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

Iron Fist in a Velvet Glove

  Despite both of us having science backgrounds, my wife and I share a leaning toward the artistic, though we may express it in different ways. In her life, my wife has been a painter, a poet, a singer, an actor, and a fiction writer. Not to mention a mother. I don’t remember what precipitated this event, but my wife, my son, and I were at home in the front room. My wife was responding to something my son said. She said, “remember, you get half your brains from me. If it wasn’t for me, you’d be a complete idiot.” To which my son started howling with laughter and said to me,” I think you have just been insulted.” Sometimes I feel like Rodney Dangerfield. I get no respect. But that is not an uncommon state of affairs for fatherhood. When my son was going to middle school and high school, my wife was always the one to go in with him to get him registered for classes. One time she was unable to go and I had to be the one to get him registered. “Ugh,” he said. “why can’t Mama do i...
1 comment
Read more

A Child of the . . .

  What was it like to grow up as a child in the 90s? How about the 1940’s? Thinking about a child growing up in each different decade, conjures up images in my mind. But that is all they are: images. I was a child in the 1960’s. I can tell you what it felt like to be growing up in the 60’s and 70’s, but what it felt like to me is not what the history books remember. History will tell you the 60’s was about the Viet Nam War, civil rights, and the space race. The 70’s was Disco and Watergate. I remember being aware of all of those things, but to me this era was about finding time to play with my friends, something I probably share with a child of any decade. It was about navigating the social intricacies of school.   It was about the Beatles, Three Dog Night, The Moody Blues, The Animals, Jefferson Airplane. It was Bullwinkle, the Wonderful World of Color, and Ed Sullivan. There are things that a kid pays attention to that the grown-ups don’t. Then there are things the adults ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Telephonicus domesticus

Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone from 1877 bears about as much similarity to the modern smart phone as an abacus bears to a PC or Mac. There are just about as many leaps in technology in both cases. It’s funny how a major jump in technology happens (like the actual invention of the phone). Then there are some refinements over a few years or decades until it gets to a useful stable form. Then it stays virtually the same for many years with only minor innovations. The telephone was virtually unchanged from sometime before I was born until I was about forty. Push-buttons were replacing the rotary dial, but that was about it. (Isn’t it interesting though that when we call someone, we still call it “dialing?” I have never seen a dial on a cell phone.) Cell phones were introduced and (once they became cheap enough) they changed the way we phone each other. New advancements followed soon after, texting and then smart phones. Personal computers were also becoming commonplace and wer...
Post a Comment
Read more