What You Can do to be more Scientific - [Fighting our Innate Flaws]
The following example is not directed at anyone; in other words, it can be applied to any normal human being, regardless of status.
You come up with a statement: 'This food/diet/drug/supplement/etc is bad/good for you.'
Then, what most people (including many scientists) are prone to do is to back their statement with, so-called, 'scientific' articles.
What are some potential pitfalls in this:
First of all, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of peer reviewed papers published every year. Look, for example, at a report for 2015 from Elsevier:
- 1.8 million unique authors submitted 1.3 million manuscripts to their (Elsevier's) journals. [source]
And that's only for this specific participant in the publishing 'industry'.
It, then, may be reasonable to think that any statement you should make/have, there are, at least, a couple of dozens of papers to support your arguments.
Second of all, the validity of those papers (supporting your argument) has to be scrutinized. Just because it's a paper published in a journal doesn't make it solid science. Examples of deceptive, bad science, and manipulative statistics are not shy of academia.
So, you're not doing anyone (including yourself) a favor when you have an argument and look for a 'study' to back it up. However, it is very likely you will appear legitimate to people who are scientifically illiterate (most people) and are not familiar with good reasoning, cognitive fallacies, and critical thinking skills - which take a lot of time and mental effort to develop.
So, while you may appeal to the masses, it is likely you'll appear mediocre, at best, to the connoisseurs of good science.
One good alternative (in my view):
With the risk of experiencing mental discomfort:
- when you have an argument, start scrutinizing evidence that opposes it. In other words, look for research or evidence that disconfirms it; and investigate its validity.
- present your findings; chances are that your findings may not be spectacular or 'eye-catching', meaning that they may be boring and unappealing to the masses.
Most statements and many scientific hypotheses have not been able to be replicated, and many have been refuted by subsequent investigations. Look at some of Ioannidis's work for example, including this one: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.
- however, what it is likely that you'll achieve is: respect among scientifically literate peers.
Should this be a well-worth sought-after goal? It depends on who you are...
The choice is up to you. Two choices are:
- do what's easy: find confirmations for your thoughts and arguments
- do what's more burdensome: try to scientifically disprove your theories/thoughts/arguments via the lenses of the scientific method - to which you subsequently apply filters of cognitive fallacies, human bias, and irrationality.
I have a hunch for where the preponderance of choices gravitates.
To stay in touch with me, follow @cristi
Cristi Vlad, Self-Experimenter and Author
That's why it takes decades for the Nobel committee to reward laureates for their scientific discoveries. Only after their research has been replicated by numerous other scientists and their ideas and concepts have helped to discover much more in the related and neighboring fields of expertise, it can be assumed that the primary research findings were true and worthy of such a prize, provided enough impact on humanity.
probably one of the most relevant of delaying gratification - though a sad one (in my view).
When there is some uncertainty about a scientific subject, I always look for the experiments first. Often scientists are debating subjects that are sciency or sound like science, but in truth they are really talking about politics or philosophy or social science. Focusing on experiments and the ideas that they can prove to be false is the best way to avoid drifting away from science.
I mostly agree!
I'm not sure I understand your suggested approach completely. Looking for and selecting research because it supports or opposes an argument is the exact same cherry-picking no matter if you agree or disagree with the idea. Picking out a few papers that go against your argument and contesting their validity alone would not be enough.
But I do agree that examining the available data both for and against would allow you to make a better case and to make a more informed judgment on what you think is likely to be true or not.
The problem with scientific research is that you simply can't dig into everything and if you are looking at a field of science you are not an expert on, it's sometimes very hard to examine the evidence and make your mind up in an objective way.
That's why people use the idea of scientific consensus which the scientifically illiterate translate as the scientific conspiracy.
how would looking for disconfirming evidence be in any way close to cherry-picking?
I do agree that within any field, you may need a collection of skills for literacy, and some include: field-specific expertise and solid knowledge of statistics and cognitive fallacies - which, in my view, should be a priority.
You are selecting the evidence you are looking at based on its outcome. In that way it can be construed as a type of cherry-picking despite the fact that you personally disagree with the suggested conclusion. It's still an unbalanced selection in the exact same way and its functionally the same as someone cherry-picking the data to try and substantiate the opposing view.
But as I prefaced my response, I'm not sure I understood you very well and just going and purposefully choosing diconfirming research to look at might not have been what you meant. Maybe you meant, looking not just for research that confirms your point, but also for opposing evidence, than it's attempting to falsify your own conclusions and then would be a warranted method.
I sometimes find it very difficult talking about science and what is and is not likely to be true in general, so I was hoping you'd shed a bit more light on exactly what you meant as it might be the exact type of advise I'm actually looking for.
in essence, one of my points is very simple to convey:
I see. Well that is indeed checking if you can reasonably falsify your argument then and indeed has nothing to do with cherry-picking.
The whole point to science is trying to figure something out, then trying to disprove it. If you can, the science changes. If not, it's accepted only as long as it's not disproven.
A wise man once said "A man is only 'smart' when he realizes he knows almost nothing."
Great read!
Absolutely agree @cristi, a good hypothesis is tested from all angles, including ones to fail that hypothesis, and if in fact, in your research (using empirical evidence) you fail your hypothesis, and in general, despite all the 'anecdotal evidence' to support your hypothesis, you must be willing to change your hypothesis and/or ultimately change your mind.
The human being develops abilities, depending on their environment, but the search for reasoning, is relative to the decision you take to change your thinking, it is always late for people to leave after, the power to change.
Follow me
wtf?
good to think more rationally and i like scientific rationalizations -nice to read your blog and i will follow to keep the connection
But I do not want to be more scientific
You don't care to understand the way things work? Why would you not want to be more scientific?
Because I like how I am right now
Stagnation is the enemy of happiness.
But I'm not stagnant
I'm not exactly saying you are, but without learning new things and growth, you will be
Wo will nice post
@abutaleb365
nice topic i like this topic ....................................