15 ways to tell if scientific reporting is hogwash

[lawrocket 3]

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/22/5636960/a-rough-guide-to-spotting-bad-science?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=voxdotcom&utm_content=sunday

Happened to see this. Puts into clearer words the things I've been thinking and not stating too well. It seems like science reporting and science itself is becoming dominated by factors in this chart. Sensationalism. Speculative language.

I'd like to see a return to science and science reporting that is more straight-up reporting.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,620]

I've subscribed to Scientific American for over 40 years. When I first subscribed just about all the articles were written by scientists themselves; often prominent scientists who had done the original research. Some of the articles were pretty heavy going too.

For the past several years most of the articles have been written by "science writers" and the reading level required has clearly decreased. At a guess I'd say about 10th grade now.

(But at least it's higher than the mandated language level for communicating with Medicaid recipients, which is 4th grade.)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

I'm pretty skeptical of reporting on just about everything. I don't have confidence in journalists' ability to read a scientific paper, a court opinion, a write-up of opinion poll results, nor a law/bill and accurately summarize it.

The points in your link are good but step one, especially on the internet, is to find and read the actual thing.

[Andy9o8 0]

champu

I'm pretty skeptical of reporting on just about everything. I don't have confidence in journalists' ability to read a scientific paper, a court opinion, a write-up of opinion poll results, nor a law/bill and accurately summarize it.

The points in your link are good but step one, especially on the internet, is to find and read the actual thing.

Except for advice on orthopedic medicine, in which case DZ.com is usually the best source. Apparently.

[champu 1]

I'm drawing a blank on your allusion... let me have it, what have I said...?

[billvon 2,380]

>I've subscribed to Scientific American for over 40 years. When I first subscribed just
>about all the articles were written by scientists themselves; often prominent scientists
>who had done the original research. Some of the articles were pretty heavy going too.

>For the past several years most of the articles have been written by "science writers"
>and the reading level required has clearly decreased. At a guess I'd say about 10th
>grade now.

Agreed. I've since switched to Science News, which is closer to what Scientific American used to be.

[wmw999 2,116]

You only set him up. Just look at all the threads asking how long to rehab after x injury, or what's the impact of y injury on skydiving. They're right up there with downsizing and newbie camera threads.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[quade 3]

1 way to tell if an article is questionable.

It begins with a list headline.

Just sayin'.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,380]

>1 way to tell if an article is questionable. It begins with a list headline.

Homeowners: use this one weird trick to see if the science is valid! Click here.

[jakee 1,254]

You won't believe how this New Jersey mom won a Nobel Prize!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

quade

1 way to tell if an article is questionable.

It begins with a list headline.

Just sayin'.

I understand that. But it did hit on some things that I find really irritating. Correlation causation, for example. All the references the the things that CO2 may cause.

I think a lot of people have lost track of what science is because of the nature of reporting it. I think that, like with anything else, the best scientists may not be the ones who are perceived to be the best. The ones who are best at getting their names out there attain success and accolades.

It's not only to publish but to have some societal impact. Many, particularly that I've seem Gavin Schmidt, are openly advocating for scientists to be political advocates. They've learned the lesson of advertisers, who know that if you out a guy in a lab coat out there on a commercial to talk about something that people will trust it more.

A problem need not exist, so long as there is the perception of a problem. That's where the reporting on science has become far too editorial. It's practically marketing in a lot of places.

Here's my own test for a first glance. Does the report contain adverbs? For example, does the report say "the presence of x shows the influence of y" or does the report say, "the presence of x clearly shows the influence of y?"

Both are advocating. And both attempt to sway. But the latter adds another level. Second test? Does use could, may, might or other such fudge words?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

Agreed. I've since switched to Science News, which is closer to what Scientific American used to be.

So you have (or are going to read the following?

Quote

“Constrained work output of the moist atmospheric heat engine in a warming climate” published January 30 in Science.

I found the sumation I read interesting
Curious about your take.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[champu 1]

wmw999

You only set him up. Just look at all the threads asking how long to rehab after x injury, or what's the impact of y injury on skydiving. They're right up there with downsizing and newbie camera threads.

Wendy P.

I got that much, I was just confused as to whether he was saying "Except" in regards to my whole post or just the last sentence. I read it as the former which made it sound a lot more accusatory, oops.

In any event, thanks for looking out.

[quade 3]

lawrocket

But it did hit on some things that I find really irritating.

True. I wish though it had added at least a couple more. The main thing that bugs me and is incredibly telling is if the article is essentially a repost of a repost of an analysis by some guy who heard it from somebody else on a web site in Russia about a discovery in China based on a paper published in a scientific paper publishing company for hire from a university study conducted by a . . . and the list goes on.

THE thing I tend to look for is the original source material. I generally don't care about some elementary school telephone game interpretation of an interpretation of it.

Ironically, this is also the mode of the article you linked to. It wasn't the guy who wrote the original list, but a second hand rehash of it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I've since switched to Science News, which is closer to what Scientific American used to be.

Oh, I see. So Scientific American is more like... Scientific Canadian now.

[Remster 24]

Andy9o8

Quote

I've since switched to Science News, which is closer to what Scientific American used to be.

Oh, I see. So Scientific American is more like... Scientific Canadian now.

Eh. That was uncalled for. I'm sorry.

Remster

[Shotgun 1]

Too complicated. I use a simple rule: If it says what I want to believe, it's true. If it says something I don't want to believe, it's hogwash.

[pchapman 261]

billvon

>1 way to tell if an article is questionable. It begins with a list headline.

Homeowners: use this one weird trick to see if the science is valid! Click here.

XKCD covered that nicely:

"20th century headlines rewritten to get more clicks"
http://xkcd.com/1283/

[billvon 2,380]

>Too complicated. I use a simple rule: If it says what I want to believe, it's true. If it
>says something I don't want to believe, it's hogwash.

It's not just hogwash. It's lies by you and your ilk!

[wayneflorida 0]

My list:

1. The author's last name is Goebbels.
2. The author is The Secretary of the Department of something.

[rehmwa 2]

Shotgun

Too complicated. I use a simple rule: If it says what I want to believe, it's true. If it says something I don't want to believe, it's hogwash.

What if I don't want to believe it's true, but it's scary and deep down bothers me?

Or if I can make a few dollars on it?

Or if it makes interesting news?

Or if it let's me smile and nod knowingly with my (environmentalist, yuppie, church, gun club, book club, parent's club, etc etc etc) circle of friends and we can believe it and think we're better than the other groups.


Should I believe it then? and take up collections?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[champu 1]

billvon

>Too complicated. I use a simple rule: If it says what I want to believe, it's true. If it
>says something I don't want to believe, it's hogwash.

It's not just hogwash. It's lies by you and your ilk!

Every time someone uses the word "ilk" I just pretend they said "elk" and my forum-going experience is improved.

[Stumpy 256]

champu

Every time someone uses the word "ilk" I just pretend they said "elk" and my forum-going experience is improved.

Thank you

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[jgoose71 0]

A link in your OP...

http://tylervigen.com

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[lawrocket 3]

jgoose71

A link in your OP...

http://tylervigen.com

A decrease in per capita consumption of HFCS is consistent with what we expected to see from decreased oil importation from Venezuela.

My wife is hotter than your wife.