Post by auntym on Aug 29, 2015 15:38:47 GMT -6
www.theage.com.au/comment/scientists-must-explain-principles-so-public--is-wary-of-bad-science-20150824-gj6wdd.html
Scientists are hopeless at communicating
Date August 27, 2015
by Ben Wade
Science is fallible and should be questioned and debated by everyone, but this can't happen if scientists don't communicate properly.
Scientific experiments are designed to try to disprove a hypothesis, an explanation of the cause of some phenomenon. Photo: Matej Kastelic
It's a communication problem. I hadn't realised how much of a problem until that sunny day at the pub, but I'll come back to the pub soon. It's science and how scientists communicate with broader society I'm talking about.
Scientists are strange creatures. Being one, I should know. Our world is removed from everyone else's; we think on scales from minuscule atoms to light years between galaxies. But we're not always great communicators.
If we continue having scientists portrayed as unquestionable authority figures, spouting absolutes, we can't expect people to differentiate between good and bad science.
Scientists are encouraged to specialise; and to a spectacular degree. Imagine a dishwasher repairman who only removes the back panel. He might only do one thing but you better believe he excels, he knows every inch of that panel and every technique on detaching it – that's how scientists end up. After all that specialisation they excel at communicating complex things with each other but are often poor at communicating simple science to everybody else. It's because we have our own language, conventions and customs; and the uninitiated can find it confusing and inaccessible.
But back to the pub: I was with a friend discussing my work. I enjoy sharing science with her despite her not being a scientist. I said some countries undertake science differently to Australia. I compared one nation's scientific approach to mass consumer goods: "High volume, low quality. A lot of it is bad science." Her reply struck me profoundly: "How can science be bad? Science is facts and facts are facts, right?"
Within science it's obvious you can have "bad" science, but in the real world it's different; that troubles me. Science can be "bad" for many reasons; small sample sizes, using incorrect tests or overstating your results to name a few. Bad science ranges from the inconsequential to life-threatening. An example of bad science causing real damage was Andrew Wakefield's investigation into the supposed connection between the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, and autism. The findings have been shown to be incorrect but the initial media storm undeniably means there are concerned and well-meaning parents who still refuse to vaccinate their children.
Another "bad" science is pseudoscience; things that sound science-like but really have little or no substance. Pseudoscience is often harmless, like ghost hunters, but can be malevolent. Anti-vaccine proponents and climate-change deniers have the potential to cause either personal or societal damage and thrive on "facts and figures" that sound scientific but are hokum.
CONTINUE READING: www.theage.com.au/comment/scientists-must-explain-principles-so-public--is-wary-of-bad-science-20150824-gj6wdd.html
Scientists are hopeless at communicating
Date August 27, 2015
by Ben Wade
Science is fallible and should be questioned and debated by everyone, but this can't happen if scientists don't communicate properly.
Scientific experiments are designed to try to disprove a hypothesis, an explanation of the cause of some phenomenon. Photo: Matej Kastelic
It's a communication problem. I hadn't realised how much of a problem until that sunny day at the pub, but I'll come back to the pub soon. It's science and how scientists communicate with broader society I'm talking about.
Scientists are strange creatures. Being one, I should know. Our world is removed from everyone else's; we think on scales from minuscule atoms to light years between galaxies. But we're not always great communicators.
If we continue having scientists portrayed as unquestionable authority figures, spouting absolutes, we can't expect people to differentiate between good and bad science.
Scientists are encouraged to specialise; and to a spectacular degree. Imagine a dishwasher repairman who only removes the back panel. He might only do one thing but you better believe he excels, he knows every inch of that panel and every technique on detaching it – that's how scientists end up. After all that specialisation they excel at communicating complex things with each other but are often poor at communicating simple science to everybody else. It's because we have our own language, conventions and customs; and the uninitiated can find it confusing and inaccessible.
But back to the pub: I was with a friend discussing my work. I enjoy sharing science with her despite her not being a scientist. I said some countries undertake science differently to Australia. I compared one nation's scientific approach to mass consumer goods: "High volume, low quality. A lot of it is bad science." Her reply struck me profoundly: "How can science be bad? Science is facts and facts are facts, right?"
Within science it's obvious you can have "bad" science, but in the real world it's different; that troubles me. Science can be "bad" for many reasons; small sample sizes, using incorrect tests or overstating your results to name a few. Bad science ranges from the inconsequential to life-threatening. An example of bad science causing real damage was Andrew Wakefield's investigation into the supposed connection between the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, and autism. The findings have been shown to be incorrect but the initial media storm undeniably means there are concerned and well-meaning parents who still refuse to vaccinate their children.
Another "bad" science is pseudoscience; things that sound science-like but really have little or no substance. Pseudoscience is often harmless, like ghost hunters, but can be malevolent. Anti-vaccine proponents and climate-change deniers have the potential to cause either personal or societal damage and thrive on "facts and figures" that sound scientific but are hokum.
CONTINUE READING: www.theage.com.au/comment/scientists-must-explain-principles-so-public--is-wary-of-bad-science-20150824-gj6wdd.html