Years ago, the consensus of the severe weather researchers was that the twister from The Wizard of Oz would not sweep side-to-side as seen on the film.

A NOVA broadcast featured Howard Blue Stein, a tornado researcher. There was footage of a substantial rope tornado…..whose bottom end kept stretching away from the road–while the base stayed rather still.

Just this year, there was striking footage of a tornado that writhed more violently than the windsock used in Wizard-

one of the biggest problems in finding ET life is that despite some very inventive science fiction, in 2025 we know a lot of chemistry and it appears increasingly unlikely anything other than amino groups can be easily manipulated into storing the information necessary to hold the instructions to build a self-replicating organism

Ball lightning—if it exists—may be very difficult to reproduce.

Social sciences should get zero public funding—but I think all kids need to go to vocational school whether people like it or not.

Failure to replicate should not mean you *never* revisit a topic. A lot of discoveries come from stubborn people.

Dick Eagleson wrote, “The obvious way to settle this controversy was to replicate the bloody work and to make extra sure the glassware was all clean to a very high standard first. Neither the original research team nor, it seems, any of their detractors, have seen fit, in the intervening 15 years, to do this obvious thing.”

This is not true. In my post I linked to two studies that attempted to replicate the findings and failed. That is where the matter should have ended. The original research was interesting, but it had not been confirmed.

That the scientists don’t feel satisfied with this entirely good scientific result speaks badly of the science field. As you say, they no longer see research as the solution. Instead, they prefer to rely on authority and blacklisting.

The obvious way to settle this controversy was to replicate the bloody work and to make extra sure the glassware was all clean to a very high standard first. Neither the original research team nor, it seems, any of their detractors, have seen fit, in the intervening 15 years, to do this obvious thing.

I am given to understand that replication of results is considered passe these days in much of the “scientific community.” Everyone wants to do original work, not mere replication – and to do the original work only once, apparently.

Things have gotten so bad in certain fields – notably psychology and sociology – that attempted replication of iffy results – of which there is no shortage in both fields – is now obtaining a status roughly equal to that of “original” research given how often the results of the replication diverge consequentially from those reported in the original publications.

The “harder” sciences would, it seems, also benefit from such a reformation movement. But “hard” science research is typically a lot more expensive than psychology or sociology research. With all of the grant money at stake, the motives of academic grifters to keep their grifts going handily exceeds the motivation of honest researchers to keep things honest. That is especially true given that the grifter class also tends to pretty much be the tenured boss researcher class.

One hopes that the Trump administration’s fist-in-the-face approach to reforming academe bears some significant fruit in this regard, but given the extent of the rot, it is difficult to be more than quite cautiously optimistic in that regard. We shall see what we shall see.

If you can get into a pile of anti-social nerds and geeks and social engineer ‘success…’

Instead of carbon and water, silicon and ammonia might work.

We breathe oxygen and eat carbon fuels. On Titan–maybe life breathes carbon but eats oxygen/water?

Arsenic is a useful chemical–and not just for those with Old Lace.

I even remember a book that talked about how a Jack-the-Ripper suspect ate arsenic –and stopping would have killed him.

“Lying increases trust in science, study finds”
by Bangor University

“Research by philosopher of science and Honorary Research Associate at Bangor University, Byron Hyde, looked at the role of transparency in fostering public trust in science.”

“The paper, published in the journal Theory & Society, starts by outlining the “bizarre phenomenon” known as the transparency paradox: that transparency is needed to foster public trust in science, but being transparent about science, medicine and government can also reduce trust.”

“Hyde argues that, to find a solution to this paradox, it is important to consider what institutions are being transparent about.”

“The study revealed that, while transparency about good news increases trust, transparency about bad news, such as conflicts of interest or failed experiments, decreases it.”

“Therefore, one possible solution to the paradox, and a way to increase public trust, is to lie (which Hyde points out is unethical and ultimately unsustainable), by for example making sure bad news is hidden and that there is always only good news to report.”

Now, this could go in one of two ways–

A.) This is evidence that some scientists don’t like being questioned
B.) Some bloody fool young-earther creationist crank or other snuck this past–which is also galling, and proof that the gatekeepers are letting garbage through either way