Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
How Do You Spot When An Opinion Is Not Based On Good Science?
How do you spot when an opinion is not based on good science?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by vinika. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have doubts about the use of "opinion" in vinika's question to the extent that it forms part of the answer.
So as soon as you see or hear: "my opinion is"; "in my opinion"; or "the general opinion is" then the alarm bells should start to sound saying "is this good science or even science at all?"
Scientists make statements they do not issue opinions (although these are allowable in discussion as to the verity of a statement).
To detect bad science needs hard-working analysis of what you are expected to believe. This belief should not claim to be the absolute truth, merely the best explanation of the latest chemico/physico/medico data.
The opinionator should be able to begin by explaining where the opinion originated and it's rational basis i.e. the starting hypothesis. This should exclude any "self-evident truths" but be based on observation or derived from what is now accepted as fundamentally proven beyond reasonable doubt (to date).
The evidence for testing the hypothesis should be stated and be practicable for others to carrry out. This testing should be used to gather data and the tests should be constructed to DISPROVE the hypothesis not to confirm it.
After the exhaustive testing by many different individuals or groups, without any disproof, the hypothesis is then elevated theory.
Although a theory can be built upon, once estalished to the satisfaction of all the experts in the field, (there will always be rebels which is not a bad thing but they then have the gargantuan task of overturning the theory). Failure to establish a theory in this way but still proclaim it true is bad science.
Continual criticism is the bedrock of good science and refusal of this criticism is bad science if science at all.
I know a bit of stats but will not dwell on this except to warn about reading graphs. Do the ordinate and abscissa (y,x axes) both start at the same fair point. So often the vertical axis is chopped to make the trend seem steeper.
Daniel Fynberg was a great science teacher. In explaining that in nature, notably the electron, neutron and proton etc occurred as whole entities he cited the statement: "Statistics tells us that the average family has 2.5 children". He then challenged his students to show him half a child! Hence stats can be meaningless in the real world.
I'd like to deal with clinical trials and studies but maybe later.
Enough for now,
SIQ.
So as soon as you see or hear: "my opinion is"; "in my opinion"; or "the general opinion is" then the alarm bells should start to sound saying "is this good science or even science at all?"
Scientists make statements they do not issue opinions (although these are allowable in discussion as to the verity of a statement).
To detect bad science needs hard-working analysis of what you are expected to believe. This belief should not claim to be the absolute truth, merely the best explanation of the latest chemico/physico/medico data.
The opinionator should be able to begin by explaining where the opinion originated and it's rational basis i.e. the starting hypothesis. This should exclude any "self-evident truths" but be based on observation or derived from what is now accepted as fundamentally proven beyond reasonable doubt (to date).
The evidence for testing the hypothesis should be stated and be practicable for others to carrry out. This testing should be used to gather data and the tests should be constructed to DISPROVE the hypothesis not to confirm it.
After the exhaustive testing by many different individuals or groups, without any disproof, the hypothesis is then elevated theory.
Although a theory can be built upon, once estalished to the satisfaction of all the experts in the field, (there will always be rebels which is not a bad thing but they then have the gargantuan task of overturning the theory). Failure to establish a theory in this way but still proclaim it true is bad science.
Continual criticism is the bedrock of good science and refusal of this criticism is bad science if science at all.
I know a bit of stats but will not dwell on this except to warn about reading graphs. Do the ordinate and abscissa (y,x axes) both start at the same fair point. So often the vertical axis is chopped to make the trend seem steeper.
Daniel Fynberg was a great science teacher. In explaining that in nature, notably the electron, neutron and proton etc occurred as whole entities he cited the statement: "Statistics tells us that the average family has 2.5 children". He then challenged his students to show him half a child! Hence stats can be meaningless in the real world.
I'd like to deal with clinical trials and studies but maybe later.
Enough for now,
SIQ.
I should like to deal with scientific claims regarding medicines (sqad and others comments/criticisms very welcome as becomes good science).
In the UK there are 3 classes of medicines available:
Prescription-only drugs have to have gone about 7 years of testing for safety and efficacy i.e. Clinical Trials. The safety apect must be preceeded with testing on a number of species of non-human animal. (The number was increased after the honest trials on thalidomide where the science was good but tested the wrong animal (rabbit) which did not produce deformed
off-spring). Clinical trials need to be double-blind, placebo-controlled and prior approved by the MHRA in the UK or the FDA in the US. They go through 3 phases in humans from a small group through to a massive group plus regular reporting of any side effects thereafter (phase 4). Provided ALL of the data is supplied to the regulatory authority and the stats etc approved this is good science. There have been a few very cases where data has been with-held. This was bad/evil science.
Pharmacy-only drugs have by necessity been through the above process although many have and proven safe over 20 years or more. However they can often be dangerous if misused, hence the need for pharmaceutical caution. If such advice is not given (very rare) this is bad medico/science.
OTC (over-the-counter) drugs can be sold generally. These usually result from Studies or long-established safety. Hence they are not allowed to claim to cure anything but use "weasel" words like "aid" or may benefit". They are generaly safe and may have a placebo benefit. I would describe these as "borderline" rather than bad science. However excess vitamins A or D can be harmful.
I personally regard herbal medicines as bad science as their constituents can vary and not all can be identified. A woman took a herbal medicine and she turned yellow (hepatitis). She was rushed to hospital and survived. The product contained the liver poison wormwood. However this should not panic anyone because it was a rare case.
Just ensure that you read all of the leaflets inside the pack of all medicines or YOU are responsible for bad medico/science.
Sorry I could not discuss Good Manufacturing Practice nor Good Clinical Practice but I've said enough as you will all agree :)
SIQ.
In the UK there are 3 classes of medicines available:
Prescription-only drugs have to have gone about 7 years of testing for safety and efficacy i.e. Clinical Trials. The safety apect must be preceeded with testing on a number of species of non-human animal. (The number was increased after the honest trials on thalidomide where the science was good but tested the wrong animal (rabbit) which did not produce deformed
off-spring). Clinical trials need to be double-blind, placebo-controlled and prior approved by the MHRA in the UK or the FDA in the US. They go through 3 phases in humans from a small group through to a massive group plus regular reporting of any side effects thereafter (phase 4). Provided ALL of the data is supplied to the regulatory authority and the stats etc approved this is good science. There have been a few very cases where data has been with-held. This was bad/evil science.
Pharmacy-only drugs have by necessity been through the above process although many have and proven safe over 20 years or more. However they can often be dangerous if misused, hence the need for pharmaceutical caution. If such advice is not given (very rare) this is bad medico/science.
OTC (over-the-counter) drugs can be sold generally. These usually result from Studies or long-established safety. Hence they are not allowed to claim to cure anything but use "weasel" words like "aid" or may benefit". They are generaly safe and may have a placebo benefit. I would describe these as "borderline" rather than bad science. However excess vitamins A or D can be harmful.
I personally regard herbal medicines as bad science as their constituents can vary and not all can be identified. A woman took a herbal medicine and she turned yellow (hepatitis). She was rushed to hospital and survived. The product contained the liver poison wormwood. However this should not panic anyone because it was a rare case.
Just ensure that you read all of the leaflets inside the pack of all medicines or YOU are responsible for bad medico/science.
Sorry I could not discuss Good Manufacturing Practice nor Good Clinical Practice but I've said enough as you will all agree :)
SIQ.
I saw this earlier and have been thinking about my answer ever since.
I believe their is no answer to this question as science, like every other branch of human activity is conducted by humans, and that mean there will always be scientists that will be thinking more about their own careers or celebrity than on the formalities that have traditionally been observed when scientists have interacted with the rest of humanity.
My answer is that the only way is to study science yourself and learn as much as you can about the incredible things about the nature of reality that science really has discovered. If science is not for you then you should expect to be bamboozled and hoodwinked by career celebrity scientists
At least don't believe them and buy their 'popular science' books. Read science fiction instead, basically it's the same but more fun!
I mean 'The science of Doctor Who'! I rest my case.
I believe their is no answer to this question as science, like every other branch of human activity is conducted by humans, and that mean there will always be scientists that will be thinking more about their own careers or celebrity than on the formalities that have traditionally been observed when scientists have interacted with the rest of humanity.
My answer is that the only way is to study science yourself and learn as much as you can about the incredible things about the nature of reality that science really has discovered. If science is not for you then you should expect to be bamboozled and hoodwinked by career celebrity scientists
At least don't believe them and buy their 'popular science' books. Read science fiction instead, basically it's the same but more fun!
I mean 'The science of Doctor Who'! I rest my case.
Dear Colmc54,
I have spent my life studying and contributing to the science knowledge base but do not agree that this is necessary if you want to separate the wheat frm the chaff.
It all depends on how much you wish to find out how valid a claim is (at the stage of current knowledge).
If you simply swallow newspaper reports or statements made by TV celebrities, then you may well be mislead as you state.
However please, at least reconsider my post of 21.15 Mon 10th Feb 2014 which deals with pure science. The thrust of this is the internal self-criticism which is built into science.
Sure there are dubious scientists and a few down-right crooks but all are exposed eventually by their "fellow"-scientists. Hence, you can trust scientific statements much more than you can those emitting from all other sources which claim to enlighten you.
Also follow the history of mankind and you will see that science and it's daughter: technology have contributed more to our progress than any other method of investigation. It's not magic it's just a beautifully evolved method of understanding. It does not need a B.Sc. and Ph.D., tho they help.
However the guide is to weigh every single word you read or hear. One "weasel" phrase like "it is feasible that ..", "the general opinion is ..." or "may aid recovery ...".
I have spent my life studying and contributing to the science knowledge base but do not agree that this is necessary if you want to separate the wheat frm the chaff.
It all depends on how much you wish to find out how valid a claim is (at the stage of current knowledge).
If you simply swallow newspaper reports or statements made by TV celebrities, then you may well be mislead as you state.
However please, at least reconsider my post of 21.15 Mon 10th Feb 2014 which deals with pure science. The thrust of this is the internal self-criticism which is built into science.
Sure there are dubious scientists and a few down-right crooks but all are exposed eventually by their "fellow"-scientists. Hence, you can trust scientific statements much more than you can those emitting from all other sources which claim to enlighten you.
Also follow the history of mankind and you will see that science and it's daughter: technology have contributed more to our progress than any other method of investigation. It's not magic it's just a beautifully evolved method of understanding. It does not need a B.Sc. and Ph.D., tho they help.
However the guide is to weigh every single word you read or hear. One "weasel" phrase like "it is feasible that ..", "the general opinion is ..." or "may aid recovery ...".
SIQ; //you can trust scientific statements much more than you can those emitting from all other sources which claim to enlighten you.//
That depends on the 'other sources'. Also I'm not clear about all the 'progress' technology has brought about. We used to kill one another in small numbers with bows and arrows, now its big-time with cluster bombs and drones. We should also consider how, thanks to technology, we are destroying our planet and we're all off to hell in a handcart. It appears to me that for every life saved or enhanced by technology and science, hundreds have been lost and ruined. WW1 is perhaps a good enough starting point.
That depends on the 'other sources'. Also I'm not clear about all the 'progress' technology has brought about. We used to kill one another in small numbers with bows and arrows, now its big-time with cluster bombs and drones. We should also consider how, thanks to technology, we are destroying our planet and we're all off to hell in a handcart. It appears to me that for every life saved or enhanced by technology and science, hundreds have been lost and ruined. WW1 is perhaps a good enough starting point.
Science is a methodology for acquiring and validating knowledge of the natural world. Although such knowledge is applicable to and for our continued existence, the technology it provides makes the need for a rational knowledge based philosophy to guide our choices on how we should best use that knowledge no less crucial to promoting our continued existence and well-being. Science is of little use if there's no longer anyone left around still able to do and benefit from science. Ultimately it is the continuation of the species with the ability to do science that determines whether of not they are and were engaged in 'good' rationally driven science.
Dear Khandro,
Your last post fails to address the question posed. The aim of this question is clearly: how to judge whether an opinion/claim made by a person is based on true, honest science or if it's an opinion/claim based on spurious science.
Your answer appears to be that science and its derivation, technology, are bad things per se. At least you concentrate on their abuses and misuses.
If mankind opts to use scientific/technological results to commit suicide that is the choice of mankind not of the original scientists nor the scientific method.
Please remember the good things from which you benefit like the elimination of smallpox, virtual elimination of TB and polio as well as worldwide communication, transport etc. plus the trickle-down effect into our education while spending your efforts on ensuring mankind acts morally and sensibly as far as you can.
That's the best I wish to go on your agenda, Khandro, but I insist that you have answered the wrong question!
With Kind Regards,
SIQ.
Your last post fails to address the question posed. The aim of this question is clearly: how to judge whether an opinion/claim made by a person is based on true, honest science or if it's an opinion/claim based on spurious science.
Your answer appears to be that science and its derivation, technology, are bad things per se. At least you concentrate on their abuses and misuses.
If mankind opts to use scientific/technological results to commit suicide that is the choice of mankind not of the original scientists nor the scientific method.
Please remember the good things from which you benefit like the elimination of smallpox, virtual elimination of TB and polio as well as worldwide communication, transport etc. plus the trickle-down effect into our education while spending your efforts on ensuring mankind acts morally and sensibly as far as you can.
That's the best I wish to go on your agenda, Khandro, but I insist that you have answered the wrong question!
With Kind Regards,
SIQ.
Well, of course, those who invented the internet meant it to be used for child porn...
Every time humans make progress, evil people take that progress and corrupt it. Evil will always exist... but to call for, or wish for, an end to progress because of that means that, instead, you will still have evil but just no progress. Hence, stagnation. Who wants that?
The internet has has as many positive effects as it has negative ones, and the same is true of virtually every other technology you could care to mention.
Every time humans make progress, evil people take that progress and corrupt it. Evil will always exist... but to call for, or wish for, an end to progress because of that means that, instead, you will still have evil but just no progress. Hence, stagnation. Who wants that?
The internet has has as many positive effects as it has negative ones, and the same is true of virtually every other technology you could care to mention.
By remembering, as you said, it is an opinion. If the opinion comes from a used car salesman or a scientist on TV appearing, as Cox used to do, as a disembodied head on Horizon, the way to tell is the same- find out more for yourself and if necessary seek a second opinion, and even a third.
Science is nothing if it doesn't inspire people to find out more for themselves. In the end you are the only person who can persuade yourself what you think, though all too often it's seductively easier to just be told.
Science is nothing if it doesn't inspire people to find out more for themselves. In the end you are the only person who can persuade yourself what you think, though all too often it's seductively easier to just be told.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago
The Perils Of Privatisation - Part X
News80 mins ago
ChatterBank111 mins ago
Masterchef - The Professionals
Film, Media & TV143 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles176 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.