Scientific Fraud

Is there more of it than you think? This article seems to think so.

The data presented in the article were restricted to the US health and biological science, so it simply "extrapolated" into the rest of science. Now, even if this is true, that there are "... three incidences of fraud for every 100 researchers...", one needs to evaluate two important things as far as physics is concerned:

(1) were these part of important, high-profiled work and publications?

(2) did it get through to the stage where it was being used as a valid source?

The two instances mentioned in the article (the Schon and Ninov debacles) certainly fit #1, but this is out of how many high-profiled work? The thing we need to keep in mind here is that these high-profiled work, published in major journals, are usually highly scrutinized. So one certainly cannot get away with a lot of things, much less, fraudulent results, since someone is bound to try and reproduce your results. This is why it is still a major puzzlement why Schon did what he did, as if he didn't think someone was going to try and reproduce his results. So these important works in physics usually are not affected by frauds, because it is just way too difficult to get away with it.

Now, certainly such things are less scrutinized in lesser journals. But most of these very seldom become significant work that we rely on. And this brings us to #2. How many of these frauds actually made it "out" and into the stages where they were applied and used? I don't know of any. Why? Because if it is fraudulent, it would not work, no matter how much you try! That was the problem with the Schon results, no one could reproduce it! It could not get out of the scrutiny part and into the applied/application part.

The point here is that fraudulent work in physics hasn't made it out too far for it to mislead or fool enough people. (I'm distinguishing this from outright crackpottery such as the "hydrino".) If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, no matter how one tries to hide the fraud. Science, and certainly physics, is still a slave to Mother Nature.

Because the PRACTICE of science is a human endeavor, it is why we have peer-reviewed process, and then further scrutiny by others in the field. If not, why bother with all of the circus? The public and the media should be made aware of this, and this is why any results or discoveries should be given the proper "gestation period" for the system to work. The fact that something has been published isn't really the end of the story, but rather the beginning of a detailed, careful scrutiny. It is when the public and the media forget about this is when they are "misled".

Zz.

Can Special Athletes Really Defy Physics?

I shouldn't highlight this, but I'm pissed at the title. The title of this article has no relevance whatsoever with the content. So why even bother making such a mockery?

Sometimes, when you're talking about "willing" something to happen, you don't mean defying the laws of physics.

It's not like a great place-kicker can make a poorly struck field goal hook back against the wind.

Nor do I believe Tiger can physically cause a putt to change directions.

But great athletes can mix talent with desire -- plus an incredible confidence -- to create the result they need.

Nothing in the article comes even close to "defying physics", whatever that means. If Tiger Woods actually putted a golf ball downhill past a hole, and then the ball decide to act against gravity and comes back to go into the hole, now THAT is what I would call 'defying physics', thankyouverymuch! If that happened, it will be an even bigger news than his painful win at the US Open, I can tell you that!

Furthermore, these people seem to have forgotten that Tiger has LOST {gasp!} before. I'm guessing that he had tried to "will" many putts into the hole during those losses that didn't happen. Thus, some of the claims being made in that "news" piece seem to be based on only on sports highlights on TV that selects favorable "data", rather than examines the whole body of evidence.

I don't expect a thorough scientific analysis of the data for something like this, but at the same time, the inability for people to do some simple analytical evaluation is utterly shocking. This is why there are people who believe in various mumbo-jumbo such as The Secret.

Zz.

Physicist Debunks Cellphone Popcorn Viral Videos

It is really sad that we now have to address all kinds of crackpotteries that appear on YouTube. This is one such example.

YouTube videos that show a group of friends apparently cooking kernels of popcorn with their cellphones have been viewed more than a million times since they were uploaded last week.

The parlor trick (see embedded clip) looks amazing enough, but there's a hitch: It's not physically possible, according to University of Virginia physics professor Louis Bloomfield.

The problem here isn't these yoohoos who made the video. There will always be bored people like this who'd do one thing or another just to get attention. The problem is the people who view these things and would put some credibility into it. We then have to take some effort into debunking such crap. Even then, how many people who saw the video would actually see this response?

Zz.

Wi-Fi Signals Causing Health Issues?

New reports are surfacing of certain people who are "electro-sensitive" and being affected by Wi-Fi signals, causing headaches and chest pains.

You'll understand if I read something like this with a large degree of skepticism. This is not new. I've reported this earlier with people who claim almost the same symptoms with cell-phone signals. Look at how credible those claims are.

I'm not saying these people didn't experience all this, and I'm not saying we shouldn't look into it. But considering the track record of such claims in the past (including claims about transmission power lines), we shouldn't enact bans and legislation just YET until there's clear evidence of a cause-and-effect. And let me tell ya, we are a LONG way off from that at this point.

Zz.

Just Because You Say It Is Based On Quantum Physics, Doesn't Make It So

So many pseudoscience are so damn quick to attach themselves to "quantum physics", as if they know what quantum physics is. I've already mentioned several instances of the bastardization of quantum mechanics by a few people who are using it to validate whatever it is that they are claiming. Well, count this one as one of them. It is the "ancient medical treatment" called Shirodhara.

I honestly don't care at all what people wish to do with their bodies. However, when they tried to justified it by saying some nonsense to the effect that it is verified by some aspects from physics, then that gets my goat.

Ayurveda, the primary health system in India, and western biomedicine, the primary system in North America, differ in their view of the body. "It needs to be emphasized that ayurveda is very much a science," Dr. Gupta stresses. "The foundation of ayurveda is based on quantum physics instead of molecules, cells and gross structure.

What the hell does that mean? And why is "molecules" different from quantum physics?

First of all, there's some inconsistencies here. This practice has been going on for "5,000 years". If it is true, how can it be "based on quantum physics", when quantum physics was only formulated in the early 20th century? Did someone from 5,000 years ago time-traveled to the time or Bohr, Einstein, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, etc. and got the knowledge about quantum physics and then got back to 5,000 years ago to form the Ayurveda medical treatment? Sure, I'll buy that!

OK, so maybe it isn't that. Does that mean that they realize that, like Chemistry, which came way before quantum physics, that what they are using can actually be "explained" by quantum physics? Really? Such as what? In Chemistry, many aspects of what is measured (as in QUANTITIVE MEASUREMENT), can be explained in terms of the formulation of quantum physics. The energy state of the hydrogen atom, the nature and strength of chemical bonds, the behavior of molecules, etc. In other words, a lot of things that were measured can be quantitatively derived from quantum mechanics.

Now I would bet you no such comparison has ever been made with this Ayurveda. Oh sure, they might bastardize various aspects of the superficial idea of "entanglement" (this seems to be a popular effect to be bastardized - refer to "The Secret"), but this is FAR from claiming that you have a foundation based on quantum physics.

What these crackpots do not realize is that to be able to say that something is based on quantum physics, one must DERIVE the effect for THAT PARTICULAR SYSTEM, using quantum physics. Start with the Hamiltonian, and use whatever means one has to drive both the QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE result that agrees with whatever it is one is trying to show an agreement of. One simply cannot use "superficial induction". Just because the phenomenon of entanglement has been shown to work in 2 photons does NOT mean that such phenomenon is valid for 2 apples! It isn't! But that is why these crackpots are doing.

I really don't know how the Edmonton Journal could have seriously published this with a straight face.

Zz.

The US Army Issues Polygraph To Soldiers In Afganistan and Iraq

Holy cow!

I didn't know about this until it was brought up by Bob Park in this week's column of What's New. So the US army thinks that they could improve security by using portable polygraphs.

The Defense Department says the portable device isn't perfect, but is accurate enough to save American lives by screening local police officers, interpreters and allied forces for access to U.S. military bases, and by helping narrow the list of suspects after a roadside bombing. The device has already been tried in Iraq and is expected to be deployed there as well. “We're not promising perfection — we've been very careful in that,” said Donald Krapohl, special assistant to the director at the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment, the midwife for the new device. “What we are promising is that, if it's properly used, it will improve over what they are currently doing.”

This is astounding, considering that the NAS study has concluded that such devices are useless. They must be desperate enough to make use of voodoo science (a nod to Bob Park) to ensure safety over there. I think it would have been cheaper to simply hire a psychic, or train an army personnel in the art of reading tarot card.

As Bob Park said, these portable devices should work as well as the non-portable versions.

Zz.

Analysing the Afterlife

I normally do not go after something like this, because, frankly, it's a no-win situation. You can't make any rational argument against something that is irrational. However, when someone invokes something out of physics or scientific process to justify their irrational belief, then it is then fair game to evaluate the fallacy of his/her argument.

This author is trying to argue that one simply cannot dismiss the idea of an 'afterlife', whatever that may be. His main arguments?

Scientific and psychological reasoning and scepticism have yet to firmly counter the notion that there is an afterlife.

and

experiential evidence from around this world points to some form of existence in ‘the next’.

The first one is silly and just plain lazy. He's arguing that you can't prove that it doesn't exist. This is nonsense because it is the burden of a person arguing for the existence of something to show that it exists, not the other way around. So while his argument is to counter a previous article that appears to argue why it this afterlife doesn't exist, to turn around and argue that it does based on the point that "you can't prove it doesn't" really is extremely weak.

But the second part is what is more fascinating in terms of proving my continuing point that the general public, or at least those not in science, do not have any clue on the difference between anecdotal and scientific evidence. He is actually touting this "experiential evidence" as if this is something that is reliable and valid. It is a FACT that our minds can play tricks on us. It is a FACT that has been shown many times how people can believe that they saw something that never occurred (see here, here, and here). Therefore, experiential evidence is NOT RELIABLE as valid evidence. It is certainly less reliable when a person is under medical/physiological duress that he/she is near death! So to use those as justification for anything is extremely dubious.

It is ironic that he said that "... The afterlife may go against common sense, but twentieth century physics has taught us that common sense is often a poor guide to truth...." yet, he somehow ignored the rest of what physics has taught us of the nature of scientific evidence and what is valid. You'll notice a common thread here when someone who doesn't know much about physics will pick and choose what he/she wants to take from physics. The author of "The Secret" wants to use quantum mechanics to justify various part of it, and ignores the rest that will render the argument false. The same thing is occurring here. If this person is so respectful of what "twentieth century physics" has to teach us, then take the whole thing, rather than just what's convenient for him.

The fact that something like this continues to be presented as valid argument, and published in popular media without any hesitation, shows that (i) such fallacy is not seen as problematic to be accepted, and (ii) the readers and the general public probably won't catch what I've just mentioned here. Try reading the papers or watching TV. You'll see many more arguments being made that is based on simply a matter of opinion, or based on non-existent evidence, or an incomplete understanding. In many cases, no one is asking for evidence or justification of the point being made. So these things are being said as if they are "facts".

The nature and validity of the evidence being presented to support an argument is something that has been emphasized very little in public discourse. That is what is so discouraging.

Zz.

The Hummer is NOT More Environmentally-Friendly Than a Prius

It's amazing how a report that is full of holes can gain such a foothold once some talking heads on TV adopted it.

A while back, there was a rather dubious report called "Dust to Dust" that essentially drew up a conclusion that the monstrous Hummer is more "environmentally friendly" than the Prius, based on all the energy accounting that is being used to research, manufacture, and run the vehicles. Slate.com has a brief synopsis of the whole thing. Luckily, they also tackled the validity of that claim and cited several prominent (and certainly, NOT dubious) research work. It essentially debunked that myth.

Moral of the story: never accept the validity of science/engineering issues from politicians, TV personalities, or popular news media.

Zz.

Snowmobiles Faster Than A Speeding Bullet, Maybe, But Not Light

I'm glad this writer spotted something fishy about the accident report.

Mr. ... and his brother ....were traveling across (the) lake around 10:30 p.m. at an apparent high rate of speed when (they) came upon the shore and hit a maple tree ... 'He was overdriving his headlights. The shore came up too fast and he hit a maple tree

The writer certainly questioned, and rightly so, the phrase "overdriving his headlights", because it implied that the snowmobile was moving faster than the headlights! Awful! :)

Still, this accident report is practicing what I wrote earlier about the propensity of news editors and other "official-type" reports of using the phrase "rate of speed", when all they meant was just "speed". If all they meant was that the vehicle was moving fast, then "rate of speed" is the wrong expression, because this is acceleration. An object could have an instantaneous speed of 0 and yet, still have the highest "rate of speed" it will have in its motion (example: oscillating mass on a spring).

More media writers need to have better physics education. Unfortunately, based on this news report, so do people in a Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

Zz.

More Bad Physics - Part 2

Again, this is possibly nitpicking. But really, something this elementary should not be done incorrectly. You have read previously how someone mistaken energy as mass*velocity. We have another one of the same degree.

I think this is nothing more than an advertisement, which makes it worse since it shows that whoever is peddling this doesn't know much about what he/she is talking about. There are two very strange physics in here and they both occur in the same paragraph.

Being Able to slam dunk is almost as much in the mind than it is in the legs but in the end it comes down to one thing – power. In physics power is strength x speed. Strength is the amount of energy that your legs can push up with and speed is how long it takes to push out the strength.

Close, but no cigar.

In physics, Power = Energy/time, or Force*speed. And "speed" isn't "how long it takes to push something", which is really a quantity of time, not speed. It is really the time rate to move something.

Again, this is basic, intro physics that first year college kids, or even high school kids, would have come across. The terms "power", "energy", and "speed" are very well-defined at this level. One simply can't just mix things up as one pleases. So for this person to invoke "in physics...." and then proceeded to mess things up is really astounding.

I don't know about you, but I certainly won't buy whatever it is that is being peddled here. :)

Zz.

The LHC As A Time Machine?

Report on this has been circulating the news wire for a few days ever since the silly editors at New Scientists proclaimed that it can happen (shall I mention for the gazillion'th time why I consider New Scientist as the science's supermarket tabloid?). I suppose when colliders like RHIC didn't actually produce blackholes, some people need to come up with other more creative ways to get them free publicity. So why not a wormhole?

We finally have a sensible article that discusses this. Still, the crackpots of the world are already rejoicing and jumping all over this.

Zz.

Rate Of Speed

Have you ever heard of people using the phrase "rate of speed" before? I have, mainly on TV during one of our local news. Usually it is during a description of some vehicular traffic incident, and some vehicle was described as moving at a "high rate of speed". What they really want to say is simply that the vehicle was moving very fast, but somehow, they think saying "high rate of speed" sounds "sexier".

This, of course, is rather inaccurate. Typically, when say say "rate of something", we usually mean the time rate of change. In calculus, it is d/dt of something, i.e. the time derivative. So when one say "rate of speed", one is actually saying ds/dt, where s is speed. This is ACCELERATION!

Now there's nothing wrong with this if the newscasters actually did intended to say acceleration (which begs the question on why they don't just say "acceleration"?). But more likely, they wanted to say "speed". So really, transposing "speed" into "rate of speed" is not only non-economical in terms of words to say, it is also no longer correct.

So, if you write for some news broadcast, and you want to say that a vehicle moves very fast, just say "high speed" and NOT "high rate of speed". If your producer or proof reader disagree, ask him/her to open a physics textbook.

Zz.

More and More Bastardization of Physics

It never ends, does it?

Here's a place where you'll never guess that quantum mechanics can play a direct role - human intimacy!

Unlike traditional therapists, whose work is founded upon centuries old theories of a static, non participatory universe, Schwartz's pioneering and provocative approach to relationships and transformation is based on the emerging sciences and a new world view he calls "Emergent Thinking." His work - informed by quantum physics and chaos theory - says the world, and our relationships, are in a state of constant change, with everything and everyone interacting and intertwining with everything and everyone else.

Oy vey!

Of course, quantum entanglement is bastardized by almost everyone and their grandmothers. Somehow, the fact that quantum entanglement is such a difficult phenomenon to observe and maintain is something that is often neglected. When you blow your nose, did you just cause someone to sneeeze in Africa? Really now!

I often wish that these people who want to make use of QM principle really go see a physics lab that tries to study these things and observe just to what extent we have to set things up just to be able to detect them. These people are clueless! All they see are what they read off the pages of some pop-science articles and think that it is that obvious and simple.

Zz.

What Is It That Makes Us Believers?

This article examines the possible reason that people believe so strongly on things that have no scientific evidence for being valid.

The first reason magical beliefs continue to exist is it feels good to believe in them. It’s a sort of mental stimulation when one thinks there is something magical out there that can’t be explained that is going to show ‘them’ that they’ve been wrong all along.

It’s pleasing to believe that you know of some alternative medical practice that, while irreproducible in science, miraculously heals people while tens of thousands of physicians worldwide ignore it. These things don’t have to be medical, they could even be knowledge of a ‘magnetic’ hill where cars in neutral roll UP hill instead of down. Magic!

The second reason is that once a person buys into many of these beliefs their ego prevents them from deviating from this line of thinking. This is especially true if fundamental religious beliefs tie into these belief systems. Don’t get me wrong, I’m certainly not knocking religion, but in the case of faith healing (I’m talking about the televangelist type of money-grubbing stuff) there is a familiar thread of magical thinking involved.

For me, there's another reason - the inability to differentiate between a valid scientific evidence, versus anecdotal evidence. They don't know the criteria on what constitute a scientific evidence, and WHY we have such criteria.

Zz.

Alternative Medicine and the Laws of Physics

Another classic text on debunking many aspect of alternative medicine. This time it is an essay written by Bob Park, who I will freely admit, is one of my "heroes".

He and Richard Dawkins should get together. :)

Zz.

More Bad Physics

OK, Christmas is over. So no more peace and goodwill towards others. It's time we get back to exposing bad physics!

:)

First of all, I know this is just nitpicking, but I'm in the mood to do one, so here goes a nitpicking.

This blog article in a newspaper describes what the author believe to be the difference in perception of other drivers depending on what car one is driving. He's comparing how he sees other drivers around him react if he's driving a big old Mercury Grand Marquis versus a small car. One of the reason he gave for such differences is this:

First, the size of the car. The bigger the car, the more damage it can do in an accident at any given speed. That is simple physics of energy equals mass times velocity. Not that I think most people are really aware of that.

Well, I'd say not a lot of physicists are aware of that either. "mass times velocity" is MOMENTUM, not "energy".

Like I said, this is nitpicking. However, this is BASIC, simple physics that any high-schoolers would have learned. One should not get something this simple, or this obvious, wrong.

Zz.

Surprise!! More Bastardization of Quantum Mechanics

Remember that I had already mentioned that, when people do not understand the mathematical description of quantum mechanics, they only get to see all of these things appearing out of nowhere, and conclude that anything is possible. What's worse, they can't tell the difference between QM phenomena, and things that come out of mysticism and other psychic pseudoscience. They seem to think that one can easily extrapolate all the "weirdness" of QM into other realm, without any justification that such extrapolation is valid. In other words, they learn about physics in bits and pieces, and ignore the rest, such as the concept of decoherence that I've covered in the last few blog entries here.

If you don't believe me, here's one example. This appears to be a news article out of the Philippines, where they are claiming that there's no difference between what QM is saying, and what mystics are saying.

This negative attitude may soon change. Psychics and mystics have found an unexpected ally within the ranks of a relatively new scientific field called by various names like quantum mechanics, modern physics, particle physics and, lately, quantum physics.

In fact, the way pioneers of quantum physics describe the ultimate nature of physical reality is often indistinguishable from the way mystics talk about it.
This uncanny and incredible parallelism in the thinking of both mystics and modern physicists was not lost on several keen observers of recent developments in science.

These people obviously forgot one VERY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE - EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

I suppose when one is scientifically illiterate, that issue never crossed one's mind.

The "weirdness" of QM are well-tested, not only qualitatively, but also QUANTITATIVELY! And they can be produced almost on demand - just look at your modern electronics. We know QM well enough that we USE it for practical purposes.

Now when was the last time your local neighborhood psychic can produce a transistor?

So yes, there is a HUGE difference. But if you are blind, how can you tell? So the bastardization continues.

Zz.

Another Bastardization of Quantum Mechanics

Again, as with previous cases, someone who barely understands QM is using it to justify some human "intuition" or feelings. This time, it is the bastardization of the principle of quantum entanglement.

Since the universe came into existence, these subatomic particles have been entangled and remain in contact in "no time." The implications are that, instead of being separate and apart from the universe, we are all linked in a cosmic dance with everything, everywhere, near and far. There is no separateness.

I know that from the moment of my birth, I have been entangled in the lives of others, everyone from the nurse in the hospital that fed me, to the old man who gave me directions to the Howard Johnson's in Savannah, to a small brown Moroccan man who brought me some mint tea, to the woman that gave me a son, to the friend who once punched me for being a jerk, to the manager at McDonald's who gave me a job, to the innocent boy who once drew me a picture with broken crayons, to the father and mother who gave me life itself, to the co-worker who bought me a Diet Pepsi when I was a nickel short, to the man who changed my oil, to the nun who scolded me for spitting on a classmate, to the woman who held my hand as I viewed the Mona Lisa, to the Chinese worker who put together the alarm clock in my bedroom, to the policeman who gave me a ticket for not wearing a seat belt, to the dying man who inspired me to run a marathon, to the stranger who smiled while passing me in the grocery store, to the lady who wanted a heater installed, to a Michigan Avenue stranger who needed a few dollars.

We are all irretrievably entangled in each other's lives. There is no separateness.

This ignores the fact that:

1. Entanglement isn't observable at the human scale of classical mechanics

2. Entanglement requires the preservation of COHERENCE between all the entangled entities. Once a measurement or interaction has been made, you lose that coherence and any resemblance of entanglement is long gone!

This person somehow didn't think through on what happened AFTER the measurement is made. Are those 2 photons still in existence? Are they still entangled? The answer is NO. The paper that I just highlighted before this blog entry shows that even an interaction with just ONE other particle is sufficient to destroy the single-particle coherence! It also means that since what we visually see at the classical scale have undergone many interactions with many degrees of freedom. They all have lost coherence and are no longer entangled with anything, and certainly NOT from the very beginning of the universe, thankyouverymuch!

When people bastardize physics like this, they're not doing physics any favor. This is because they have extended physics into the realm of mumbo jumbo that not only trivializes physics, but also its applicability. They have cheapened it with unverified claims and watered down its importance and relevance. When false claims like this continues to be made, eventually no one would believe such a thing anymore. Do the public then remembers who made such stupid claims in the first place, or do they remember and blame the science?

Zz.

Tacoma Narrows Bridge Is Falling Down

So I'm sure everyone has seen the video footage of the infamous Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse. It became a case study of engineering design, and also a lesson in my physics classes.

This news article describes the detailed event leading up to that collapse, involving a few people who were present right before the historical event. While there were no human fatalities, the incident did kill Tubby, a pet dog who was stuck in one of the vehicles left on the bridge that day.

Zz.

Kabbalah is a Science?

Well that's news to me too!

But this expert in Kabbalah seems to think so.

Q: Why do you call Kabbalah a science and not a religion?

A: It's called a science because that is what it is. The wisdom of Kabbalah started about 5,000 years ago in ancient Babylon. At that time, the whole of humanity was connected and they were together as one nation. Egoism began to grow within people; they became more alienated, which then prompted the whole famous story of the Tower of Babylon and all of that.

Now the cure for that was a method that was discovered by a certain individual whom we know today as Abraham. He discovered a method to reconnect people despite the growing egoism.

The method he discovered was a scientific method. In other words, it uses scientific research tools to investigate our own internal mechanism, and that is what we know today as the wisdom of Kabbalah. (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) date much later than the wisdom of Kabbalah and are actually unrelated.

I don't know about you, but NOTHING in there screams "SCIENCE" to me at all. Just because he thinks he can call it a science doesn't make it so. But wait, it gets better...

In addition, Kabbalah is a study. It's like any science . . . There are no objects -- no red strings, holy water, any kind of fortune-telling, mysticism, charms -- none of that belong to authentic Kabbalah, not even meditation. It's just pure study of reality and it enhances your perception of reality to enhance your control over your own life and life in general.

And oh, just when you think it couldn't get any better, he said this:

Q: But there is spirituality?

A: Yes, spirituality is that aspect of reality which is not perceived by our ordinary five senses. The wisdom of Kabbalah simply enhances your perception of reality. It gives you additional tools which you wouldn't acquire otherwise.

Just like physics gives you certain tools, Kabbalah gives you other tools. You need all kinds of sciences to achieve a complete picture of reality. Kabbalah takes you, so to speak, behind the scenes.

Picture it as embroidery. You see a beautiful picture in front of you, of scenery or a flower, something like that. If you turn the embroidery around you see a whole mess of threads. You have to know how the threads are connected to know how to make it into a beautiful flower at the front of the picture. That's what Kabbalah teaches you, how to connect the threads from behind the scenes.

Oh brother! It's a science, but it has "spirituality"? He sees no inconsistencies in that?

I think that he has overestimated his knowledge of what science is. I'd like to know the last time he has performed any scientific experiment to be able to know what a scientific method is. Nowhere in any of his responses was there any mention of experimental verification of anything he's doing, something that is a fundamental pillar of anything to claim itself as a "science".

This claim is worse than that made for Intelligent Design, and I never thought I'd be able to say that.

Zz.