The following article appeared, unsigned, in the journal "Meda" Volume 5, No. 1965, XNUMX - January XNUMX, long before the article that managed to get started in a scientific journal about the clues apparently hidden in the skipping of letters in the Bible. Even today this article, which was not signed by the way, is appropriate and is quoted as it is, although the spelling of several m
The science service
Link to this page: https://www.hayadan.org.il/fakescience.html
Nowadays, when time is short and there is a lot to do - you have to carefully consider what you should read. Simply, sometimes it's a waste of time.
In his article: "A yardstick for forgers" Science, September 25, 1964, 25) Fred G. Greenberg tries to give the scientist and the professional a yardstick, which will help him evaluate: whether the article he intends to read was written by a professional Is it reliable, or is it just the chatter of a faker, which you should ignore
on him Greenberg admits that it is difficult to find a scale of this kind, so he offers a "checklist" of some of the qualities of science and the qualities of a forger; Such a list will help in making the decision.
Greenberg compiled a list of 13 traits, whose overall maximum score amounts to 100. All we have to do is make a table, write these traits in the right column, and then write the
The number of points that goes to each feature in the article being tested. The general summary - will indicate whether it is worth reading the article and recommending it, if not. And these are the features:
1) Public verification (12 points): While the scientist presents his results and methods to the public and invites him to come back and check them, the forger will say: "This is the revealed truth; I'm sorry, but only myself and my followers are able to accept these results." It is understood that it is not possible to verify a scientific finding in every case.
2) Estimating (12 points): To what extent can the things be used in the future? Does the finding predict new developments?
3) Controlled experiments (13 points): This section received the highest number of points. While the scientist strives for controlled experiments and instructs the reader on how to conduct them, the counterfeiter often strives to prevent such experiments; And if some experiments were indeed conducted - the forger tries to justify with various excuses, why they did not confirm his theories.
4) The principle of economy (5 points): This principle (called: "Occam's Razor") states that, of two possible explanations for a certain phenomenon, the answerers prefer the simpler one, which involves fewer assumptions.
5) Fertile (10 points): The more scientific the subject, the more "fertile" results it may produce: new ideas, new approaches, new tests, and not only practical and tangible results.
6) Authority (10 points): Authority is important among scientists. A work or a scientific ruling is submitted based on the opinion of an authority and their opinion is decisive; even though they too can be wrong.
7) The ability to communicate (8 points): Most scientists speak with their colleagues and the public using accepted methods of communication. The forger despised these methods.
8) Humility (5 points): We usually consider a scientist to be humble and evaluate him accordingly (although, there are also arrogant scientists). In contrast, only a few fakers showed humility, if they showed it at all.
9) Freedom of information (5 points): Indeed, many people, who were proven over time to be scientists, were stubborn and stubborn. However, the scientist usually uses expressions such as: "it seems, as if". . . Or: "Accepted on the opinion that . . ." etc. The forger is, as usual, exemplary and arbitrary, and he hints as if: "Either you agree with me, or . . ."
10) Fulton - illogical (5 points): This is a negative test, and the forger may be detected by this test alone. He develops reasoning such as: "They mocked Fulton. He was right. They laugh at me. That's why I'm a genius like him."
11) Paranoia (5 points): This is also a negative test. It is the absence of signs of paranoia that gives 5 points. And again, the counterfeiter can only be discovered by this test. The forger feels that the world hates him and opposes his plan (and for some reason it seems to the forger that the very existence of the opposition is a form of support for him).
12) The dollar complex (5 points): this is also a negative test. The forger is very impressed with the value of his discoveries - which are always great. On the other hand - you will hardly find a message from a scientist announcing: "This thing is really revolutionary".
13) Statistical coercion (5 points): It is probably typical of the forger's literature that it not only uses statistics, but also explains them continuously. In his haste to find out what he knows, he keeps coming back. About statistical models, which the scientist assumes in advance that the reader is familiar with and there is no need to explain. Unlike the forger, the scientist hardly ever uses exclamation marks.
And now - Greenberg turns to his readers - go out and try my proposal, lest even on my articles. . .
https://www.hayadan.org.il/BuildaGate4/general2/data_card.php?Cat=~~~366195451~~~45&SiteName=hayadan
