We learn this courtesy of Physics World and metallurgists Tim Foecke and Jennifer Hooper McCarty, who trawled through some old shipyard records ahead of the centennial of the Titanic's sinking to produce an article which you must pay to read - and a press release which is free. This has naturally been picked up and reprocessed elsewhere by other publications all across the science beat.In other Junk Science news, it seems that The Journal Of Irreproduceable Results has some competition - from the entire scientific publishing industry:
...
Even so, though, you might be saying to yourself: this is thin stuff. These are not proper reasons for people to be going on about the Titanic under the headings of "news" and "science". These "scientific discoveries" about rivets and conjunctions etc are plainly being fabricated in advance and put out on a pre-determined timetable.
But that doesn't happen with proper science news, of course - oh, wait.
Actually it does, certainly the predetermined-schedule bit. Science news deemed to be of any significance is almost always released to the mass media under scheduled embargo agreements dictated by the major specialist publishers. Quite why they get to be in charge (even to the point of bossing around agencies such as NASA) is something of a mystery as they don't pay for the science to get done, nor for it to be peer-reviewed, though they are at least notionally in charge of supervising the peer reviewing. The publishers do get to charge hefty sums for access to the papers that they often hype so aggressively, however, a fact which handicaps scientists in doing their work and costs taxpayers even more (it's the taxpayers who pay for the research and editing, and then again for scientists to read the papers thereafter).
All this means that science "news" for laypersons is one of the most debased forms of reporting there is, with spoon-fed hacks mostly processing what they're given by a mixture of university, funding-agency and and publishing PRs with very little question - and we here on the Reg boffinry desk should know.
During a decade as head of global cancer research at Amgen, C. Glenn Begley identified 53 "landmark" publications - papers in top journals, from reputable labs - for his team to reproduce. Begley sought to double-check the findings before trying to build on them for drug development.In entirely unrelated news, conservatives are idiots for being skeptical of the scientific community, while liberals are Einsteins for swallowing this pap with nary a glance sideways.
Result: 47 of the 53 could not be replicated.
Seems that the reason the Titanic's rivets are suddenly suspect is the same as the reason that the experiments couldn't be replicated: any spurious finding, no matter how implausible or unreproduceable can be "news worthy" is you have the right PR firm. But hey, someone padded their scientific resume and maybe even got tenure - particularly if they pulled in some sweet, sweet grant funding. Amgen needs investment to pay, but grant money doesn't.
And pay no attention to the Climate Science over in the corner. It's all settled, I tell you, settled! It was peer-reviewed and everything.
Got to go now - it's those pesky Deniers, back on my lawn. If only I could be so clever as the liberals, they'd go bother someone else ...
It's not that fall that kills you, but the ground at the bottom...
ReplyDeleteThe chief did not mention this, so I will:
ReplyDeleteThe invaluable Retraction Watch, for all your retracted scientific paper needs.
It's probably uncouth to point out that the Olympic, Titanic's sister ship, sailed along just fine with similar steel and rivets until retired in 1935.
ReplyDeleteThe scientific illiteracy alone in the "Teh Ebul Reich Wingerz Don't Trust Teh Science!" is proof enough to me that those evil right wingers are right to not trust the scientific community.
ReplyDeleteThe first, and most important thing that they did was phrased a question that read "Do you trust the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY" and then, when the results came back as "no" they published a result that said that people that checked "no" in that box "don't trust SCIENCE".
Of course, no cognitive recognition of the fact that there is a huge difference between trusting the scientific community and trusting science, itself.
If, for example, you trust in science completely, but do not feel confident that the scientific community is engaged in good, scientific study, you would check "no", without distrusting "science". I'm of the opinion that very little of what the scientific community regurgitates has anything at all to do with science. So I guess according to their study, i don't trust "science" either.
The funny thing is that the biases in their own study proved the other side's point and defeated their golas perfectly, and they either can't see it, or are dishonest enough to not care.
And the Space Shuttle was actually destroyed in-launch by a Sino-Soviet low-decible sound-laser set to a special frequency that caused the O-rings to delaminate and burst apart while simultaneously an orbiting vacuum-diaphram magnetonic device on the orbiting Mir platform was tele-porting the crew safely to an underground bunker in Valdiviostok where they are still enjoying robot-sex and free ice-cream today...
ReplyDeleteLousy science indeed, but the article did keep its audience riveted.
ReplyDeleteThe problems began when the liberals destroyed the church. Say what you want - the faith was a great way to control stupid people. You could invoke the wrath of God to make them behave, syphon their wallets and control their their idiot children.
ReplyDeleteToday our moral and intellectual superiors have no such recourse. They will try to use science to control us...and yes, they may have to bend it and twist it a bit like they did with the faith...but who cares as long as the peons fall in line?
Needless to say, you libertarians are going to be a PITA to our moral authorities regardless of their means and methods.
;)
The church only had a feeble priest, often and easily killed, reciting from an often burned book a very recent story about ethics.
ReplyDeleteThe OldChurch that was all about control reigned for 10,000 years , raining down a deadley-serious Wrath of God in blood and bodies and Total Priestly Control from giant Pagan monuments like stone pyramids and earthen circles, where human child and adult sacrifice marked the calendar in blood-rites and feast-days of just to keep the World turning and the Darkness away (sound familiar, EarthDay anyone?) - a time to which we seem to be nostalgically returning by our same "superiors" - any port in a storm, and any philosophy in Control is their motto...
Oh nevermind.
I dunno, there is an article in Mechanical Engineering April 2012 issue, and they have analyzed the steel brought up from the Titanic. They make a good case for why it fractured instead of bending when it it the iceberg.Even a relatively small change in temperature can affect the mechanical properties of steel. The steel appears to be of inconsistent quality, as some samples showed more ductility than others, and some had high levels of sulfur,oxygen and phosphorous.
ReplyDeleteThe answer is don't hit icebergs with your boat.
You want to know why they published a Titanic report all of a sudden? It's because Titanic the Movie is being re-released in theaters with a spiffy corrected sky. It's "relevant" ya know. 100th anniversary of the sinking and such.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about these reports with the "bad steel" and "bad rivets" and such is that they don't seem to understand that this was the best they had beck then. Metalurgy has come a long way in 100 years. 100 years ago, when you ordered steel, you got what you got, and engineers had to construct their designs to fit the requirements of the materials that they built with. Modern ships are much lighter, sleeker, and more slender than the Titanic because they can use a lot less high-quality modern steel to perform the same function as the low quality, non-ductile brittle crap they used back in 1912.
ReplyDeleteSo the rivets weren't "bad". They just sucked by today's standards, but by the standards of the day, they were just like every other rivet out there.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if they hadn't run into an iceberg, the Titanic would not have sunk. That is your cause.
ReplyDeleteDr. J.'s biggest paper's data was not only replicated but validated by a different method. That's always a GOOD feeling.
ReplyDelete