Archivo de mayo, 2016

Dr Sutton’s case in favor of Science

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mi comentario al artículo del  Prof. Mike Sutton en Bestthinking:

The De Facto “MacDarwin Industry” and it’s Member’s Pseudo-Scholarly Corporate Denial of the Very Existence of Uncomfortable New Facts

One of the major problems of contemporary Science is fraud: The extension of it and the lack of adequate mechanisms to stop and prevent it.

But fraud is not reduced to several hundred (or thousand) cases where results are invented, data modified or figures falsified according to the convenience of the authors. Fraud is not even limited to cases where articles in peer review journals, or even whole journals, are produced to satisfy particular interests.

Scientific fraud has profound causes that need to be investigated and uncovered. Some of them concern abusive use of language and excess of importance given to tradition. Both abuse of language and excessive support of tradition, can be done in favour of an authority, whose arguments are not anymore scientific.

Fraud includes also to copy, plagiarise results or ideas of another scientist.

Pierre Flourens (1794-1867), founder of Neurobiology and perpetual secretary of the Academy of Sciences of France during decades, in his book entitled Examen du livre de M Darwin sur l’Origine des Especes (1864) wrote:

Le fait est que Lamarck est le père de M. Darwin. Il a commencé son système.

Toutes les idées de Lamarck sont, au fond, celles de M. Darwin. M. Darwin ne le dit pas d’abord; il a trop d’art pour cela. Il effaroucherait son lecteur, et il veut le séduire; mais, quand il juge le moment venu, il le dit nettement et formellement.

(The fact is that Lamarck is the father of M. Darwin. He was who began his system.

All of Lamarck’s ideas are, basically, those of Mr. Darwin. Mr. Darwin did not say it first, he had too much art to say it. It would have frightened his readers, and what he wanted was to seduce them, but the moment arrived, he says it clearly and formally.)

In fact, at the time of publication of The Origin of Species, it was known that Darwin had copied from Lamarck, who was the first to develop a theory of Evolution, more than he recognized in his book. It was also known that Darwin had copied from Patrick Matthew and from Edward Blyth, who wrote about Natural Selection before Darwin, without giving to these authors due credit in The Origin of Species.

To solve these questions, from the third edition of The Origin of Species Darwin wrote an Historical Sketch that is included before the Introduction and by which he tries to give credit to many authors he apparently “forgot” to quote properly in the course of the book.

Nevertheless though obvious for some, it was not so generally known that Darwin had read a book by PierreTrémaux, whose information he used in the Origin of Species without quoting the author. Trémaux is not even mentioned in the Historical Sketch.

Darwin copied. That was known at the time of publication of The Origin of Species. But in Science to know is not enough. Once you know something, you have to give proofs of it. And proofs depend of the technologies available at each moment.

Now, new technologies of information search in the Internet, have allowed Dr Sutton to prove that indeed Darwin copied from Patrick Matthew.

The data obtained by Dr Sutton and the way he has presented the results, in a book and a peer review scientific journal, are impeccable.

But now it seems that these results are not of the taste of the establishment. The scientific establishment (SE) wants, it seems, to maintain Darwin as the founding father of Evolution while the founding father of Evolution is Lamarck. The SE also wants to maintain Darwin as the inventor of Natural Selection. But! 1) The inventor of Natural Selection is Patrick Matthew and 2) Natural Selection is an erroneous concept that results from the mistake of confounding selection with breeding, demonstrating the lack of understanding of the role of selection in the breeding process.Selection is limited to the farms and there is no selection in nature. The farm is never a model for nature.

In his book, Pierre Flourens also indicated that Darwin was abusing of language and that Natural Selection was an erroneous concept (he called in French natural election to remark the oxymoron).

Playing with words is one of the main strategies of the authority (SE) to maintain a position of force. But in science, scientific authority is also oxymoron, because the only authority in science (SE) must be based in reason, not in word games.

Not surprisingly then, one of the first effects of confronting Darwinism that Dr Sutton has experienced, has been the confrontation with the Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia, the Newspeak Dictionary that Orwell predicted in his novel 1984, is an important strategy made by the Party to maintain the authority. The authority of the Party is interested in maintaining Darwin and Natural Selection at the basis of Science. But Darwin copied from Matthew and Natural Selection is an oxymoron, a play of words that only generates much confusion.

Dr Sutton has published results showing that Darwin copied from Matthew. One would expect the general recognition of these results and as a consequence, many letters and articles of apologies and retractations by those authors that defend Darwin or have quoted him in the place where Matthew should be quoted. But what we see is completely different:

Instead or receiving acknowledgments for his discoveries, resulting of a well done work, Dr Sutton receives insults.

This is, unfortunately, the only signal that indicates the quality and irrefutability of Dr Sutton discovery. Insults only demonstrate the absence of arguments against Dr Sutton discoveries, i.e. claim the absence of arguments in defense of Darwin. Darwin copied.

It may take a longtime to recognize in the Scientific World that Darwin copied. This information is not coming from the sermon of a Creationist, but from hard and methodic work. The problem is that Pierre Flourens already wrote it in 1864.

Etiquetas:

XVII JORNADA CIENTÍFICA DE ADEBIR: VITICULTURA DE PRECISIÓN

ADEBIR 2016

VITICULTURA DE PRECISIÓN
Las nuevas tecnologías basadas en el análisis de imagen tienen múltiples aplicaciones en el campo de la viticultura.
La combinación de vehículos no tripulados terrestres y aéreos con métodos de análisis de imagen infrarroja y multiespectral se aplica a la
determinación del estado fisiológico de la viña y su vigor ayudando a realizar las vendimias en el momento óptimo.
Los drones ayudan a los viticultores suministrando imágenes infrarrojas que, después de ser sometidas a un tratamiento informático, establecen un mapa de vigor del viñedo, determinando el estado sanitario de las hojas de las viñas, la actividad clorofílica, su contenido en antocianos o su estrés hídrico, aportando, por tanto, indicadores precisos de la madurez óptima y calidad de las uvas, para, por ejemplo, decidir, si fuere necesario, el aplazamiento o adelanto de la vendimia.
La dosificación variable de abonos y fitosanitarios, el mantenimiento de los suelos o la poda individualizada, son otras decisiones que se pueden tomar a partir de los datos obtenidos. Asímismo facilitan la detección de plagas y la evaluación de daños.
Las imágenes tomadas por los drones durante todo el año permiten adaptar el trabajo de los viticultores de forma cotidiana, y llevar a cabo todas las tareas inspirándose en mapas de
productividad.

 

Viernes, 13 de mayo de 2016.

Salón de Actos de la  Biblioteca de La Rioja. c/ La Merced 1. Logroño.

16h.
Bienvenida.
Director del IER.
Director del Área de Ciencias Naturales.
Directiva de ADEBIR.
16h.
30 min. “Drones como plataforma para la gestión del viñedo”. Hipólito Medrano. Universidad de las Islas Baleares.
17h. 30 min. Monitorización desde vehiculos terrestres no tripulados: Javier Tardáguila (Universidad de la Rioja).

 

18 30. Asamblea General Ordinaria de ADEBIR.
Discusión de perspectivas.
Balance económico.
Proyectos en marcha.
Ruegos y preguntas.

 

 

Etiquetas:

Conferencia-Debate sobre el fraude científico. El fraude científico a la luz del Método Científico

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

En algunas actividades humanas existen estrictos códigos de conducta. A nadie le resultará difícil indicar ejemplos. Pero: ¿Es este el caso en la Investigación Científica?

Si no lo fuese ¿Cómo sería posible, no ya denunciar, si no ya ni siquiera detectar el fraude?

La observación de un motorista a 100 por hora en una calle en donde la velocidad está limitada a 60 hace saltar nuestros resortes: ¡Infracción! , ¡Multa!

Pero…: ¿Cuándo saltarán dichos resortes en un caso de fraude científico?

El simple planteamiento de la cuestión nos proporciona ya una información interesante: El Método científico existe. En ciencia no vale actuar de cualquier modo.  Es necesario respetar un método.

Ahora bien ¿Cuáles son las principales características del Método Científico?

Ciencia -> Método (Respeto) -> Lenguaje (claridad) -> Originalidad:

  • Modelos
  • Valores y jerarquía

 

Se discutirán tres artículos sobre el Fraude Científico:

 

1. Henry Bauer. Science in the 21st Century: Knowledge Monopolies and Research Cartels. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 18 (4), 643-660, 2004. Traducción de Emilio Cervantes disponible en plataforma Moodle de la asignatura y en Digital CSIC.

 

2. Brey Abalo, JJ. El fraude en la investigación científica.

 

3. Bosch, X. Historia reciente del fraude en la investigación biomédica.

 

 

Etiquetas: