yueliusd07017的个人博客分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/yueliusd07017

博文

历史的车轮经常倒转

已有 809 次阅读 2024-5-8 09:06 |系统分类:科研笔记

1 历史的车轮滚滚向前,不可阻挡

“Beyond these considerations, the importance of many of the more recent developments cannot be evaluated objectively at this time. The history of mathematics teaches us that many subjects which aroused tremendous enthusiasm and engaged the attention of the best mathematicians ultimately faded into oblivion ... Indeed one of the interesting questions that the history answers is what survives in mathematics. History makes its own and sounder evaluations.” --Morris Kline, Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, Oxford University Press, 1972, ISBN 0-19-506136-5 引申:历史是最公正的。历史反复证明,那些在当世喧嚣尘上的东西往往是主流学者刻意炒作的糟粕,而那些被当世打压的经常是真金白银。 Expansion: History serves as the ultimate arbiter. It consistently reveals that what is often overemphasized by the prominent scholars of an era is often merely the intentional promotion of mediocrity, while that which is suppressed by the prevailing contemporary scholars often reveals itself to be authentic and of true value.

2 历史经常倒退

但是我们的世界是一个复杂的世界,历史的车轮经常倒转,

朝代的循环更迭就是证据之一。

当正确的理论和错误的理论相遇,并不是正确的理论总能胜出。

并不是多数人认同的都是正确的;

所有的审稿人和期刊都拒绝的稿件并不一定不是优秀的稿件。

"秀才遇上兵,有理说不出“不是秀才的表达能力不行

不要相信人们总是站在正确的一边;

https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1044

A considerable number of individuals are inclined to align with authority, seemingly believing that this aligning somehow validates their own greatness.

在科学上,原来已经有正确的理论,但后来被错误理论取代的事情经常发生。

"One of the interesting phenomena is that wrong understanding can become dominant for long after the establishment of a correct theory

Misuse of a textbook principle has been identified 91 times among different publications by different research groups [5]

The problems in Le Chatelier's principle have been identified for long [6], but the wrong principle is still taught in modern classrooms. 

The concepts concerning the Gibbs–Duhem Equation were originally established correctly [7]However, these concepts have been misunderstood, and manuscripts with the correct interpretations were rejected for publication, while those with the wrong understanding have been numerously published [8]. This has led to the related corrections becoming difficult [9]

Current theories of microwave absorption have confused film with material [1][10] though the two are distinctively different [11][12]. This confusion has resulted in the film parameter reflection loss RL being used to characterize the absorption of material [1][10][13 - 36] while it should be used to characterize the absorption from metal-backed film other than from material [11][37][38]. The confusion is caused by a misinterpretation of transmission line theory, though, when correctly used, it can provide the correct electromagnetic theory for microwaves. This confusion has caused many problems with the interpretation of experimental data, but in order to solve these problems, research has not been directed to correct the confusion but into developing wrong concepts such as those involving impedance matching theory, the quarter-wavelength theory, and the wrong absorption mechanism for film [11][37 - 43]. A large number of papers have been published in which experimental data has been used unconvincingly to support these wrong theories. Only recently have the problems been identified and solved by the establishment of the new wave mechanics theories for microwave absorption [11][40][42][44] which has been shown to interpret experimental data more accurately than current theories [11][37][38][40][45]

In this work, problems in ref. [46] associated with the wrong theories are discussed in detail. Although these wrong theories have already dominated the field for a long time with a great number of papers published [1][13][14][47 - 50], their corrections can be easily done from basic principles of wave mechanics at the college level, and the issues are important since the conclusions of those published results are not reliable."

---- [Commentary] Comments on: “A perspective on impedance matching and resonance absorption mechanism for electromagnetic wave absorbing” by Hou et al. [Carbon 222 (2024) 118935] - Article (Preprint v1) by Yue Liu et al. | Qeios

中文翻译和注释:

一个有趣的现象是,

在建立正确的理论之后,与之相对立的错误理论随后可能战胜以前的正确理论,

并且错误理论会在很长一段时间内占据主导地位。

牛顿时代,科学家有纯纯的科学研究动机,

牛顿时代的科学家更重视用建立在数学逻辑基础上的理论研究,重视用理论方法揭示实验现象背后的本质,

因而牛顿时代建立了众多伟大的理论学科。

然而现代科学更加功利,不愿意下功夫做理论研究,热衷于用高精尖的仪器做表面文章,

因此少有能与牛顿时代建立的理论相媲美的新理论在现代科学中产生。

因为主流科学家没有真学问,学术造假日益严重。

图片误用的鉴别是个技术活,因此很多图片误用被鉴别出来。

但是鉴别文章结论是否有错,

鉴别文章是不是垃圾,

需要真正的学术水平,

但是现代科学家缺乏这种学术鉴别能力,他们的学术欣赏能力被严重扭曲。

主流科学家的学术鉴别力是根据文章发表期刊的等级鉴别文章的质量

文章质量可以用影响因子评估吗 

不能用文章发表期刊的等级来判断论文的学术质量 

伟大的科学常常因为需要超越主流公认的科学而被嘲笑

高被引的文章并不代表是好文章 

排行凸显的高他引论文鲜有原创 

颠覆性成果很难发表在顶刊 

垃圾文章的大量产出导致的问题不仅仅是虚假繁荣 

为什么当代出版实践扭曲了科学 

因为自己心虚,担心自己文章出现基本原理的错误被别人揭露,

他们集体建立潜规则,不容许别人纠错。

科学就是质疑;你好,我好,大家都好就不会有科学 

Vazire, S., 2020. A toast to the error detectors. Nature. 577, 9.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03909-2

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42452-020-2498-5

Most researchers are keen in reporting new experimental results and this can be achieved quickly and relatively easily with the resource of state-of-the-art equipment. A minority are more interested in using their experimental data to clarify current theories or develop new ones. This latter type of work can be difficult, time-consuming, and requires solid knowledge in science. However, the former type of research has become dominant nowadays with the result that reporting experimental results has become the norm and advances in theory are seldom to be found in the literature. The most obvious reason for this disparity is that experimental results with eye-catching presentations are often exciting and attractive; [16] and can therefore be considered as more important than theoretical work which can seem dull and too basic since real understanding usually originates from the rudiments of science established long before. For example, the passive film proposal for metal protection based on the anodic polarization has already entered textbooks because it seemed that a problem had been resolved and the solution was satisfactory. But the proposal has flaws which can be readily fixed by using the concepts of college physics [17]. A further example is the widely applied concept of reflection loss RL in the field of material research but the currently accepted practices contradicts basic principles in physics [18,19,20,21,22]. As a result, theoretical gaps have developed between the published work of researchers in microwave absorbing materials and microwave engineers.

The imbalance between the aims of research work has developed presumably because most researchers believe publishing many papers on experimental results provides a clearer career path compared to theoretical work which can be incomplete and needs ratification from experiments [2324]. Thus, there is less enthusiasm for reviewing published experimental data [25] since to comprehend theoretical background needs a lot of previous training and it is hard work even to learn from textbooks. However, theoretical research can be worthwhile and generally helpful to the experimentalists. For example, based on the rudiments of crystal structure of ferrites,[2627] their synthetism has been optimized to achieve better results [2829]. After theoretical considerations, the relationship between Fourier series expansion in mathematics and Hückel theory in chemistry has been revealed [30]. Lacking interest in fundamental theory can lead to problems in academic honesty [31,32,33,34,35] and mistakes [1,2,3,4,57,8,9,10,1117,18,19,20,21,22] in publications, originating from the fact that researchers are, perhaps necessarily, too eager for the next publication.

-----  Ying LiuYue Liu, Drew MGB. Review: Clarifications of concepts concerning interplanar spacing in crystals with reference to recent publicationsSN Applied Sciences 2020 , 2(4) 755.

https://link.altmetric.com/details/78519714/twitter

image.png

Taylor Smith:

“Keeping this in my back pocket for the next time someone asks “but why do we have to learn theory?

嫦娥奔月、葫芦娃成为顶刊甚至Nature和Science的封面文章。过分鼓吹没有根基的胡思乱想和异想天开,

鼓励华而不实的研究态度。

跟风研究鲜有创新。

在索然无味和热火朝天的有趣工作之间,前者更值得投入毕生精力

实验的目的是取得理论认知

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0H-amOti_o

Why You Should Never Say "It's Just A Theory"

现代科学界真正的同行评审几乎已经死亡

对于大多数主流权威犯的浅显而严重的错误视而不见是现代科学界的一个严重问题

在科学上,多数人的错误(无论是学术上的还是学术道德上的),能不能纠正

一个鼓吹创新、蔑视继承的时代是标新立异、不承认他人工作的时代

做学问更是为了继承人类最优秀的成果,其次才是创新(科学研究的指导思想)

坚持基础研究,做有科学意义的工作(做学问的哲理)

对于颠覆主流科学家观点的稿件,无论怎么写,通常都不可能通过期刊同行评审

在错误的语言体系中呆久了的主流科学家不能理解正确语言体系中的语言表达和逻辑思维

化学不是实验科学、物理不是实验科学、正确的理论才是检验科学的唯一标准

“只有实验验证了的理论才能被认可”的意思是不认可理论研究

现代科学研究欠缺的是对理论研究的重视

不尊重民间科学是现代科学圈的一个严重问题

在不同研究小组的不同出版物中,滥用一个教科书原理,在不同期刊、不同课题组的文章中已发现91次。

因为主流科学家不重视理论,低看教课书水平的知识,他们对教科书的理解只是望文生义,

因此在基础理论方面的错误屡见不鲜。甚至同一个低级错误屡次发生,得不到及时纠正.

学术圈某种意义上像是个派系林立的“江湖”,学术权威如同“教主”一样,普通学者没有力量反抗其观点。

 随着发表的错误论文越来越多,跟风研究的越来越多,大家都成了既得利益者,

就默许了这些错误的观点继续流传下去。" 

———— 科技日报,2018-10-18 第01版:今日要闻,骗了全世界十余年 干细胞“学术大牛”走下神坛

https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1614619477235832974&wfr=spider&for=pc

https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1614619476870888302

https://www.rmzxb.com.cn/c/2018-10-18/2193148.shtml

体现现代主流学术研究者理论水平极低,真伪鉴别能力极差。

勒夏特利耶原理的问题早已被发现,但现代课堂上仍然教授这个错误的原理。

  1. Liu Y, Liu Y, Drew MGB. A mathematical approach to chemical equilibrium theory for gaseous systems—I: theoryJournal of Mathematical Chemistry 2012 , 51(2) 715-740.

  2. Liu Y, Liu Y, Drew MGB. A mathematical approach to chemical equilibrium theory for gaseous systems—II: extensions and applicationsJournal of Mathematical Chemistry 2012 , 51(2) 741-762.

  3. Liu Y, Drew MGB, Liu Y. A mathematical approach to chemical equilibrium theory for gaseous systems—III: Qp,Qc,and QxJournal of Mathematical Chemistry 2014 , 52(5) 1191-1200.

  4. Liu Y, Liu Y, Drew MGB. A mathematical approach to chemical equilibrium theory for gaseous systems IV: a mathematical clarification of Le Chatelier's principleJournal of Mathematical Chemistry 2015 , 53(8) 1835-1870.

关于Gibbs-Duhem方程的概念最初是正确的。然而,这些概念被误解了,

有正确理解的稿件被拒绝发表,而错误理解的文章则被大量发表。这导致相关的纠正错误变得艰难。

image.png

  1. Liu Ying, Liu Yue, Drew Michael G. B. Natural mathematical derivation of the Gibbs-Duhem Equation related to ΔG and ∂G/∂ξ, International Journal of Thermophysics, 2022, 43, 73 doi: 10.1007/s10765-022-02998-y. Natural Mathematical Derivation of the Gibbs-Duhem Equation, 2022-03-10 | Preprint, Research Square, DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1061987/v1

目前的微波吸收理论将薄膜与材料混为一谈,尽管两者截然不同。

这种混淆导致薄膜参数反射损耗RL被用于表征材料的吸收,

而它应该用于表征金属背衬薄膜的吸收,而不是材料。

这种混淆是由对传输线理论的错误应用引起的,

传输线理论为微波提供正确的电磁理论。

这种混淆在解释实验数据方面造成了许多问题,

但为了解决这些问题,研究没有向着纠正这种混淆的方向发展,而是向更加错误的方向发展,

进一步建立了错误的理论,

例如建立了错误的阻抗匹配理论、错误的四分之一波长理论,和错误的膜吸收机理。

尽管正确的微波吸收机理早就被传输线理论搞明白了,

最近已经发表了大量的论文重新发现传输线理论的正确结果

并拓展成一门新的膜微波吸收波动力学(新的膜物理学),

这个新理论是现代科学中建立的为数不多,能与牛顿时代建立的科学学科相媲美的新学科理论。

这个新理论切题而简单,(原来的错误理论有严重的理论偏离,因而其论证过程复杂难懂、充满错误)

详见纠错文章:

  1. Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Drew M.G.B, A re-evaluation of the mechanism of microwave absorption in film  Part 3: Inverse relationshipMater. Chem. Phys2022, 290, 126521.

  2. Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, A physics investigation on impedance matching theory in microwave absorption film—Part 2: Problem AnalysesJournal of Applied Physics2023, 134(4), 045304, DOI: 10.1063/5.0153612

这个新理论不需要高深的物理和数学,

物理不超过大学普通物理,

数学主要是合并同类相之类的初中数学技巧。

但是主流科学家就是看不懂,

他们仍然坚持错误理论,在主流期刊上大量发表基于错误理论的微波吸收文章,

他们的文章根本不提反方观点,

似乎只要忽视你,你就不会成为真理。

也许他们认为发表才是硬道理,

他们不在意发表错误文章,

他们的哲学也许是“要错大家一起错,我不会承担任何责任。”

明知是错误的文章,仍然坚持发表,是恶劣的学术不端

也许审稿人已经知道这个理论体系错了,

但是为了冲淡自己发表的错误文章,他们鼓励更多的错误文章发表。

因此当新的正确观点发表后,应用错误旧理论的文章更容易发表了。

鼓励别人发表错误文章以冲淡自己的错误是更恶劣的学术不端。

大多数主流科学家的同行评审学术不端是比“图片误用”更恶劣的学术不端

面对利益和真理,主流科学家更珍视前者

他们中有物理专业出身的、有微波工程专业出身的,

但是对于大学普通物理水平的纠错,已经被指出的错误,他们都没有真伪鉴别能力。

现代学术研究已经沦陷为做学术游戏

3 其它链接

http://finance.sina.com.cn/hy/20131119/105717365753.shtml

http://finance.sina.com.cn/hy/20131119/105717365756.shtml

张维迎:创新就是大部分人都不认同的想法

https://www.wenmi.com/article/puj98i03nn9k.html

多数人认同的不叫创新

https://www.yicai.com/news/5345088.html

许小年:创新没有风口,凡是追逐风口的行为都不是创新https://www.sass.org.cn/_s3/_t31/2008/1229/c1201a26145/page.psp

但“创新”意味着与众不同,公认的东西往往是常识

https://news.ifeng.com/c/7fcJvZmKtue

学术评价与学术程序的质量都取决于学术共同体的质量 颠覆传统理论的创新会在高引论文中产生吗?有那么高共识的论文能是颠覆性创新吗?

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/AyrjTS71DImtO3HQy-irfw

受不了了!在论文修改了5次之后,作者终于“怒怼”了审稿人!没想到这篇回复竟发了SCI

https://zhidao.baidu.com/question/1438671826557224739.html

https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1669193669905192103&wfr=spider&for=pc

https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1730445894371096545&wfr=spider&for=pc

https://www.163.com/dy/article/EESVUABL053780N4.html

https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1653433345458611991&wfr=spider&for=pc

http://www.360doc.com/content/19/0320/16/60903167_822931855.shtml

https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1702780539389791265&wfr=spider&for=pc

为何近几十年来,物理学已经没有重大突破或者发现了 原因是现代科学只重视依靠仪器的实验研究,

不像牛顿时代重视用数学揭示实验现象背后的本质的理论研究。

另外,同行评审制度打压,使突破传统理论的创新发表不出了。



https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3589443-1433119.html

上一篇:现代学术研究已经沦陷为做学术游戏
下一篇:科学界能搞出大量实验数据支持错误理论
收藏 IP: 39.152.24.*| 热度|

8 檀成龙 高宏 宁利中 杨正瓴 尤明庆 曹俊兴 郑永军 徐长庆

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (1 个评论)

数据加载中...

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2024-6-22 04:39

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部