Hypothetically, how does someone who is not an expert in a field differentiate from "real science" and propaganda?
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
9 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
Common sense? Did the "devil" plant all those dinosaur bones around to mislead you? Whaddya think?
AnneWimsey
Level 9
Oct 5, 2019
2
No. God did that. I have that on good authority. 
You read the methodology section and see which statistical methods they used and see if it seems legit... some research is of better calibre than others... but people are bloody lazy and skim texts instead of reading things in their entirety.... intellectually lazy people suck 
demifeministgal
Level 8
Oct 4, 2019
0
@CrazyQuilter You are probably right... even if the social sciences at my university we had to take statistics courses... as did the hard sciences and business students.... so I'd hope it is not very few people but rather, only some people.
The scientific method consists of:
Observation of empirical data
Form a hypothesis based on data
Predict future results based on the hypothesis
Experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis
If someone has used the scientific method, that's real science. If they change their hypothesis when new evidence becomes available, that's real science. If they revise their hypothesis when the experimental results don't back it up, that's real science.
It's not real science (also known as "Not good science" ) when someone predetermines the hypothesis and then ignores or tries to explain away any conflicting evidence.
Paul4747
Level 8
Oct 4, 2019
3
Three things from the start. 1) Why would anyone show scientific research to anyone who has no background in the sciences? 2) What is to be gained by showing friends anything of this nature when you know beforehand that their opinions are at best irrelevant? 3) Depending upon the specific nature of your research, why would you not take your research to your peers for opinions/support?
Any good writer with experience knows that if honest critique is being sought, the last people to be solicited are friends and family. If one is merely seeking ego stroking, fine, take your latest painting to your mother and ask for her opinion. I know that when I had something I thought to be as nailed down as it could get, I submitted it for peer review. The last place I would take it would be to my hippie artist sister in her Arizona cabin in the desert. She'd heap praise on me, serve me some incredibly strong green tea seasoned with cinnamon and basil with a rose petal floating on top, but her opinion --- irrelevant.
What was the purpose of this question?
By the way, anyone who is schooled in any field of the sciences that is vaguely related to the science being presented, will understand what they are looking at and will require just a touch of explanation to be able to provide substantive input. I'm not a climate scientist, but I can read the figures, understand fairly well their meaning, and can form a cogent opinion.
evidentialist
Level 8
Oct 4, 2019
1
This is my take:
Real science is that which undergoes the scrutiny of the scientific method.
Don't believe something just because a scientist says it.
Be wary of "scientists" who have an agenda.
Don't believe something because someone has claimed "studies have shown..."
Accept the science when a claim has undergone the proper process by those who are experts in their field; but, always know that new information can come to light that may add to or take from a previously held hypothesis or theory. And, know that this does not devalue science--it is what makes science the best way to try to objectively understand our world and our universe.
Also, try to learn as much as you can about as many different sciences as you can. It can be overwhelming at times, but it does help a lot when trying to understand concepts that can be mind boggling.
Joanne
Level 7
Oct 4, 2019
3
But how does one know if a scientist doesn't have an agenda? Isn't funding profit or such always a possibility?
@Auty89 : For example: I am leery of scientists who work for the oil industry and pharmaceutical companies. This does not mean that they are compromised, but it raises a flag. And, scientist are humans, they have faults and biases just like everyone else, which is why the scientific method is so important. And, when there is a problem, it is usually discovered because of this process and it is typically a scientist who discovers the problem.
My default position is to be skeptical of any claims that are made. And, if it is of interest to me, I will, from that position, try to learn as much as I can from as many sources as possible; and, when possible, I look to scientists whom I have come to trust.
@Joanne -- I agree with your assessments completely, but I don't think the question is looking for that. What @Auty89 appears to be asking is how someone with little or no scientific background can differentiate between 'real' science and gobbledygook. If that is indeed what he is asking, the answer is simply, they can't. I also suggest that most who have no science background will not bother to expend the energy or time to investigate, and if they did, how in hell would they know what they were looking at?
It's not enough just being skeptical.
To your excellent list, Joanne, I would add only “Auty89, you could say what many scientists say, ‘I do not now know.’”
@evidentialist I believe I understood what Auty89 meant. And, I think that someone with no scientific background can at least learn what the scientific method is; and, when wondering about something (a study, a theory, for example) can do a little research into whether that burden has been met.
I am not a scientist and most of it is way over my head; but, I do have scientists I follow and trust. And, I think, with a little work, one can recognize that credible scientists are doing real science and not gobbldygook.
That said, I do not *have to trust individual scientists--although there are some I do trust; but I do trust the scientific method. And the scientists I trust are the ones who adhere to this method.
If something has undergone that scrutiny and it is accepted in the scientific community, I will trust that it is real science even if I do not understand what they are saying.
It’s not easy, but a place to start is to get in the habit of checking sources. If it came from hearsay, or a popular internet site I’d be skeptical. If you trace the source to a peer reviewed article in a reputable scientific journal, then credibility goes up, but space should always be reserved for a pinch of skepticism.
Beyond that, read all you can by respected science popularizers like Carl Sagan to get your own “feel” for the authentic scientific attitude, and read broadly; that is to say, don’t just read what you like to hear, but also read its critics.
Shortcut tip: Always check to see what Wikipedia says about it, and never put too much faith in what you find there.
skado
Level 9
Oct 4, 2019
0
But what if someone were to say that it's in peers' best interest to agree with said result? Wouldn't there be funding to be won?
@Auty89
Where humans are involved, corruption and error are always possible, so rather than looking for an infallible source for a specific issue, it’s really more useful to gain broad knowledge so you can develop your own instincts about a comprehensive view, against which likelihoods can be assessed. There are no absolute certainties.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.