Skip to main content

Good Science vs Bad Science

 



Science is about observation and insight. There is a difference between how the public thinks science works, and how it actually works. This is fundamental to the question of good science vs bad science. In both cases an observation is made and then a hypothesis is created to explain the observation. This is the point at which good science and bad science differ. A good scientist will then look for other evidence that either confirms or denies his hypothesis. S/he may then do experiments to test that hypothesis. If a test confirms the hypothesis, they are not finished. They may go through many cycles of experimentation and testing before they feel comfortable in publishing their results. Good scientists have to be ready to accept the fact that further testing may prove their hypothesis wrong. That is part of the process; it is essential to the process.

Bad science is where after making your observation and coming up with a hypothesis, you only look for other data that supports your hypothesis and ignore anything that runs counter to your hypothesis. You see that Jane wears a blue shirt on Tuesday and come up with the hypothesis that Jane always wears a blue shirt on Tuesdays. The next Tuesday you see Jane wearing a blue shirt confirms it! But maybe you weren’t looking that hard on a Tuesday when she wasn’t wearing a blue shirt. Or maybe you stopped looking after you got your one point of data that confirmed your hypothesis, patting yourself on the back and saying, “my work here is done.” Of course this may not be true at all. On any given Tuesday, Jane might wear any color she wants, but you go around telling everyone that you have solved the mystery of Jane’s Tuesday wardrobe.  

People who make drugs have to follow the scientific method. It is required, so the new drug will be safe and effective. Even after all those safeguards, they sometimes get it wrong, because it is difficult to do experiments on humans. Nowadays, drug makers manufacture drugs from the molecule on up. But in the olden days it was simply based on observation. You notice that after chewing on that spiraea twig, your headache went away. You might then wonder if it was something in the spiraea that did it. If you were a good scientist, you would then test that hypothesis, lining people up with aches and pains and having them chew on the twigs. If the results seemed positive, you would do more testing, maybe on other parts of the plants and other similar plants, cataloguing which method led to the best results. In this way the drug aspirin was derived. But there were and are many, many anecdotal remedies that have not stood the test of science. Just because you do X, and it relieves Y, doesn’t mean that X is the cure for Y. Anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. Thus, we had (and have) snake oil salesmen.

Most general new media companies do not understand how science works. This is why you will hear these stories that “scientists have found . . .” that seem to be contradicted by the next news story that claims “scientists have found . . .” it is because they do not understand the difference between a preliminary study and an actual scientific result. News people want headlines. They want to draw the reader or viewer in. The news sites are publishing the results before they have been proven or disproven by the scientific method. Just like snake oil.

Star Liner

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

All That We See or Seem by Ken Liu

My first experience with cyberpunk as a genre of science fiction was Neuromancer by William Gibson. Neuromancer was one of the early works that defined the cyberpunk genre. It was insanely influential. It won the Hugo Award, the Nebula Award, the Philip K. Dick Award. But for me, it just did not resonate. I had a hard time visualizing the concepts. It left a bad taste in my mouth for cyberpunk. I mostly avoided the genre. Then a couple of years ago I read Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson which is cyberpunk (although some people say it is a parody of cyberpunk). Whatever, I liked it. I recently picked up All That We See or Seem by Ken Liu and it immediately became apparent to me that this was cyberpunk. Julia Z is the main character, and I think this is going to be the start of a series following her. She is a hacker (hence cyberpunk). She has got herself in trouble and so she lives on the margins, barely making it. Then a lawyer asks her for her help. His wife has been kidnapped. The ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Linear Nature of Time

    Go Go back Go back to the time before Before you did it Before they did it Before it was done to you Before the toast fell on the floor Before the catastrophe Before the mistake Before time’s scars Before   Go Go back Redeem it Rework it Fix it Go back   No you cannot Go back Star Liner
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Walls Don't Work

  At the peak of the Roman Empire, the empire stretched from the Persian Gulf to Brittain, from northern Africa to southern Germany. But the great conquering emperors like Trajan learned that conquering land was easy compared to holding on to it.   In fact, Trajan’s successor, Hadrian, was known for shrinking the empire and consolidating Trajan’s gains into a more defensible set of holdings. This made him not popular among his generals who wanted glory and spoils. But he understood if you stretch yourself too thin, you can wind up with nothing. To consolidate the Empire’s holdings in Brittain, he had a wall constructed from Solway Firth to the Tyne River. Construction began in the year 122 AD. The Empire had never been able to subdue the highland Scottish tribes, so this wall (Hadrian’s Wall) divided the “barbarians from the Romans.” It was a solid piece of engineering with forts and towers scattered along it to keep the “barbarians” out. Hadrian’s successor, Antonius Pius...
Post a Comment
Read more