 |
Let’s check the science: Should I be drinking water frequently to make sure I’m not dehydrated? |
My wife tells me I don’t drink enough water. She says I’ll end up with kidney disease. I see lots of people who carry around a bottle of water and constantly take sips from it. Apparently they believe that they need to “stay ahead” of dehydration, making sure their bodies are fully hydrated at all times. Should I join them?
 |
After a run of red lights, surely a green one is due, or is that a red flag? |
How to recognise this tactic
This happens when you convince yourself, or someone tries to convince you, that some data reveal a significant pattern when really the data are random or meaningless. Some examples: seeing religious symbols in toasted bread or believing you are on a winning streak when gambling.
|
Let’s check the science: Why should I trust science ahead of other knowledge? |
I have friends who accept all sorts of pseudoscientific ideas – astrology, homeopathy, channeling, energy medicine, to name a few. We occasionally argue about their validity, and usually end up at a stand-off. I point out that there is no scientific evidence to support them, and in many cases there is evidence to show they are nonsense. They adopt the position that science can’t claim the final word – that there are other sources of knowledge that have authority to match or even overrule science. Why are they wrong?
To counter Richard Muller’s about-face on anthropogenic global warming, the Galileo Movement, the Australian climate-denier organisation, has come up with a new conspiracy. Its manager, Malcolm Roberts has told the Sydney Morning Herald’s Ben Cubby (here) that ‘climate change science had been captured by “some of the major banking families in the world” who form a “tight-knit cabal”.’
Mike Carlton, a fellow SMH columnist comments (here):
In Rightspeak, I understand, that’s code for the Great Jewish Conspiracy which, as everyone should know, also controls the international drug trade and was responsible for starting both world wars. It’s all there in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Update 08/08/2012: Andrew Bolt, one of Australia’s most influential climate deniers, has asked to be removed as a Galileo Movement adviser as a result of Ben Cubby’s story. Graham Readfearn has the details on DeSmoBlog or at his own blog.
|
Let’s check the science: Is it possible to boost my immune system? |
It’s the middle of winter and I’m constantly advised by advertising material that to remain healthy I should be doing or taking something to strengthen my immune system. Some people I know are convinced that it works. Although I’m perfectly healthy and I’ve even had this year’s flu shot, I know it won’t protect me against every virus that comes along. Should I join them?
Read more…
|
In science, when you’re on a good thing, should you stick to it – or is that a red flag? |
How to recognise this tactic
Anchoring is the human tendency to rely almost entirely on one piece of evidence or study, usually one that we encountered early, when making a decision.
Single experiments practically never settle an important scientific debate – it is the preponderance of evidence among researchers in the field (who must be able to replicate each others’ findings) that determines the currently accepted explanation for any given phenomenon.
Barry L. Beyerstein, Canadian psychologist and skeptic, 1995
Read more…
|
A debater seems to knock down his opponent’s argument with ease: expertise or red flag? |
How to recognise this tactic
When this tactic is used, it’s always in response to an argument put up by an opponent. Unable to come up with a reasoned response, the perpetrator constructs a distorted, incorrect version (the “straw man”) of the opponent’s argument, and then proceeds to tear it to shreds. The aim is to convince you that the original argument has been destroyed, when really it’s been ignored.
In the Straw Man approach, one attributes to an opponent a position as easily defeated as a dummy made of straw. The opponent may not even hold the position; or if he does, it may be so trivial as to make no difference to the argument. “I will believe in evolution when a monkey gives birth to a human baby!”
James Lawrence Powell, American geochemist, 2011
Read more…
There’s a debate happening in Australia, as in many other countries, about whether universities should offer courses on complementary medicine. It was sparked in March, by an article in the Medical Journal of Australia, which called for such courses to be scrapped (actual article here – subscription required). The authors are founding members of the Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM), led by the respected medico and academic John Dwyer.
Today, on the ABCs The World Today program, Ashley Hall very ably interviewed Paul Komerasoff, who has co-authored a reply to the March article in this month’s MJA (article here – subscription required). I haven’t read his article, but I hope to do so soon. What I’d like to do is look at some of the ideas Professor Komerasoff expressed in his radio interview, because I find them very disconcerting. Read more…
They did it. The Queensland Liberal National Party state convention overwhelmingly passed a motion calling on the education minister to put an end to teaching of anything to do with climate change in schools. Here’s the Brisbane Times report: Read more…
Chris Chambers, Petroc Sumner and Fred Boy of Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre in the UK have come up with some excellent suggestions for journalists who are writing science stories. In an article in The Guardian, Chambers and Sumner describe a kitemark system they developed in a submission to the Leveson inquiry. Their system is based on the following conditions which they say would indicate best practice for science news items:
(a) that the news report was written following direct communication with the original scientists, as opposed to being extracted second-hand from other news sources, i.e. the highly questionable practice of ‘churnalism’;
(b) that the main conclusions of the science, and any quotes, were checked with the source for accuracy prior to their inclusion (comment and critique would not have to be checked, but must be distinguished clearly from statements made by the source);
(c) that the news story provides a web-link to the press release or original research paper (where possible), allowing the public to directly assess the accuracy of the story;
(d) that within a short period following publication of the news story, the original scientists are afforded the opportunity to comment on the article, with this comment appearing alongside the published article, and distinguished clearly from the general comments by readers that many online newspapers now allow.
These are great suggestions. Real science journalists won’t find them unreasonable, and probably already put most of them into operation. Let’s hope they become well-known amongst all those non-science journalists who get roped into doing science stories because there’s no one else on their paper to do it.
Hat-tip to RichardDawkins.net
Science or not? 