Learning How to Decipher Real Science from Pseudo-science
Posted on Feb 1, 2015 by Trevor in Science
Are GMOs bad for you? Are vaccines safe? Is global warming caused by humans? How solid is the theory of evolution? Should we add fluoride to the drinking water?
I’ve seen a number of friends and acquaintances stumble over questions like these. Some are certain they know which side (presuming there are two sides) is correct. Oftentimes they’re wrong despite (maybe even due to in part to) their certainty.
I recall watching Bill Nye debate a meteorologist on a cable news program over global warming. Most of the arguments they used were beyond my ability to debunk. I’m not climatologist, after all. How am I to know who’s right? Or maybe it just goes to show that the issue is still up for deciding, right? With balanced arguments on each side? Maybe we still need to wait for more data, for more time, and/or for more analysis, right?
Not necessarily. Sometimes the stubborn minority on a scientific position is given a giant disproportionately large microphone, particularly if there are political or financial rewards for upholding that view.
So how does the average layman distinguish between the arguments that are credible and those that are nothing but hot air? You can figure it out with some time and effort. Soon you’ll even discover that some debates over scientific issues that rage on in Congress or on cable news programs are actually all but settled among scientists. Renegade bloggers might insist that the conventional science on topic x is all wrong, but after you sift through the arguments, you’ll see they are completely baseless. Sometimes, saying “there are two sides to this argument” is akin to saying there are two sides to the “is the earth flat” debate.
Anyway, here are some approaches that have helped me sort things out.
Finding Information
Instead of heading to Google in search of articles or blogs confirming your point of view, try using neutral questions or queries in a search engine. Search for “Are vaccines safe?” Or even, “formaldehyde vaccines”. Search for “is global warming man made?”
The search engines will of course return a variety of arguments from varies parties. Now read some of the most popular ones. From both sides. Read more.
- Pay attention to the credentials and professions of the authors.
- Take note of how many ads on their blog are hawking something that might align with their agenda. Are they selling a book they or one of their buddies wrote?
- Is it an inflammatory opinion piece?
- How willingly and thoroughly do they engage with opposing arguments?
- What kinds of research do they cite (anonymous or unknown bloggers vs. scientists with credible positions in professional committees)?
- Do they tout secret or privileged information that “they don’t want you to know”?
- Do they impugn the integrity of an entire field of professionals? Does their argument rely on an assumption that the vast majority of their peers are incompetent and/or dishonest?
- Is this person a celebrity, or a recognized expert in his/her field?
Science-specific Blogs
Another good way to get a grip on where the scientists are meeting in agreement is to hang out on science blogs. People who are passionate about science and scientific problems are very willing to put in the effort to become scientifically literate and the level of bogus pseudo-science on science blogs tends to be very low. Plus, as a bonus, the actual scientists doing research in the field sometimes comment in these forums as well.
Learn More about the Process
Understanding the process of how scientific research is conducted, peer reviewed, and converted into public policy recommendations is absolutely critical to understanding what constitutes solid science.
Anecdotes of your own or of close acquaintances can be very powerful and convincing, leading many people to disregard entire mountains of data rigorously collected and analyzed over decades. But this doesn’t constitute science. Quality scientific research demands that results are repeatable. If a scientist claims to have overturned longstanding conventions in a particular field, nobody will simply take it for granted. The details behind the research must be submitted for peer review and scrutinized in scientific publications who stake their reputations on quality and integrity.
Not all science can be conducted in a lab by white-coated researchers, of coarse, but good science allows us to make predictions and find patterns in nature. A scientific theory is only as useful as the predictions it allows us to make and the tests it allows us to conduct.
Of course, the process isn’t perfect, but as you look into it, you’ll see that a gold standard for reliable science has been established, and you can use it for comparison when analyzing the claims you encounter.
Recognizing Your Own Confirmation Bias
Research has shown that we tend to be quite illogical when we encounter information that challenges our self-identity. That is, if we identity as a member of Group X, and a piece of evidence shows up that challenges the worldview or beliefs of Group X, our brains aren’t very good at accepting that evidence.
As you seek to understand scientific issues better, be cognizant of your own biases and try to compensate for them as much as possible. By the way, changing your views on a given issue doesn’t automatically immunize you against confirmation bias; it simply changes the location of the bias. This is something you will always have to deal with.
Don’t Be “That Guy”
And as a final tip, once you find yourself understanding things better, you’ll likely be tempted to “set things right” when these debates arise at family reunions or on Twitter. Do not ever fall into the trap of thinking that someone buys into bad arguments because they’re stupid. It may very well be true, but I assure you I’ve encountered plenty of intelligent people that are also very science illiterate. And even if someone is just dumb, calling them out on it may be satisfying in a playground-taunt sort of way, but it will likely only galvanize them in their views.