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

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

Second Wind

  You have heard about athletes getting their second wind? It is not that they feel better, that they are warmed up and ready to run more easily. It is not psychological (at least, not all psychological). No. There is an actual physiological truth to a second wind. It all has to do with respiration. When I say respiration, I am not talking about breathing. Respiration is a biochemical process that happens at the cellular level. It is how the cell gets energy. There are lots of chemical processes that are constantly going on in each cell, and those processes require energy. Without a constant feed of energy, the cell will die. The more demands there are on a cell, the more energy it needs. For example, every one of your muscle cells need more energy when you are running.   In fact, you won’t be able to run if the cells don’t have sufficient energy for it. The energy currency of the cell is a molecule called ATP. You may have heard that sugar is how our bodies get energy, wh...
1 comment
Read more

The Outsider

  I am reading The Outsider by Stephen King. The first 150 pages or so I found disturbing. Not for the reason you might think. It is not scary, not creepy in a traditional horror way, but disturbing in a tragic way. The first hundred to 150 pages is tragedy on top of tragedy. The most disturbing thing to me (it is disturbing to me anytime I encounter it in any story) is a false accusation. A man is falsely accused and may well be convicted of a horrific crime. That kind of thing disturbs my soul. It makes the whole world seem wrong. I have always been disturbed by stories with that kind of thing. And why not? It happens in real life too. That makes it all the more horrific. In the Jim Crow South, all you had to do was make an accusation against a black man to set the lynch mob in action. No need to bother with a trial. But even if there was a trial, the outcome was a foregone conclusion, innocent or not. We see Vladimir Putin inventing charges against people and they get locked up...
1 comment
Read more