We are there for the good of the patient, not for the good of the protocol, not for the good of the medical director, and not for the good of the company.

- Rogue Medic

Scientific – It’s just a catchphrase

-

A new monthly series on science is beginning this month. This may help to explain what science is and what science is not.

-

Each month I’ll bring you a new example of sciencey-ness that falls short of giving us credible knowledge yet fools at least some of the public into thinking that it is the real deal. For this initial go, I wanted to share my realizations about science talk and the people who utilize it like a toupee of credibility to hide the lack of substance underneath. Once you’ve spotted their ways, it’s hard to ignore.[1]

I don’t completely agree that it is hard to ignore the ways of bad science, because people continue to be able to get poorly done studies past peer review, but this is important information about where to start looking for signs of bad science.

-

Science progresses on a path quite different from what the public sees. Regular surveys about the public understanding of science tell us that the non-scientist doesn’t comprehend well the importance of critical concepts like controlled trials, peer review, skeptical criticism, and the holding of ideas as provisional. It’s not a surprise that the public doesn’t get how science works; they aren’t exposed to it. People form their ideas about science from the input they DO get—mostly from basic education and popular culture.[1]

The media are generally the people who provide us with information about science, but they continue to be some of the least competent at understanding science. They will reprint press releases from NIH (National Institutes of Health) as no more credible than a claim of a cure for cancer from a drug company, or some alternative medicine pusher.

-

If you are one who values science as the most reliable way to understand the world, you likely have a much stronger definition of the term than someone who values it less.[1]

Some confuse science with religion, but this only demonstrates a lack of understanding of science. Religion is about trusting authority and received wisdom, while science is about distrusting authority and challenging received wisdom.

To me, the most important point about science is to eliminate as much bias as possible – and we are all biased.

If we assume something, anything, without testing it – that is an example of a bias.

If we claim that something will not have an effect on the results of an experiment – that is a bias.

If we claim that something is too obvious to study – that is a bias.

If we reject a study, because we don’t like the results, but before we have examined the methodology, that is bias.

Understanding science means being glad to be shown that we are wrong, because that means that we have learned some truth. Too many of us reject truth because of bias.

-

-

Footnotes:

-

[1] “Scientific”: It’s just a catchphrase!
Sounds Sciencey
Sharon Hill
January 17, 2012
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Article

.

Comments

  1. Doc Cottle says:

    http://xkcd.com/54/

    How did his not work it’s way into your post?

Speak Your Mind