I asked chatGPT for scientific fields that have completely collapsed

There are very few instances where an entire scientific field has completely collapsed but there are cases where once-prominent fields were either abandoned, replaced, or significantly redefined due to paradigm shifts. It would have taken me 2 weeks to compile this list while chatGPT could do that in seconds (and denies to have used Wikipedia). Here are some examples:

1. Phlogiston Theory (18th Century) – Replaced by Modern Chemistry

  • What it was: A widely accepted theory that explained combustion and rusting as the release of an invisible substance called “phlogiston.”
  • Why it collapsed: Antoine Lavoisier’s discovery of oxygen in the late 18th century showed that combustion was actually a reaction with oxygen, not the loss of phlogiston. This led to the rise of modern chemistry and the fall of phlogiston theory.

2. Geocentrism (Ptolemaic Model) – Replaced by Heliocentrism

  • What it was: The belief that Earth was the center of the universe, with the Sun and planets orbiting it.
  • Why it collapsed: Observations by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler provided overwhelming evidence for a heliocentric solar system, where planets orbit the Sun.

3. Vitalism – Replaced by Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

  • What it was: The idea that living organisms were fundamentally different from non-living things because they contained a “vital force” beyond physical and chemical processes.
  • Why it collapsed: Discoveries in biochemistry and molecular biology, such as the synthesis of urea (Wöhler, 1828) and the discovery of DNA’s structure, showed that life can be explained through chemistry and physics alone.

4. Catastrophism (Pre-Darwinian Geology) – Replaced by Uniformitarianism

  • What it was: The belief that Earth’s geological features were shaped primarily by sudden, short-lived catastrophic events (like Noah’s flood).
  • Why it collapsed: Charles Lyell’s uniformitarianism argued that slow, gradual processes (like erosion and sedimentation) shaped the Earth over millions of years. This view became the foundation for modern geology.

5. Alchemy – Replaced by Modern Chemistry

  • What it was: A mix of mystical, philosophical, and proto-scientific ideas aimed at transforming base metals into gold and discovering the “elixir of life.”
  • Why it collapsed: The development of systematic chemical experimentation and the discovery of elements through atomic theory rendered alchemy obsolete.

6. Ether Theory – Replaced by Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

  • What it was: The idea that light waves needed a medium called “luminiferous ether” to propagate through space.
  • Why it collapsed: The Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) failed to detect ether, and Einstein’s theory of relativity (1905) showed that light does not need a medium to travel.

7. Spontaneous Generation – Replaced by Germ Theory

  • What it was: The belief that living organisms could arise spontaneously from non-living matter (e.g., maggots appearing from rotting meat).
  • Why it collapsed: Louis Pasteur’s experiments in the 19th century proved that life comes from pre-existing life, leading to the acceptance of germ theory.

While complete collapses of scientific fields are rare, history shows that many dominant ideas have been overturned or refined as new evidence and methods emerge.

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf accessed 28.11.2025

Der MDPI Deal (2 of 3)

Fortsetzung von Teil 1 (Studie Kassel, Laborjournal, THE, QSS)

Warum MDPI fragwürdig ist? Scholarlykitchen beschreibt das Delisting des wichtigsten MDPI Journals

MDPI’s largest journal, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH), was delisted from the Web of Science (WoS) in March 2023. What came next was both expected and staggering. The journal shrunk by 88% in comparison to its peak. It published about 1,800 monthly papers in the three-month period from December 2022 to February 2023, and it dropped to about 200 monthly papers in summer 2023.

Die Auswirkungen des freien Falls auch im Detail bei Scholarly Kitchen beschrieben.

Die nächste fragwürdige Praktik ist die Stealth Correction – die nachträgliche heimliche Korrektur eines bereits veröffentlichten Artikels, die bei Zeitschriften ohne Papierausgabe und ohne Blockchain Verifizierung jederzeit möglich ist, so der Artikel von René Aquarius. MDPI folgt in der Blacklist hier an zweiter Stelle direkt hinter dem dubiosen Verlag BAKIS Productions LTD.

Die wohl umfangreichste Analyse von MDPI steht auf dem Blog von Paolo Crosetto “Is MDPI a predatory publisher?”

So, is MDPI predatory or not? I think it has elements of both. I would name their methods aggressive rent extracting, rather than predatory. And I also think that their current methods & growth rate are likely to make them shift towards more predatory over time.

Das leitet über zu der Frage: Wie kann die ZB MED mit einem solchen Verlag eine Vereinbarung über Millionen Steuergelder treffen? Jasmin Schmitz ist die zuständige ZB MED Expertin.

 

 

Sie hat offensichtlich eine andere Meinung, denn sie teilt den Laborjournal Artikel über die “Grauzone zwischen seriös und räuberisch” auf Social Media und findet den Verlag nicht seriös sondern “befremdlich”.

 

 

MDPI bezahlt keine Reviewer sondern formatiert lediglich PDFs und dafür geben wir Steuergelder aus?

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf accessed 28.11.2025

The new poster girl of the technocrats

The debate over research privatization is intensifying. Here is my annotated transcript of Sabine Hossenfelder’s latest video.

I recently angered some people by saying that if I had any choice in the matter, I wouldn’t want my taxes to pay for research on the description of smell in the English literature. Some have taken that to mean that I want to defund all of academia. So let’s talk about it. Should we defund academia?

I appreciate all experts in English literature; it’s part of our cultural heritage, like many other things worth preserving. Acknowledging my own limitations, I avoid commenting on topics like English literature or dark matter, as they are beyond my expertise. So why doesn’t SH recognize hers? Continue reading The new poster girl of the technocrats

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf accessed 28.11.2025

Pubmed already dying?

Pubmed is again down today following some cryptic messages last week.

Pubmed not accessible. I don’t believe in any geo block. Maybe a DDOS attack?

Medpage has a longer article discussing the fate of the database given the fact that the Trump administration has signaled its hostility to the NIH and research in general.

1.Make it inaccessible. …This one is straightforward: lay off everyone involved in maintaining PubMed and take it offline.
2. Stop updating it. Similar to the first one …  stop adding new publications to the database…
3. Change the indexing system for journals. This could be weaponized to punish journals… [for] research on certain health policies and populations, and so on.
4. Strip the indexing system for journals. .. This would be the “flood the zone” method. … This would remove the limited safeguards we have in place so no quality checks would exist at all.
5. Remake it. Delete what you don’t like…

I think this is an emergency call for the EU to fund future Pubmed indexing.

Things to do now
– let https://dnschecker.org/#A/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov do the job
– run standard searches “transgender diversity” and “women equal opportunities” for comparison to March 3, 2025

 

Update 3.3.2025

With the help of chatGPT, the log files at zonemaster.net and hacker news, the most likely scenario is now a misconfigured firewall upfront of the 3 NIH name server.
Can also confirm that the search for “transgender” at nih.gov  is redirected to the search page.

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf accessed 28.11.2025

Research has become a game of publication and not of science

This is quote from Gelman and King in the Chronicle

The publication process in social science is broken. Articles in prestigious journals use flawed data, employ questionable research practices, and reach illogical conclusions. Sometimes doubts over research become public, such as in the case of honesty scholar Francesca Gino, but most of the time research malpractice goes unacknowledged and uncorrected. Yet scholars know it is there, hiding below the surface, leading to frustration and cynicism. Research “has become a game of publication and not science,” as one professor wrote in response to a survey on research practices.

They want a “replay review” like in professional sports.

Once a publication receives a specified number of citations, it would receive an independent review. These reviews would then be published in full, along with author responses, so that readers have additional guidance on how to interpret the initial publication.

It is an interesting idea – basically a mandatory PubPeer review…

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf accessed 28.11.2025

Is “Pro life” in reality only “Pro birth”?

A new paper in JAMA, distributed by Reuters and discussed at Bluesky has sparked a lot of interest showing a higher than expected infant mortality in states after adoption of abortion bans with observed 6.26 vs expected 5.93 per 1000 live births.

The reasons are not fully clear while methodological artifacts can be largely excluded

The results are consistent with clinician and media reports documenting denial of terminations for non viable pregnancies … The increase in infant mortality rate due to non congenital causes is less straight forward and warrants further investigation. One possibility is that these increases may result from the disproportionate impact of abortion bans on already disadvantaged populations, who are at higher risk of infant mortality, or from delays in receiving timely medical interventions.

The online discussion includes

– political and racial Implications as many users argue that this outcome was a foreseeable consequence of the Dobbs decision, with some claiming it aligns with systemic racial discrimination.
– criticism of “Pro-Life” sance. Many commenters criticize the anti-abortion movement, stating that its real goal was not to protect life but to exert control over marginalized populations.
– There are concerns about women’s healthcare: Some responses emphasize that these bans exacerbate existing disparities in maternal and infant health, particularly for Black women.
_ Responses range from outrage and frustration to calls for political action against policymakers responsible for the bans.

https://bsky.app/profile/mairesiobhan44.bsky.social/post/3li6irichwc2m

Not mentioned in the paper: Maternal death rate according to sepsis  increased in Texas( Texas  provided most observations in the new JAMA paper).


Source 23/2/25 https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-abortion-ban-sepsis-maternal-mortality-analysis In the two earlier years, there were 79 maternal hospital deaths. In the two most recent, there were 120.

 

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf accessed 28.11.2025

The scientific literature is an essential ocean of knowledge, in which floats an alarming amount of junk

It is now exactly 30 years and 15 days since “The scandal of poor medical research

When I tell friends outside medicine that many papers published in medical journals are misleading because of methodological weaknesses they are rightly shocked. Huge sums of money are spent annually on research that is seriously flawed through the use of inappropriate designs, unrepresentative samples, small samples, incorrect methods of analysis, and faulty interpretation. Errors are so varied that a whole book on the topic,7 valuable as it is, is not comprehensive

In 2025 we are talking not about one but dozen books. You can now find a peer-reviewed article to support almost any opinion, effectively proving it to be “true” in your view—whether you are a climate change denier, an anti-vaxxer  or an advocate for tobacco smoke.

This phenomenon mirrors the way people interpret religious texts, such as the Bible, to justify vastly different beliefs. Just as proponents of the prosperity gospel find scriptural backing for wealth accumulation, Franciscans draw upon the same text to support their vow of poverty.  Or the recently disputed ordo amoris (family is important but migrants can be deported) which is stark contrast to the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Back to science and The Atlantic article by Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky from where the ocean metaphor originates

… While stating truthfully that the work originated in a peer-reviewed, academic publication, reveals an awkward fact:  The scientific literature is an essential ocean of  knowledge, in which floats an alarming amount of junk. Think of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, but the trash cannot be identified without special knowledge and equipment. And although this problem is long-standing, until the past decade or so, no one with both the necessary expertise and the power to intervene has been inclined to help.

https://bsky.app/profile/alala55.bsky.social/post/3lhya4k3zls2p

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf accessed 28.11.2025

Das Ende der Fördermittelaffäre

Die Fördermittelaffäre ist vorbei.

Da haben sich zwar Ausschussmitglieder wie Thomas Jarzombek nochmal dafür stark gemacht, alle Unterlagen zu bekommen. Leider war aber auch das Interesse des Ersatzministers Özdemir nicht allzu hoch, Licht in das Dunkel zu bringen. Das war’s dann, so Jan-Martin Wiarda. Die Ministerin hat sich in die Bedeutungslosigkeit verabschiedet, der Ausschussvorsitzenden Kai Gehring scheidet aus dem Bundestag aus.

Das allgemeine Wissenschaftsklima hat sich in Deutschland gedreht, was nicht zuletzt durch die umstrittenen Antisemitismus Resolution des Bundestages verursacht wurde, die “nicht mit dem Grundrecht auf Meinungsfreiheit zu vereinbaren und daher verfassungswidrig” ist,  so das Rechtsgutachten des Bundestages. So sagte auch Walter Rosenthal, Präsident der Hochschulrektorenkonferenz

Die Resolution enthält Forderungen, die auch bei besten Absichten als Einfallstor für Einschränkungen und Bevormundung etwa in der Forschungsförderung verstanden werden könnten.

Wissenschaftsfreiheit bestand auch vorher nur auf dem Papier wenn ich über viele Jahre wichtige Studien nicht machen kann.

Nun steht die Wissenschaftsfreiheit also auch nur noch im Grundgesetz aber wird offiziell von den Teilen des BMBF und einigen Parteien im Bundestag als (bitte ankreuzen)

  • abgewertet
  • gering geachtet
  • unterbewertet
  • missachtet
  • herabgewürdiget
  • bagatellisiert
  • vernachlässigt
  • zweitrangig behandelt
  • minderwertig eingestuft
  • nebensächlich erachtet

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf accessed 28.11.2025

AI is using copyrighted material

We know it for years: LLMs are trained by copyrighted material. But we should never forget: Aaron Swartz, a copyright activist lost his life.  And so did Suchir Balaji  (his parents do not believe in a suicide). And another activist Alexandra Elbakayan is being prosecuted for years.

So how can LLMs of all kind now make money of copyrighted text and images bypassing all rules? The Guardian about OpenAI

The developer OpenAI has said it would be impossible to create tools like its groundbreaking chatbot ChatGPT without access to copyrighted material, as pressure grows on artificial intelligence firms over the content used to train their products.

The New York Times about Suchir Balaji

But after the release of ChatGPT in late 2022, he thought harder about what the company was doing. He came to the conclusion that OpenAI’s use of copyrighted data violated the law and that technologies like ChatGPT were damaging the internet. In August, he left OpenAI because he no longer wanted to contribute to technologies that he believed would bring society more harm than benefit.

Are there still copyright rules in place?

Probably.  Getty Images is now suing Stable Diffusion, Facebook is using LibGen although  they had to pay recently 30m penalties. Universal Music filed a lawsuit against Anthropic and NYT against OpenAI. At least a dozen of court cases are ongoing.

But I haven’t heard so far of any action  of  a major medical publishers against any AI company (including the company who sued Elbakayan). They must have a different strategy – instead of suing they just sell their content even behind the back of the authors. This is what Christa Dutton found out.

One of those tech companies, Microsoft, paid Informa, the parent company of Taylor & Francis, an initial fee of $10 million to make use of its content “to help improve relevance and performance of AI systems,” according to a report released in May… Another publisher, Wiley, also recently agreed to sell academic content to a tech company for training AI models. The publisher completed a “GenAI content rights project” with an undisclosed “large tech company,” according to a quarterly earnings report released at the end of June

But can publishers just do this without asking authors? authorsalliance.org has an answer.

In a lot of cases, yes, publishers can license AI training rights without asking authors first. Many publishing contracts include a full and broad grant of rights–sometimes even a full transfer of copyright to the publisher for them to exploit those rights and to license the rights to third parties.

We had been too naive.

Or we have been blackmailed.

 

14/23/25

There was never fair use … https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/03/openai-urges-trump-either-settle-ai-copyright-debate-or-lose-ai-race-to-china/ … while I now fear that this will be decided by politics not by courts.

 

20/3/2025

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/03/libgen-meta-openai/682093/ writes

Meta employees acknowledged in their internal communications that training Llama on LibGen presented a “medium-high legal risk,” and discussed a variety of “mitigations” to mask their activity.

leading to the paradoxical situation

LibGen and other such pirated libraries make information more accessible, allowing people to read original work without paying for it. Yet generative-AI companies such as Meta have gone a step further: Their goal is to absorb the work into profitable technology products that compete with the originals.

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf accessed 28.11.2025

Warum nur? 10 Punkte, die den neuen Rechtspopulismus erklären

Ein hervorragender Artikel in der ZEIT vom 2.2.2025  von Johannes Böhme erklärt “warum die Welt nach rechts rückt”. Zusammengefasst zunächst

Historische Parallelen. Soziale und wirtschaftliche Umbrüche haben in der Geschichte immer wieder Revolten und populistische Bewegungen hervorgebracht. Die Mechanismen sind oft dieselben: Verdrängung, Angst vor sozialem Abstieg und die Suche nach Schuldigen.

Der gesellschaftliche Bildungsgraben. Der massive Anstieg von Hochschulabsolventen hat eine neue Konfliktlinie geschaffen: Gebildete tendieren eher zu progressiven, kosmopolitischen Werten, während diejenigen ohne akademischen Abschluss sich wirtschaftlich und gesellschaftlich abgehängt fühlen, und den Nährboden für rechtspopulistische Strömungen bilden,

Die Angst vor sozialem Abstieg. Die Globalisierung, Automatisierung und der Strukturwandel in der Arbeitswelt haben viele traditionelle Arbeitsplätze bedroht oder zerstört. Besonders die untere Mittelschicht, die noch viel zu verlieren hat, fühlt sich existenziell bedroht und wendet sich rechten Parteien zu, die einfache Lösungen versprechen. Es ist weniger die Unterschicht, die nichts mehr zu verlieren hat.

Soziale Ungleichheit und relativer Statusverlust. Menschen vergleichen sich vor allem mit ihrem unmittelbaren Umfeld. Wenn die Unterschiede zwischen „oben“ und „unten“ wachsen, entsteht Frustration – besonders, wenn der Aufstieg  immer schwieriger wird. Diese Frustration führt zur Suche nach den Ursachen mit Sündenböcken und der Distanzierung von der Gesellschaft.

Die Rolle der sozialen Medien. Rechtspopulistische Parteien konnten durch soziale Netzwerke enorm an Reichweite gewinnen. Es ist der Brandbeschleuniger ohne den der Rechtspopulismus nie die Reichweite und ein “Wir”-Gefühl hätte entwicklen können. Algorithmen verstärken Empörung, Ängste und Verschwörungserzählungen.

Migrationsängste als politisches Mobilisierungsthema. Migranten werden zum zentralen Feindbild erklärt, um gesellschaftliche Ängste zu bündeln. Menschen, die direkten Kontakt zu Migranten haben, sind dabei weniger anfällig für rechte Propaganda sind – die stärkste Ablehnung kommt von denen, die Migration nur aus rechten Medien oder sozialen Netzwerken kennen.

Die Lust an der Zerstörung des politischen Establishments. Viele Wähler rechtspopulistischer Parteien wählen bewusst destruktiv, um das bestehende politische System abzustrafen. Die Hoffnung besteht, dass ein Umbruch ihre eigene gesellschaftliche Position verbessert oder zumindest die Eliten bestraft werden. Dass sie sich dabei selbst viel mehr in das eigene Fleisch schneiden, wird verdrängt.

Das Fehlen politischer Repräsentation. Die Politik ist zunehmend von Akademikern geprägt, während Nicht-Akademiker kaum noch vertreten sind. Das führt zu einem Gefühl der Ohnmacht und des „Nicht-Gehört-Werdens“, das rechtspopulistische Parteien ausnutzen.

Die Schwäche der etablierten Parteien. Traditionelle Parteien haben es versäumt, die Sorgen und Ängste der unteren Mittelschicht ernst zu nehmen. Statt konkrete Antworten auf Globalisierung und soziale Unsicherheit zu bieten, setzen sie oft auf symbolische Politik oder moralische Appelle, die viele Menschen nicht erreichen.

Die Notwendigkeit von Reformen. Die einzige nachhaltige Lösung gegen den wachsenden Rechtspopulismus liegt in weit reichenden Reformen, die soziale Ungleichheit abbauen, wirtschaftliche Sicherheit bieten und den politischen Einfluss breiterer Gesellschaftsschichten wiederherstellen. Eine höhere politische Teilhabe und vor allem wirtschaftliche Sicherheit könnte die Dynamik bremsen.

 

 

https://www.ifo.de/publikationen/2023/aufsatz-zeitschrift/mittelschicht-deutschland
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/320946/umfrage/ergebnisse-der-afd-bei-den-landtagswahlen/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kommentar

 

Daß der Rechtsruck kein isoliertes Phänomen ist, sondern aus der  allgemeinen gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung folgt, ist offensichtlich. Und es scheint so, daß dies weltweit sehr ähnliche Prozesse sind. Wenn der Rechtspopulismus in der Tat den Nachschub aus der unteren Mittelschicht  und Arbeiterschicht bezieht, dann hat er mit 30% nun fast schon seine maximale Kapazität erreicht. Wierklich gefährlich wird es, wenn die Bewegung nun auch noch auf die weitere  Mittelschicht übergreift. Mit der Bundestagsabstimmung am letzten Mittwoch bei der die CDU/CSU zusammen mit der AfD in der Migrationsfrage abstimmte, ist dies nun auch immer wahrscheinlicher (“werden es nach der Wahl wieder machen“).

Zurück zur historischen Parallele: Auch Franz von Papen glaubte. den Rechtspopulismus kontrollieren zu können, was nicht einmal ein halbes Jahr gelang. Die NSDAP erzielte bei der Reichstagswahl 1930  erstmals 18%. Viele der Wähler kamen von der DNVP, wobei die NSDAP zudem von der Agrarkrise profitierte und zunehmend das bürgerliche Lager anzog. Nicht zuletzt die  Weltwirtschaftskrise trieb viele Bürger in radikalere politische Bahnen. So erreichte die NSDAP bei den Wahlen 1932 dann auch 37,3%, ihr letzte Wahlergebnis vor dem Ermächtigungsgesetz 1933.

 

Demonstration Dachau 3.2.2025 „Demokratie braucht Vielfalt“ (c) 2025 https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/dachau/dachau-runder-tisch-gegen-rassismus-dachau-demokratiebuendnis-dachauer-land-demonstration-lux.EZAkCT8uktc12GaPY6yEYW

 

 

 

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf accessed 28.11.2025