So I hope I will be forgiven in saying that I am quite tired of science being hoisted up on every other person's petard as today's Holy Grail, the Final Say, the Unquestionable Absolute, the End of Any and All Arguments, a Slam-Dunk Finish. Possibly my least favorite sentences in English involve the following sentiments:
#1 - "The Science is Settled," indicating that some scientist said this, so shut up and go away you uncivilized buffoon and/or science denier. If we held to the "Science is Settled" idea, Aether Theories, Spontaneous Generation, the Expanding Earth, and even Einstein's Static Universe may be today's norm.
And #2 - "Well this study says..." indicating that since this study you found on the internet says using the fungus scraped from underneath your toenails in your breakfast smoothie on the full moon of every other odd month naturally reduces cooties, it must be the gospel truth. EUREKA!! Sweet, post it to Facebook, tell your friends, change their lives.
It isn't the science I'm going after. It is the perversion of science through the manner in which it is used, by scientists, politicians, and the general public. And I think it safe to say that all have misused science at some point. I'll admit, I myself am far from above reproach. Not too long ago, I posted a "science" meme online that made what I thought was a good point (I think it still is a good point, or at least a good laugh). I then realized that it used a biased one-liner that didn't fully explain anything to show how everyone who agreed with the opposing viewpoint was clueless. So I took it back down. Because that is not science. Oops.
Science is the human way of organizing the knowledge we have of the universe in which we live. Science is extraordinarily useful in explaining the universe in which we exist, and in making predictions. Science is the process by which we pursue knowledge, and is a constantly evolving body of ideas.
An extraordinarily important point to remember about science is that science is not out to prove an idea to be true. When testing a hypothesis, said hypothesis is attacked from all angles to prove it false. If scientists fail to falsify a hypothesis after rigorous testing, then the credibility of the proposition is elevated. So, let me repeat; science is not a tool used to prove something true. Those that use it as such do not understand the basic premise of science. Bias is so easily introduced into the equation when one is trying to prove something true. Science is used to determine what is not true, and over time, the range of possible truths is narrowed. Theoretical physicist Richard Feynman once said "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything." I'm not positive I agree 100% with everything he says there, but I like the sentiment he is trying to get across.
However, science has "proven" over the years that violent video games don't cause aggression. Science has also "proven" that violent video games cause aggression. Science has recently "proven" cell phone radiation is killing bees, but it has also said that pesticides are the culprit. Studies have been used to show that homosexuality is genetic, while other studies say people are not born gay. Climate change has been proven, and proven to be a hoax. GMOs have been proven safe, and to be a health hazard. And these days, something doesn't even have to be "proven" before a bunch of word-toting pictures with snappy one-liners start flooding the internet.
Climate Change
GMOs
Why is this?
The problem often isn't science. The problem is likely that we come to the discussion with preconceived notions and are unwilling to yield to one the values of a group that disagrees with the values of the group that we belong to. I think it best explained on a site I found while researching GMOs for a genetics class I was taking. The author states:
"The perception of risk is inescapably subjective, a matter of not just the facts, but how we feel about those facts. As pioneering risk perception psychologist Paul Slovic has said, “risk is a feeling.” So societal arguments over risk issues like Golden Rice and GMOs, or guns or climate change or vaccines, are not mostly about the evidence, though we wield the facts as our weapons. They are mostly about how we feel, and our values, and which group’s values win, not what will objectively do the most people the most good. That’s a dumb and dangerous way to make public risk management decisions."
(The full article can be found here. Incidentally, the author, as near as I can tell, is advocating for holding those who disagree with science responsible for their disagreements. While I like what he said in the aforementioned paragraph, I am slightly uncomfortable with his proposition. First off, there is no law against being stupid. More importantly though, I tried to establish earlier that science is a constantly changing body of knowledge. What is "true" today may not be so true tomorrow.)
Lets be honest here; I think it safe to say that most people who accept anthropogenic climate change do so in part because it is one of the values of the Democrat party here in America. Most of those that are labeled as climate change "deniers" fall within the realm of the Republican Party. Because we associate ourselves with groups espousing those values, we hesitate to relinquish our grip on our views on certain issue because it is a value of the "enemy." HEAVEN FORBID WE ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THEM ON ANYTHING!!! So what do we do?
We zealously cherry-pick scientific facts (or we just ignore the science altogether, which at that point makes our opinion worse than useless) that support our arguments (ignoring the ones that we don't like) and attempt to bludgeon people who disagree with us into submission by using said "facts." Which gives the recipient of our facts the feeling that they are being clubbed. And rather than help them to see where they are wrong, that approach only makes them feel like you are attempting to bludgeon them, which you are, and under which circumstances they will fight, which gets everyone involved exactly nowhere. Except maybe a trip for blood-pressure medication. Focusing on the science, however, (hopefully) removes some of the heated emotions from the discussion, drawing our attention to the problem at hand.
And on those occasions when we actually do remember the science, we've taken to equating research with the gospel truth, and anyone who questions it obviously is a science-denying ignoramus blockhead that somehow miraculously retained the function to walk and breathe at the same time.
Why?
Like science, I think research is great. How it is used, however, occasionally gives me pause. I hold many of the scientists I've been privileged to work with in the highest regard. The same can be said of their research. I am sure that not all who publish do so just for the sake of publishing. But I'd be lying if I said I never think it happens. What I am trying to communicate is the idea that research does not necessarily mean correct, true, honest, legitimate, or accurate. It means someone with a piece of paper qualifying them as educated studied and then wrote about something. Hopefully, proper procedures were followed to give an unbiased and correct conclusion at the end of said research. I find myself, however, increasingly wary of trusting "research" simply because it is labeled as research.
One of my favorite TV shows of all time is Hogan's Heroes. The German Commandant, Colonel Klink, in an attempt to "prove" that German pilots were superior to American pilots, set up a test that heavily favored the German pilots (Season 2, Episode 1). After Colonel Hogan pointed out this small detail, Klink said "The aim of a research project, my dear Hogan, is not to discover new facts. We already know the Luftwaffe personnel are superior. Here we are merely furnishing scientific proof!" Starting out with a conclusion and then finding data to fit the circumstances isn't simply putting the cart before the donkey; its running the donkey over with the cart, and then arranging to blame it on your little brother. (Note: if you have run over a donkey and don't have a little brother to blame, let me know; I have three. I'll rent one out to you.)
Perhaps the most profound sentence I ever heard uttered concerning the outcome of scientific analysis was by a man who got his bachelors degree in geology, and then went to practice environmental law (Yes, he was a lawyer, and no, don't hold that against him. He was one of the most sensible of persons that I have ever met.) He said, and I quote, "You can always find a scientific opinion if you have enough money." He later went on to say "You can buy science." And to be brutally honest, it is true. Take today's Justice System. If one side has an "expert witness," implying that said witness has a special knowledge or proficiency in an area concerning the case, all the other side has to do is hire an "expert witness" with an opposing view. And for every expert witness there is an equal and opposite expert witness. The case is no longer about the facts, but about the appearance of credibility. It has become a grotesque intellectual "fashion" show. When that point is reached, concern for the truth has long since been chucked out the window.
I was discussing this topic with a colleague of mine from last summer. Heading up through Southeast Alaska on his way to retirement, this older co-worker of mine had spent his career working with ballistic missile computer systems for the US government. You might say he's a sort of rocket scientist. I was very intrigued when he brought up taking statistics in college. From the sound of it, he struggled mightily in this class until he came to this realization; he could make the numbers say whatever he wanted them to. He might have had to tweak how he was looking at problem or change the information around the numbers to lead the audience to a certain conclusion, he might have to use different numbers or methods of arriving to better numbers, or even evaluate the questions he did or didn't answer. But he learned to fit quantifiable data into any scenario. He was able to back up almost anything one way or another by engineering the data to fit the narrative. Sounds like it did wonders for his Stats grade too. Learn the scenario, and then get the "data" necessary to back up the situation. After that class, he came to the same realization that I have come to: You can make numbers say anything you want them to.
And just to cover my own backside, I'm not going after math either. Math, if used properly, is undoubtedly one of the most important of skills most people will ever learn, and certainly one of the studies with the most influence on humanity.
So when academia comes out with the results of a study, and the possible examples are too numerous to list, there is something an intelligent person should consider before posting an article arguing their viewpoint to someone's post to show the idiot they are bludgeoning how terribly wrong they are. One should always ask "Where is the funding for this study coming from?" If the video game industry is funding studies about benefits of violent video games, they aren't giving researchers the money in the hopes of hearing that violent video games lead to aggressive behaviors. They are paying to hear that violent video games lead to improved grades, college graduates, a good job, stronger marriages, a pay raise, running for President, world peace, and...increased spatial skills...(Call me old-fashioned, but I hear playing outside is a great way to increase spatial skills.) Anyway, should a scientist/researcher even get in the same hemisphere that makes violent video games appear the slightest bit negative, they'd lose their funding faster than you could disconnect a game console.
Or, when the government is funding your studies on the effects of man's carbon production on global cooling whoops I mean global warming whoops I mean climate change whoops I mean global climate disruption whoops I mean whatever it is called today, they aren't paying to hear that the climate does it's own thing. The narrative is already decided. What they are paying (funding research) to hear that there is an immediate crisis on hand that requires their personal and immediate attention and needs hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to fund global warming mitigation measures (whatever in blue blazes that is supposed to mean), as well as pass a slew of legislation and new laws in order to combat plant food.
And guess who would lose their funding and credibility (and its anyone's guess as to which of those is more important to researchers) should they say climate change isn't the biggest and most immediate problem humanity has ever faced? Those funding these studies are paying to hear that there is an immediate crisis. And they'll not only keep paying, but pay more if they hear that "THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END NEXT YEAR *(see "Al Gore") SO WE HAD BETTER RAISE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS RIGHT NOW TO DO SOMETHING!!!" What that something is, not even they know, and what happens with the money raised is anybody's guess. (Guess you now know how I feel about this issue.)
One should also ask what bias the person doing the research, writing the report, or repeating the research, holds. I don't mean to be beating a dead horse, but I recently read a pro-video game article by a mom/writer. Now, I'll be the first to admit that I enjoy video games. My roommates in college taught me to play Super Smash Bros, as well as Wii-U Mario Kart. And I loved it! I would play a couple of hours a week and it was a great de-stresser.
But when I read "As I write this post, my own 15-year-old is playing a 'Call of Duty' warfare game, while waiting for the latest version to arrive by mail," I am forced to wonder what bias this mother has. And in all fairness, she did state that she'd rather see her son riding his bike or playing basketball with his friends as opposed to chatting on his headset.
However, does she not have an emotional stake in this? Can her view of video games be affected by her love for her son, and by logical extension, his love for video games? I imagine it would be much less difficult to be proud of your son's accomplishments if you perceived that benefits such as enhanced creativity, increased ability to solve problems, and promoted social connectedness were coming out of his sitting down in front of a console wiggling his fingers.
So when someone uses the phrase "Well, research says..." to show me why the buffoon to which they are speaking (that's me) has the mental capacity of a peanut, I immediately become interested in the research said person starts spouting. I want to know who did the research. I want to know the methodology behind research. I want to see the numbers backing up their claim, and how they arrived at those numbers. I want to know what questions they did and didn't answer and why. I want to know who funded the research. I want to see if the author mixed interpretations with data. I want to know the researcher's political leanings, as well as a whole slew of other things.
Most of all, I want to talk about the science itself. Incidentally, I find it fascinating when I get myself into an online debate by leaving a comment on a scientifically hot topic, that people whose only method of recourse in debating science is insulting someone they disagree with come out of the woodwork. I guess it is easier to have a spine online. However, as soon as I start discussing the science, I never hear back from them. Without fail. Over a dozen individuals once slammed me as an idiot, intellectual whiner, political sheep, and science denier over a questioning comment I made. As soon as I explained my concerns with the science, everyone, and all their insults, mysteriously vanished.
So...to get to the point of this whole thing:
Please stop using "science" only as a weapon to advance your agenda. To do so is outrageously inappropriate, diluting the incredible process of gathering and examining knowledge to the point of throwing something--which may be fact, conjecture, straight up falsehoods, who knows--around on some online pseudo-scientific bludgeon-people-who-don't-agree-with-you cesspool. To do so, you haven't proven that you are right and someone else is wrong. You have only succeeded in proving you really know nothing of science, research or statistical analysis.
