I am an avid reader. I read many blogs, news-channels, books, articles and so on. If I have some time for a slow breakfast in the morning, I like to sit with a cup of coffee or tea and... check my reader app to see what news have arrived. And while that feed consists of topics including sports, world-news and business, I admitt that most of the channels I follow are tech or science-related. And here comes a small paradox: the word "scientists" usually appear in categories other than science or technology. And most of such reads headlined "New research prooves..." or "Scientists have discovered that..." appear to be fragments of a story, full of plot-twists and action, but not scientific at all. Because what scientists say have somehow become one of the most powerful tools for pseudo-scientific discussions.
I am not trying to say that there is no real science today - I believe quite the opposite. I also disagree with opinions that "whatever science you hear on the news or the Internet is probably fake." But sometimes I am truly shocked how some well or not-so-well informed guesses become research in the headlines. And I guess cannot believe what "scientists say" quite most of the time.
One of the most important fundaments of science (at least in my opinion) is a possibility to conduct a knowledge-based discussion around any research published. If a new discovery in physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology or anything related to gathering information is made, there are some important questions to be stated. How did they get the data? What was their reasoning process? Does the discovery make sense in the real-world complex (if applicable)? How did they do their experiments step-by-step? Because if scientists can answer those questions, there is a chance that their conclusions are right, they are doing science indeed. But if a discussion is based on opninons rather than facts, then science is gone pretty quickly - welcome politics.
Have you ever noticed how easily people believe in literally anything they read about "scientific proofs" of things they believe? If they like eggs, they will probably find some news on how eggs are great, and then they are ready to argue because some scientists say so. However, if anything made them or their friends dislike eggs, some researches are ready to tell them why eggs can be as dangerous as smoking. Need any more fuel to that fire?
On the other hand, if we disagree with some conclusions, we tend to simply reject them, no matter how much evidence is behind. Maybe that's why so many burger lovers will never accept if research on red meat's relation to cancer stated they shouldn't eat it. At the same time, you can bet that at least some of the carnivores would try to prove that you are wrong to eat eggs for breakfast - scientists said they are so unhealthy after all!
To make matters worse, some discoveries (especially those on diet or medicine, as those two appeal directly to most of us) appear to oscillate between some extremes. That opposite discoveries about eggs come every year or two. Quite similarly with milk (why it can be great and why it can be terrible), chocolate (pros may outweigh the cons, but you may outweigh yourself) or cheese (I can already see arguments over those risks not being worth the gains and vice versa.)
Another thing is that some people draw generalized conclusions from massively insufficient amounts of data. If I conducted a study on how coffee affects human body, and I had as much as 10 participants, all from my university, I would not make statements about caffeine in general. My results could be used to make an informed guess, if anything. And even if I grew my participant base to thousands, then conclusions would improve to well-informed guesses, but still guesses in my opinion. They could be forged into a data backed-up theory if I tested thousands of people from all around the world, different ages and cultures. To make an actual proof I'd need to show how body parameters of at least 15% participants or so had changed. And even that would still be a theory for some scientists, but it is really extremely hard, if at all possible, to make a formal, maths-like proof in medicine.
My point is not to criticise all research based on insufficient groups of people. But I do say that people should be aware if some data is enough to draw some conclusions or not. Scientists are usually pretty cool with their own results, and so should be people writing about those. If a research had shown that 5 out of 20 children at school X preferred blackboards over whiteboards, you wouldn't say that "Children hate whiteboard markers and want chalk instead!". So why shout "Orange juice causes obesity!" if there was a slight correlation between preference of juice taste and weight for 10% of tested people?
If you want to understand some research, check who made it (are they journalists, hobbyists or scientists?) and, most importantly, how they made it. Do you think they had enough data to make conclusions they did? Would you sign your name under such statements? And if not, can you put your finger on what makes you disagree? Is that a fact or just a feeling? Finally, what you should be aware of is that very few researches are definite and final. Even if a study is conducted by great, known minds, and even if the data they based on was most up-to-date and relevant, this does not necessarily mean their conclusions are true. Do you know how many different models of an atom were used in physics? Moreover, if part of some research is wrong, it does not mean that the whole study is worthless. Do you know how many models of an atom...?
No comments:
Post a Comment