Thanks to Thomas for posting this on the general thread-
Summary- 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.
http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocument ... on2008.pdf
anyone else seeing zombies?