Zombie science: A sinister consequence of evaluating scientific theories purely on the basis of enlightened self-interest

By: Professor Bruce Charlton, Editor-in-Chief of Medical Hypotheses; Emeritus Professor of Public Policy at the University of California and Reader in Evolutionary Psychiatry at the University of Newcastle (UK).

"Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations;

the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice.

In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status. The classic account has it that bogus theories should readily be demolished by sceptical (or jealous) competitor scientists.

However, in practice even the most conclusive ‘hatchet jobs’ may fail to kill, or even weaken, phoney hypotheses when they are backed-up with sufficient economic muscle in the form of lavish and sustained funding.

And when a branch of science based on phoney theories serves a useful but non-scientific purpose, it may be kept-going indefinitely by continuous transfusions of cash from those whose interests it serves.

If this happens, real science expires and a ‘zombie science’ evolves.

Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down. It keeps twitching and lumbering around so that (from a distance, and with your eyes half-closed) zombie science looks much like the real thing. But in fact the zombie has no life of its own; it is animated and moved only by the incessant pumping of funds.

If zombie science is not scientifically-useable – what is its function?

In a nutshell, zombie science is supported because it is useful propaganda to be deployed in arenas such as political rhetoric, public administration, management, public relations, marketing and the mass media generally.

It persuades, it constructs taboos, it buttresses some kind of rhetorical attempt to shape mass opinion.

Indeed, zombie science often comes across in the mass media as being more plausible than real science; and it is precisely the superficial face-plausibility which is the sole and sufficient purpose of zombie science."

The above abstract can also be read here

More from Professor Bruce Charlton:

“This is ‘enlightened self-interest’ a powerful factor in scientific evaluation because the primary criterion of the ‘validity’ of a theory is whether or not acting upon it will benefit the career of the scientist;

“Theories may become popular or even dominant purely because of their association with immediate incentives and despite their scientific weaknesses”.

If you want to read the whole article by Margaret Williams with a large number of more quotes from Professor Bruce Charlton and some utter silliness about CFS, for example comparing it with anorexia nervosa, whoch is what the CBT gang are planning, to give the idea that CFS is a psychiatric disease, now doesn’t that remind me of the way the RCGP went about their business and then later came back as dishonesty and misleading are not on the list of duties of a doctor as defined by the GMC.

But apparently psychiatrists are not ruled by the GMC nor have they sworn the Hippocratic oath…………

You can read Margaret’s article here….

And what did the professor say:

“it is precisely the superficial face-plausibility which is the sole and sufficient purpose of zombie science.”

And when he talks about the ‘enlightened self-interest’ which is a powerful factor in the world of CBT as we all bloody well know and by the way, is he actually talking about the the real Functional Bullshit Syndrome as defined by the doctors when they talked about Functional Symptoms in their ACNR article ??

And how would Mr Clarkson solve this problem? Well very simple actually, he would ….