that’s not already understood, nor a single example of a prediction that follows from Andrulis theory, nor an example of an experiment that could be used to test the theory, nor an example of phenomena/observations that would falsify the theory. Andrulis theory is entirely deficient as a scientific theory if these criteria aren’t communicable in simple terms.

      But I think we all agree that Andrulis’s paper isn’t about science, nor describes a useful theory. I also find it unfortunate that you simply respond to posts here by a sort of inverse parroting of comments with semantically-flawed assertions.

      If you learn something about science you’ll discover that a scientific theory doesn’t have the same meaning as your Webster’s dictionary definition. A better description of a scientific theory can be found on the Wikipedia page (google “Wikipedia scientific theory”):

      “The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term “theory” is hardly applicable.”

      By these criteria you’ve demonstrated that Andrulis’ notions don’t constitute a scientifc theory. If you read more carefully you might discover that the essential element of “falsifiability” isn’t that one can falsify the theory (e.g. your exhortions to “Falsify General Relativity” and “Falsify Darwn’s Theory of Natural Selection”). That’s just silly. The point is that these theories are falsifiable.

      Here’s your examples:

      General Relativity: This was an excellent theory from the outset since it explained several otherwise unexplained observations (e.g. the anomalous perhelion precession of mercury), and it made some specific predictions that could be tested by observations and experiment. Notice that if these predictions didn’t turn out to be observable the theory would be proven falsified at least in it’s essential form. Thus the theory predicts that light from a distant source should be “bent” by the gravitational field of intervening massive celestial bodies, that light from distant sources should be redshifted by the same phenomenon, that light should be unable to escape from black holes, and so on. There is a whole slew of observations/measurements that have been made to test General Relativity and the theory has always been falsifiable in the context of the failure of these observations/measurements to accord with predictions.

      Your task, nettle, is to give us equivalent examples of explanations afforded by Andrulis’ notions, and some of the predictions that can be used to test for falsifiability, and thus give us some reason to consider that Andrulis paper constitutes anything like a “theory” scientifically-speaking.

      Natural Selection: I’m sure if you think about this Natural Selection has massive explanatory power and is eminently falsifiable. For example natural selection would have been falsified if a completely validated fossil record showed a stratigraphy with jumbled progression of unrelated forms, or the demonstration of biomolecular mechanisms that eliminated the accumulation of mutations, or the observation of spontaneous generation of organisms, or the observation in the genomic databases of morphologically-related organisms that shared no similarity in the gene sequences, or the identification of phylogenies that didn’t show the progressive accumulation of changes in gene sequences according to the evolutionary distance of members of the phylogeny… and so on…

      In fact each of these theories contained within them a huge series of predictions that grew and were tested over more than 100 (Nat Sel) or nearly 100 (Gen Rel) years, and in the context of which they were continuously falsifiable. The fact that the theories have so far passed all of the tests devised to assess their predictive qualities means that each of these theories is afforded the status of being essentially true. In other words there is little doubt that General Relativity and Natural Selection are robust and reliable descriptions/mecanisms of their particular bit of the natural world, even if the might (like Newtonian Physics) turn out in future to be parts of some wider theory…

      chris

      March 1, 2012 at 1:22 pm

      • Chris,
        The paper shows how multiple systems work in concert — as do my comments, none of which you have read or have the capabablity to understand. Instead of being silent in you ignorance, you spread your lack of understadning. You clothe you answers in scholarly language, thus making your comments dangerous to the unimformed.

        In one answer I give sixteen examples and (1) the paper ties them all together as they have never been tied before! I go further to predict (2) unannotated RNA (more of it) and (3) the end of science as we know it. I know you are skeptical and impatient, so set this response aside for a while before reponding.
        -nettle

        nettle

        March 2, 2012 at 2:01 pm

  19. nettle says: “You clothe you answers in scholarly language, thus making your comments dangerous to the unimformed.”

    how sad..I pointed out earlier how your assertion of priviliged insight into an apparently unexplainable (by you) “theory” comes across as rather priestlike, and here you are castigating straightforward and completely standard descriptions of well characterized and real theories (natural selection and general relativity) and their falsifiability as “answers clothed in scholarly style” and “comments dangerous to the unimformed”. You sound just like the sort of theological inquisitors who persecuted Galileo.

    Unfortunately you seem unable to provide any insight whatsoever into Andrulis’ notions, nor to give any examples of predictions arising from these, or experiments/observations to address falsifiability. By these completely uncontroversial criteria you are reinforcing the conclusion that Andrulis’ notions don’t constitute a scientific theory.

    And your examples are moronic if I may say so. You “go further to predict unannotated RNA (more of it)……”. But how can you “predict” something that’s been known about for a decade? Since a whole slew of analyses on eukaryotic genomes indicates that as much as 50% of the genome might be transcribed, it doesn’t take a predictive genius to realize that more unannotated RNA is going to be discovered. Already in 2002 it was shown that the amount of transcription on two human chromosomes (21 and 22) was around 10-times that annotated in data banks. That basic biochemical and genetic science was done by people that understand how to do proper science and know how to call a shovel a shovel. It’s a little creepy for you to assert 10 years after its discovery that you “predict” unannotated RNA!

    Learn some biochemistry nettle…and take some elementary classes in philosophy of science. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that you can bypass learning and knowledge by aligning yourself with gibberish over which you confer upon yourself the status of priviliged insight. That might be a clever strategy for internet trolling but it’s not going to take you very far in the real world…

    chris

    March 6, 2012 at 3:24 pm

  20. Life’s origin/nature without academEnglish verbiage

    Origin And Nature Of Earth Life, An Update…

    Liberate your mind from concepts dictated by religious trade-union AAAS.
    Life is just another mass format + re-comprehend natural selection + natural selection is ubiquitous, for all mass formats.

    Life Evolves by Naturally Selected Organic Matter

    I.
    Homegrown Organic Matter Found on Mars, But No Life

    http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/05/homegrown-organic-matter-found-o.html?ref=em

    II. EarthLife Genesis From Aromaticity/H-Bonding

    http://universe-life.com/2011/09/30/earthlife-genesis-from-aromaticityh-bonding/

    September 30, 2011

    A.
    Purines and pyrimidines are two of the building blocks of nucleic acids. Only two purines and three pyrimidines occur widely in nucleic acids.

    B.
    Pyrimidine is a heterocyclic aromatic organic compound similar to benzene and pyridine, containing two nitrogen atoms at positions 1 and 3 of the six-member ring.
    A purine is a heterocyclic aromatic organic compound, consisting of a pyrimidine ring fused to an imidazole ring. Purines, including substituted purines and their tautomers, are the most widely distributed kind of nitrogen-containing heterocycle in nature.
    Aromaticity ( Kekule, Loschmidt, Thiele) is essential for the Krebs Cycle for energy production.

    C.
    Natural selection is E (energy) temporarily constrained in an m (mass) format.

    Natural selection is a universal ubiquitous trait of ALL mass spin formats, inanimate and animate.

    Life began/evolved on Earth with the natural selection of inanimate RNA, then of some RNA nucleotides, then arriving at the ultimate mode of natural selection – self replication.

    Aromaticity enables good constraining of energy and good propensity to hydrogen bonding. The address of Earth Life Genesis, of phasing from inanimate to animate natural selection, is Aromaticity.Hydrogen Bonding.

    Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

    http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/

    tags: life genesis, natural selection, life mass format

    dovhenis

    November 20, 2012 at 5:22 am


We welcome comments. Please read our comments policy at http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/the-retraction-watch-faq/ and leave your comment below.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 35,758 other followers

%d bloggers like this: