Lunch at the Labs

About Science

Some links related to the understanding and practice of science that interest me.

• Understanding Research

  Series from The Conversation -- Academic Rigour, Journalistic Flair

  • Why research beats anecdote in our search for knowledge
  • Clearing up confusion between correlation and causation
  • Where's the proof in science? There is none
  • Positives in negative results: when finding `nothing' means something
  • The risks of blowing your own trumpet too soon on research
  • How to find the knowns and unknowns in any research
  • How myths and tabloids feed on anomalies in science
  • The 10 stuff-ups we all make when interpreting research
    1. Wait! That's just one study!
    2. Significant doesn't mean important
    3. And effect size doesn't mean useful
    4. Are you judging the extremes by the majority?
    5. Did you maybe even want to find that effect?
    6. Were you tricked by sciencey snake oil?
    7. Qualities aren't quantities and quantities aren't qualitites
    8. Models by definition are not perfect representations of reality
    9. Context matters
    10. And just because it's peer reviewed that doesn't make it right

    And finally ... Research is a human endeavour and as such is subject to all the wonders and horrors of any human endeavour.

• The evidence crisis, by Jim Baggott

  it seems science is confronted with nothing less than a crisis of evidence

  Last year Jim Baggott published a book, called Farewell to Reality, which challenges some of the prevailing opinions about contemporary theoretical physics of the kind which address our `big questions' concerning the nature of the physical universe. In it I argue that some theorists have crossed a line. They are suffering a `grand delusion,' a belief that they can describe physical reality using mathematics alone, with no foundation in scientific evidence. I call the result `fairy-tale' physics.

• How our botched understanding of 'science' ruins everything

  Intellectuals of all persuasions love to claim the banner of science. A vanishing few do so properly.

  What distinguishes modern science from other forms of knowledge such as philosophy is that it explicitly forsakes abstract reasoning about the ultimate causes of things and instead tests empirical theories through controlled investigation. Science is not the pursuit of capital-T Truth. It's a form of engineering -- of trial by error. Scientific knowledge is not "true" knowledge, since it is knowledge about only specific empirical propositions -- which is always, at least in theory, subject to further disproof by further experiment.

• Scientific consensus has gotten a bad reputation - and it doesn't deserve it

  It's used by both sides in the climate debates, but consensus is part of a process.

  Reproducible results are absolutely relevant. What Crichton is missing is how we decide that those results are significant and how one investigator goes about convincing everyone that he or she happens to be right. This comes down to what the scientific community as a whole accepts as evidence.
  There have clearly been times in the past where the consensus wasn't especially brilliant. Mendel was ignored instead of starting to build a consensus, and Alfred Wegner's formative ideas about plate tectonics were roundly ridiculed. But it's worth noting that these cases are the exception. The majority of the time, the consensus is a bit closer to being right than whatever came before it. And while it may be slow to change sometimes, it can eventually be shifted by the weight of the evidence.