Understanding the Divide: Good Science vs. Bad Science
Written on
Chapter 1: The Challenge of Scientific Authority
We’ve all encountered it.
During a heated online debate, someone references a scholarly article that seemingly backs their viewpoint. For many, this citation is seen as the definitive conclusion. The peer-reviewed research is taken as gospel, leaving the rest of us to bow to its authority.
However, an increasing number of individuals are beginning to question the notion that academic papers should be regarded as the ultimate truth in every circumstance. Many of these articles are riddled with unscientific content, featuring sensationalist headlines that don't align with their actual findings. Some research is outright fraudulent, while others reflect a lack of rigorous methodology. The contemporary peer-review system often fails to filter out these low-quality studies.
While it’s clear that the current state of academia is troubling and that scientific authority is diminished, the challenge remains: how do we navigate the overwhelming sea of scientific claims that shape today’s political discussions? Our modern society depends on relying on genuine experts, particularly in scientific fields. Simply dismissing all scientific authority could destabilize our civilization.
How can we, as everyday citizens, effectively engage with the vast array of scientific literature necessary for informed decision-making in a democratic society?
A good starting point is understanding what distinguishes sound science from flawed research.
Section 1.1: The Decline of Expert Authority
The rapid growth of higher education has coincided with an expansion of the expert class in the West. Unfortunately, this has also led to a decline in the overall competence of this class.
Although we’ve trained numerous capable scientists, this progress is overshadowed by the emergence of positions that mimic scientific authority without the requisite skills for genuine investigation. The result is a noticeable erosion of respect for expert authority.
For our civilization to thrive, we must address this decline. Ideally, the scientific community would expose frauds and incompetence, but scientists often lack the courage or political insight to do so. Thus, the only viable solution lies in a traditional political process where citizens unite to restore the credibility of the scientific community.
Restoring scientific authority will be an arduous journey, but it hinges on an informed and engaged citizenry. Establishing a foundational understanding of science is critical for this endeavor.
Section 1.2: The Nature of Empiricism
Our everyday understanding of the world is often shaped by what appears most beneficial in the short term. If a belief meets our immediate needs or maintains emotional stability, we’re less likely to question it.
Historically, this has been the primary method of knowledge creation, and it remains prevalent in our daily lives. While these beliefs must align with some aspects of reality, they are often influenced more by culture and tradition than by empirical evidence.
In contrast, science strives to align our everyday models with the actual workings of the physical world, yielding increasingly precise understandings that diverge from our initial cultural frameworks. This focus on the minutiae of reality is what enables the development of effective technologies.
Good science is thus about refining our abstract ideas to better reflect the true nature of physical phenomena. While valuable technologies arise from scientific inquiry, they are secondary to the empirical ethos that drives the process.
Chapter 2: Assessing Scientific Models
The first video titled "How to Judge What is Good Science vs. Bad Science" provides insights into distinguishing quality research from subpar studies.
Good science produces accurate models that can predict the behavior of physical phenomena. We can dismiss entire academic fields if they fail to generate clear, verifiable models.
The clarity and predictive power of a model are what determine its validity. Models that lack defined variables or fail to produce accurate predictions can be disregarded.
Section 2.1: The Importance of Measurable Variables
A straightforward way for laypeople to differentiate between good and bad science is to examine the variables being measured.
Good science focuses on the underlying physical phenomena that shape our abstract ideas. This often involves breaking down complex cultural concepts into smaller, measurable components.
However, many contemporary studies rely on subjective opinions as stand-ins for reality. For instance, using what people say to measure happiness is flawed; true scientific inquiry would require defining happiness in specific, measurable terms.
While we may not currently have the means to scientifically quantify happiness, this doesn’t preclude future advancements in understanding human behavior and emotion.
If the scientific process does not transform cultural concepts through empirical investigation, it qualifies as bad science. This criterion allows the public to easily reject many current attempts to misappropriate scientific authority.
Section 2.2: The Role of Science in Society
There’s nothing inherently wrong with using scientific elements to enhance non-scientific arguments, such as developing models of political behavior. However, these should not be conflated with genuine scientific inquiry.
We must critically assess arguments rather than defer unquestioningly to those with a scientific veneer.
Ultimately, all scientific inquiry has its roots in unscientific thought. For instance, atomic theory began with ancient philosophical ideas, and neuroscience evolved from cognitive psychology.
The scientific method can refine these foundational concepts, but it’s crucial to recognize when and how to apply scientific understanding to our everyday reasoning.