Bad Science Journalism: The Underdog Story

[TheManeki]

I just finished reading over this interesting essay by Michael White called "Bad Science Journalism and the Myth of the Oppressed Underdog."

It caught my eye in that it reminds me of how many creationists view the scientific process:

"Darwin's theory of sex has been biological dogma ever since he postulated why peacocks flirt. His gendered view of life has become a centerpiece of evolution, one of his great scientific legacies."

There you have the classic start of the narrative: Darwin, our brilliant scientist, came up with a theory about evolutionary sexual selection, which has been dogma among biologists ever since.

But this story isn't true: Darwin's theories about selection took some time before they were widely accepted (in fact, Darwin's claim that all living species share a common ancestry was accepted before his ideas about selection). And even then, they weren't taken as dogma; researchers have been actively studying the subject for a long time. The theory of sexual selection has undergone heavy scrutiny and extensive modification, including an effort to put it within the mathematical framework of game theory - a development which didn't take place until 100 years after Darwin proposed sexual selection. Biological dogma ever since Darwin? Hardly!...

We are left with the impression of scientists hanging on to a sinking theoretical ship, unable to move forward in their understanding because they have something personally against the underdog of the narrative.

What gets lost is the scientific method, the idea that novel proposals need to be thoroughly vetted and tested, no matter how intuitively attractive they are. That vetting process is done by a dynamic community of smart, educated, competitive people, who care passionately about science. It's a community where everyone wants to come up with the next big theory that overturns long-held beliefs. But that's hard to do, especially in fields where all the low-hanging fruit has been picked over by really talented people for decades or centuries. If a new theory is being presented in the media as the centerpiece of an underdog narrative, you can bet the farm that this theory is not yet sufficiently substantiated by the evidence. That doesn't mean it's wrong necessarily, but it does mean that the hypothesis has not yet met the rigorous standards of evidence that have served science well for centuries.

Any ideas on what we can do (short of writing letters or guest essays in the newspaper responding to creationist jeremiads) to correct this misperception of how science operates?

 

[AV1611VET]

Any ideas on what we can do (short of writing letters or guest essays in the newspaper responding to creationist jeremiads) to correct this misperception of how science operates?

Yes, you can write to this person. Tell him AV1611VET said, "Thanks for exposing the Scientific Method as a sham."

 

[guzman]

Yes, you can write to this person. Tell him AV1611VET said, "Thanks for exposing the Scientific Method as a sham."

that's the truth.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I am always happy to hear or read constructive criticism of science and the scientific method; it can only make science better.

Hears a bit of constructive criticism for the religious method.

Before you hypothesise that there was a global flood or that the Earth is 6000 years old

FIND SOME EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS

 

[AV1611VET]

I am always happy to hear or read constructive criticism of science and the scientific method; it can only make science better.

Hears a bit of constructive criticism for the religious method.

Before you hypothesise that there was a global flood or that the Earth is 6000 years old

FIND SOME EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS

I don't "hypothesize" that there was a global flood or that the earth has been in existence for 6000 years --- I obediently conclude it by agreeing with the Scriptures; and as far as evidence for it, have we not been through this before?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Yes, you can write to this person. Tell him AV1611VET said, "Thanks for exposing the Scientific Method as a sham."

Interesting philosophy paper. I didn't know you and Guzman were Buddhists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Interesting philosophy paper. I didn't know you and Guzman were Buddhists.

Wrong scriptures, and I wasn't aware you had icon dyslexia, either.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Wrong scriptures, and I wasn't aware you had icon dyslexia, either.

So you disagree with the authors opinion that Buddhism is the better, more scientific method?

 

[TheManeki]

Yes, you can write to this person. Tell him AV1611VET said, "Thanks for exposing the Scientific Method as a sham."

AV, thanks for participating by showing an excellent instance of Bad Science Writing.

To begin with, the author doesn't appear to understand the scientific method. This may be because he does not appear to be a scientist, but a Buddhist philosopher. He may also have a reason to distrust the scientific method, since he advocates things like "Tibetan Healing Meditation" and "Tibetan Medicine" which are currently viewed sceptically by modern science.

 

[Molal]

I just finished reading over this interesting essay by Michael White called "Bad Science Journalism and the Myth of the Oppressed Underdog."

It caught my eye in that it reminds me of how many creationists view the scientific process:

Any ideas on what we can do (short of writing letters or guest essays in the newspaper responding to creationist jeremiads) to correct this misperception of how science operates?

I, for one, do write in to newspapers and magazines. but I think education is important, particularly at the high school and university level.

I think it is a shame that the scientific method is so misunderstood - particularly when it has provided unbelievable medical break throughs, agricultural break throughts, etc. It has even provided break throughts to archaeology onto which many literal bibilical interpreters hang their hats.

I find it very sad that people with this sort of opinion

Yes, you can write to this person. Tell him AV1611VET said, "Thanks for exposing the Scientific Method as a sham."

don't actually understand the scientific method.

They are missing out on the wonders of the God created universe.

But, I believe education is the answer to this misunderstanding and general apathy.

 

[lemmings]

Any ideas on what we can do (short of writing letters or guest essays in the newspaper responding to creationist jeremiads) to correct this misperception of how science operates?

Is Sherri Shepherd* still of the View? Don't turn to Youtube for help.

*http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=12&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...l=6&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Yes, you can write to this person. Tell him AV1611VET said, "Thanks for exposing the Scientific Method as a sham."

I think I'll tell him that AV1611VET saw the headline, decided that whatever followed would support his conspiracy of one and stopped reading.

 

[Loudmouth]

I just finished reading over this interesting essay by Michael White called "Bad Science Journalism and the Myth of the Oppressed Underdog."

It caught my eye in that it reminds me of how many creationists view the scientific process:

Any ideas on what we can do (short of writing letters or guest essays in the newspaper responding to creationist jeremiads) to correct this misperception of how science operates?

Thanks for the article, Maneki.

Unless someone has actively participated in the sciences I really don't see a way for them to understand how it works. For the most part this is okay because people tend to give a bit of leeway for professionals in other fields.

The truth of the matter is that the sciences are very competitive and at times very hostile. You need to have a thick skin. Funding is a bit shaky right now meaning that about 10% of grants are being funded. Imagine having a 10% chance of having a salary next year? Bit scary, eh? To give yourself a better chance of getting a grant you need quality publications which can be difficult to get published. You also need to present your work at scientific conferences where your ideas are picked apart by the experts in your field. Many times the Q&A session lasts longer than the presentation, and many of those questions are rhetorical in nature.

Non-scientists do not have a feel for what it means to be a scientist, and this isn't their fault. However, the media doesn't often makes our work harder by misrepresenting (perhaps unintentionally) the conclusions of scientists or the current scientific consensus. I have even asked the local newspaper if they wanted a part time science editor but was shown the door quite quickly which was a little discouraging. I don't know if the media doesn't care if they misrepresent science or if it's a pride issue. Either way, I hate it.

 

[TheManeki]

Unless someone has actively participated in the sciences I really don't see a way for them to understand how it works. For the most part this is okay because people tend to give a bit of leeway for professionals in other fields.

You may be right -- I never realized how useful the scientific method was until I got out of the classroom and into the lab -- but there has to be some way to get more people to appreciate it.

Non-scientists do not have a feel for what it means to be a scientist, and this isn't their fault. However, the media doesn't often makes our work harder by misrepresenting (perhaps unintentionally) the conclusions of scientists or the current scientific consensus. I have even asked the local newspaper if they wanted a part time science editor but was shown the door quite quickly which was a little discouraging. I don't know if the media doesn't care if they misrepresent science or if it's a pride issue. Either way, I hate it.

It sounds like the media's first priority is to draw eyeballs, not to disseminate information. Currently, it seems the best way to arouse interest is to play up controversial aspects. If more people knew how science works to begin with, however, I'd bet that just accurately giving the information would draw enough attention to the story. Maybe we need more Bill Nye-type people to get the word out.

(I remember an alternate medium that existed about 10 years ago, a calendar called "Studmuffins of Science." It had 12 months of beefcake Ph.D. scientists showing that science was not just cool, but also hawt. There was supposed to be another calendar coming out that had the lovely ladies of science as well, but the project folded before it happened. Too bad -- I wanted to be Mr. January when I got my doctorate, and it closed up seven years too soon. )

 

[thaumaturgy]

Yes, you can write to this person. Tell him AV1611VET said, "Thanks for exposing the Scientific Method as a sham."

AV, I think you should moderate your tone on this topic. Considering you do not see technically interested in understanding how science is done, I don't think you should go around calling the Scientific Method a "sham".

First off: The "Scientific Method" is really just a great "framework", not a recipe for how to analyze data. Further, when you look at the author's "Improved Formula" you see this:

[SIZE=+1]A SCIENTIFIC MYSTERY-[/SIZE]SOLVING STRATEGY Question: You begin with a puzzle, a mystery, a surprising event: You don't understand a phenomenon which has occurred, or which occurs regularly.


Hypothesis: Try to imagine a process or situation which meets this criterion: If what you've imagined were really the case, the puzzling phenomenon would make sense.

Testing: Find out if the hypothesis itself makes sense, by exploring its other consequences: If it were correct, what else should be observed? What would show that the hypothesis is wrong?
Evaluation: Decide whether the results of testing warrant accepting the hypothesis as a plausible explanation for the phenomenon. Consider the possibility of further testing, and whether other hypotheses might provide a better explanation.

Now, this looks reasonable (except he does seem to skip over a bit of the "experiments" most scientists like to undertake).

But initially he establishes the "Scientific Method" as:

Scientific knowledge comes from testing theories by logically deducing hypotheses from them, using experiment and careful observation to test the hypotheses, and revising theories that lead to incorrect predictions.

Actually the "Improved formula" he recommends looks more like the classic scientific method than what he posts as an example of the actual scientific method.

Is this a Strawman argument? I can't really tell.

He later states:

1. The most obvious failing of the "method" as a guide to furthering (or understanding) scientific progress is that it ignores or distorts the role of careful observation as a source of knowledge. Some versions omit mention of observation entirely,

You know, I can't think of any example of the scientific method I've ever read or heard of or been taught that says this.

So perhaps the author is simply wrong.

Then he states:

The magic "method" implies that scientific progress is impossible without a theory to test.

That sounds completely wrong. Certainly by many examples of real science throughout history. "Theoretical frameworks" are indeed used to understand things, but they are not "gospel" and adhered to without question.

In fact scientific revolutions happen all the time as tests go on at the edges of the known. That's why we have Relativity now as opposed to Classical mechanics, why we have Quantum theory as opposed to the simple planetary model of atoms.

Science grows for reasons that the author has apparently missed completely in his misrepresentation of how the "H-D" scientific method works.

This reaks of strawman logic. That, unlike scientific reasoning, is a sham.

4. The relationships among theories, hypotheses, evidence, surprise, and opportunities for learning is far more complex than the magical method implies.

THIS is actually quite true. The "Scientific Method" is little more than a framework, it gives us some ground rules but it doesn't amount to a step-by-step recipe. Science is really quite complex and involves all aspects of human learning and epistemology. It is when we leverage observation to construct testable hypotheses that we get far more formalistic about how things are done.

Don't call it a "sham". Call it a reasonable framework document to get the ball rolling.

If you have trouble with this, believe me you won't be able to handle it when real formalisms raise their head like falsifiability and statistical hypothesis testing.

It's not unlike the logic requisite to understand legal topics, but in many ways it is far more open to what is allowed in as evidence but far, far more strict in its treatment of evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, I think you should moderate your tone on this topic. Considering you do not see technically interested in understanding how science is done, I don't think you should go around calling the Scientific Method a "sham".

You don't want to know what I call it; and as far as this guy being a Buddhist, or his post being wrong, or whatever --- take it up with him. I'm really not interested. I've already stated who is really behind today's science, and it would make this guy's article pale by comparison.

 

[TheManeki]

You don't want to know what I call it; and as far as this guy being a Buddhist, or his post being wrong, or whatever --- take it up with him. I'm really not interested. I've already stated who is really behind today's science, and it would make this guy's article pale by comparison.

Gotta love them conspiracy theories. Especially ones involving a powerful enemy that twists reality at whim and suckers in even members of your own faith. And only you have the answer.

Your scenario sounds more like a pathological delusion.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You don't want to know what I call it; and as far as this guy being a Buddhist, or his post being wrong, or whatever

I said nothing about his buddhism. I discussed his points.

--- take it up with him. I'm really not interested.

So YOU laud him as opening your eyes to the "sham" that is the Scientific Method, but when some real scientists come on and discuss his actual points, you are suddenly "not interested"???

So do you actually understand anything you claim to believe?

I've already stated who is really behind today's science, and it would make this guy's article pale by comparison.

So suddenly this is turning into a fight the devil debate? If you can't discuss the points you yourself raised then I recommend in future you think before you post!

I believe people might call it a "strategy".

 

[AV1611VET]

If you can't discuss the points you yourself raised then I recommend in future you think before you post!

And what points did I myself raised, Thaumaturgy?

All I said, in jest, was:

Yes, you can write to this person. Tell him AV1611VET said, "Thanks for exposing the Scientific Method as a sham."

And I used the word "sham" in the place of a less diabolical term for what I normally use.

You're welcome.

 

[thaumaturgy]

And what points did I myself raised, Thaumaturgy?

"Thanks for exposing the Scientific Method as a sham."

All I said, in jest, was:

So you were saying this in jest?

Oh, my apologies. I mistook it for your usual scientific sub-literacy coupled with a general disregard for "evidence" or scientific formalisms in general. I misunderstood your point, I mean you must give me some clue as to where you are standing. Because you seem to be all over the map on this one. Or was THIS post also in jest?:

Evidence to the contrary --- potential evidence to the contrary --- whatever --- I just know the Bible says it - that settles it.

Evidence can take a hike.

If so, please accept my apologies. My bad.