Science

[BigRedBuster]

Being someone who is really interested in nutrition and what variations in nutritional intake can do to a body, I found this interview very interesting.

 

LINK

 

We constantly hear how Science is so great in what it discovers and the peer review process assures what we read is correct.

 

I have read books on nutrition that are really good and I have read some that I get barely into them and say to myself...."WTF"?

 

This shows that Science is not perfect by any stretch.

[ColoNoCoHusker]

We constantly hear how Science is so great in what it discovers and the peer review process assures what we read is correct.

 

I have read books on nutrition that are really good and I have read some that I get barely into them and say to myself...."WTF"?

 

I didn't read the whole article. I am very familiar with Ioannidis' orignal paper from ~10 years ago. As much as Ioannidis is correct "high-level", his methods used in that paper were highly criticized for being just flawed as the system/methods he is criticizing. Ioannidis is great in that he has been quantitavily defining the issue and he is a trained mathmetician looking at medical research. It is shocking how many medical researchers with advanced degrees are below-proficient in "advanced mathmatics".

 

The point that should be taken is that Scientific research, especially Medical Science research, needs to NOT be put on a pedastal. People (trained & laypeople) need to learn how to read scholarly works; specifically, understand how to read statistical analysis and identify author/interpretor/reader bias.

 

As far as the bolded, that logical fallacy has been actively fought against for decades. It's a good thing that publishing is easier today than ever & it's also good that more eyes than ever can review published research. The scientific process & peer review system takes time to work. If professional & general public consume research information non-critically, it's unrealistic to blame Science. Any system will fail you if you don't do your part to make it work. Install an alarm system at your home, then turn it off, & see how well it protects you when someone tries to break-in...

[zoogs]

That's a very good and thoughtful response. +1

[BigRedBuster]

 

We constantly hear how Science is so great in what it discovers and the peer review process assures what we read is correct.

 

I have read books on nutrition that are really good and I have read some that I get barely into them and say to myself...."WTF"?

 

I didn't read the whole article. I am very familiar with Ioannidis' orignal paper from ~10 years ago. As much as Ioannidis is correct "high-level", his methods used in that paper were highly criticized for being just flawed as the system/methods he is criticizing. Ioannidis is great in that he has been quantitavily defining the issue and he is a trained mathmetician looking at medical research. It is shocking how many medical researchers with advanced degrees are below-proficient in "advanced mathmatics".

 

The point that should be taken is that Scientific research, especially Medical Science research, needs to NOT be put on a pedastal. People (trained & laypeople) need to learn how to read scholarly works; specifically, understand how to read statistical analysis and identify author/interpretor/reader bias.

 

As far as the bolded, that logical fallacy has been actively fought against for decades. It's a good thing that publishing is easier today than ever & it's also good that more eyes than ever can review published research. The scientific process & peer review system takes time to work. If professional & general public consume research information non-critically, it's unrealistic to blame Science. Any system will fail you if you don't do your part to make it work. Install an alarm system at your home, then turn it off, & see how well it protects you when someone tries to break-in...

 

I pretty much agree with what you said. I don't know this dude other than what I read here.

 

I think science in general has the right idea in mind when you boil it down to most actual scientists that are working on projects. However, anytime "science" comes out and makes some profound statement, I always sit back and wonder....Hmmmmm.....I wonder who benefits from this? The actual science might be reasonable, but sometimes, there are people behind the scenes wanting a certain outcome so they only fund some science but not others. And, I personally know of a few situations where the "scientists" knew where his bread was being buttered. The results come out as "peer reviewed" and it's a bunch of crap. Then, someone takes it and runs with it saying...well...it's peer reviewed so it has to be valid.

 

OR, someone takes good science and manipulates the results to show what they want it to show. This happens a lot in health studies. Oh....you sell vitamins??? I bet you can find a "peer reviewed" study somewhere that claims your vitamins will cure just about anything under the sun.

[ColoNoCoHusker]

Well, sunuva... Reasonable discussion in the P&R forum; really must be the off-season

 

You get it, BRB

[TGHusker]

Based on the below it isn't just certain conservative groups that distrust science, the same can be said of liberals - it appears that it is politics not the brain that gets in the way of scientific acceptance

 

 

 

http://ann.sagepub.com/content/658/1/36.abstract

 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/liberals-are-as-anti-science-as-conservatives-study-finds-134614/

I copied it below so you don't have to watch the ad to get into the article

 

 

 

The study's sample of 1,518 adults were divided into three groups. Group one was asked about scientific research related to climate change and evolution that challenged the views of many conservatives; group two was asked about scientific research related to fracking (a natural gas extraction method) and nuclear power that challenged the views of many liberals; and group three was asked about politically neutral scientific research related to astronomy or geology.

Both liberals and conservatives were less likely to trust the scientific results in the groups where those results were out of sync with their own ideology.

Interestingly, liberals, moderates and conservatives were all less trustful of the science that was related to political debates compared to the ideologically neutral science. In other words, conservatives were less trustful of science related to fracking and nuclear power, though not as distrustful as liberals, compared to science related to ideologically-neutral astronomy and geology findings. And liberals were less trustful of science related to climate change and evolution, though not as distrusful as conservatives, compared to the ideologically neutral science.

Conservatives and liberals were not equally likely to reject the science that was dissonant with their ideology. Conservatives were more likely than liberals to be distrustful. The authors attribute this to media coverage of the debates.

There has been much coverage of the scientific debates over climate change and evolution. By comparison, there has been little coverage of the scientific debates over fracking and nuclear power. Respondents, therefore, would be much more aware of controversies over climate change and evolution than fracking and nuclear power.

The researchers also found higher levels of anger associated with the distrust over climate change and evolution than the distrust over fracking and nuclear power.

In the discussion section of the paper, the authors claim that the distrust in science that develops over politicized scientific findings harms the ability of scientists "to be effective communicators and advocates for science."

They also argue that the previous studies presuming to show that conservatives were more anti-science than liberals due to a mental deficiency did a "disservice" to the cause of science communication, and likely made matters worse.

"By promoting the idea that there are inherent psychological differences between conservatives and liberals when forming attitudes and making judgments about science, they are effectively — and ironically — contributing to the very political polarization of science they decry and thereby inhibiting more effective science communication. ... by targeting conservatives specifically as somehow uniquely deficient when it comes to science, the overall framework of [that view] lends itself to focusing on ideological countermobilization and/or a conversion of worldviews ("If only everyone were liberal!"), rather than to bridging ideological gaps. ... Demonizing a third of the population in a science policy debate by claiming they have an insurmountable psychological deficit does nothing to promote a solution to the challenges of effective science communication. And, as we have shown here, it is not empirically justified," they wrote.

[BigRedBuster]

Based on the below it isn't just certain conservative groups that distrust science, the same can be said of liberals - it appears that it is politics not the brain that gets in the way of scientific acceptance

 

 

 

http://ann.sagepub.com/content/658/1/36.abstract

 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/liberals-are-as-anti-science-as-conservatives-study-finds-134614/

I copied it below so you don't have to watch the ad to get into the article

 

 

 

The study's sample of 1,518 adults were divided into three groups. Group one was asked about scientific research related to climate change and evolution that challenged the views of many conservatives; group two was asked about scientific research related to fracking (a natural gas extraction method) and nuclear power that challenged the views of many liberals; and group three was asked about politically neutral scientific research related to astronomy or geology.

Both liberals and conservatives were less likely to trust the scientific results in the groups where those results were out of sync with their own ideology.

Interestingly, liberals, moderates and conservatives were all less trustful of the science that was related to political debates compared to the ideologically neutral science. In other words, conservatives were less trustful of science related to fracking and nuclear power, though not as distrustful as liberals, compared to science related to ideologically-neutral astronomy and geology findings. And liberals were less trustful of science related to climate change and evolution, though not as distrusful as conservatives, compared to the ideologically neutral science.

Conservatives and liberals were not equally likely to reject the science that was dissonant with their ideology. Conservatives were more likely than liberals to be distrustful. The authors attribute this to media coverage of the debates.

There has been much coverage of the scientific debates over climate change and evolution. By comparison, there has been little coverage of the scientific debates over fracking and nuclear power. Respondents, therefore, would be much more aware of controversies over climate change and evolution than fracking and nuclear power.

The researchers also found higher levels of anger associated with the distrust over climate change and evolution than the distrust over fracking and nuclear power.

In the discussion section of the paper, the authors claim that the distrust in science that develops over politicized scientific findings harms the ability of scientists "to be effective communicators and advocates for science."

They also argue that the previous studies presuming to show that conservatives were more anti-science than liberals due to a mental deficiency did a "disservice" to the cause of science communication, and likely made matters worse.

"By promoting the idea that there are inherent psychological differences between conservatives and liberals when forming attitudes and making judgments about science, they are effectively — and ironically — contributing to the very political polarization of science they decry and thereby inhibiting more effective science communication. ... by targeting conservatives specifically as somehow uniquely deficient when it comes to science, the overall framework of [that view] lends itself to focusing on ideological countermobilization and/or a conversion of worldviews ("If only everyone were liberal!"), rather than to bridging ideological gaps. ... Demonizing a third of the population in a science policy debate by claiming they have an insurmountable psychological deficit does nothing to promote a solution to the challenges of effective science communication. And, as we have shown here, it is not empirically justified," they wrote.

Not surprising.