Here’s an interesting idea …
The ‘process’ of critical thinking, of course, insists that the information presented is questioned.
What research, by whom, when, for what reason?
One of the problems facing those of us wanting to explore, for want of a better world, the paranormal is the fact that there is a wealth of information ‘out there’ about ideas which can help frame our debates. Sorting through the information presents a real problem.
Scientists following the scientific method publish their ideas and often ‘provisional’ research. A good scientific paper is self-critical and tentative in its findings. Of course some ‘scientists’, especially those outside of their field, get it wrong and in many way by-pass the scientific method presenting their ‘breakthroughs’ and ‘challenges to established theories’ in a grandiose manner.
The media like the grandiose claims because they make for ‘good copy’ and even when the claims in the original research paper are tentative they can be reported by those who don’t understand the limits of the research or simply ‘mine’ the paper for a sensational headline.
“Scientists are confounded by a new study which ….” is a much more attention grabbing headline than “Some provisional research seems to suggest…”
Of course that leaves the general public in a state of confusion. How many times have you heard someone in the popular media or indeed someone you know say something like …
“What are these scientists doing? They can’t seem to agree…. I mean last month they said red wine was good for you… this month they say its bad … it’s all a load of xxxxxxxx”
Actually the fact that tentative findings may be challenged and new hypotheses arise to be tested is part and parcel of good science. Of course science does eventually reach an informed, researched and firm consensus about what is ‘true’ up to a certain point in time. These are what ‘Theories’ are – ideas about the way something works which have withstood efforts to ‘prove them wrong’ and by their very nature make ‘predictions’ about what could be discovered next.
The Higgs Bosun, for example, isn’t a made-up particle that scientists are looking for, it is something that the current ‘standard model’ predicts will be there IF accepted theories are correct.
The popular press epithet, The God Particle, makes for a much better headline which itself breeds disinformation about science… leading to pseudo-scientific claims and beliefs.
I find it really interesting that the phrase ‘scientists have PROVED’ is more often used by folks promoting an idea which lies at the fringes of science than by the scientists themselves. Proof or Truth are concepts which drive the scientific process but are not generally considered as being statements of absolute certainty.
So when you hear something like ….
“Scientists have proven that energy flows in the body”
You need to be very careful especially when such a statement preceeds the announcement of a ‘new’ approach to health, wealth or well being.
The ‘scientists have proved’ brigade are not averse to cherry picking their science; their scientific findings or misappropriating ideas from one discipline to another. Quantum Theory being a case in point.
AND when they can’t find the science they’ll fall into the trap of saying ”Well, its only a THEORY” …
So whilst the starting point of this diatribe was a report of some ‘interesting’ ideas about the brain chemistry of believers and skeptics (which may be part of an answer) it sparked in me the desire to question how we engage with reports of scientific discoveries especially in a time when anyone can publish, promote and define themselves as an expert.
Alan
Related articles
- The Scientific Method is wrong: Scientists don’t test hypotheses, but build models (computinged.wordpress.com)
- The scientific method – what about the philosophical method? (openparachute.wordpress.com)
- AGW skepticism and creationism (samizdata.net)
- FTL Neutrinos? Einstein Can Rest Easy (theness.com)
