shwetanarayan:

girlwhotumbls:

luchagcaileag:

a-gigantic-failure:

noctis-nova:

bigfatscience:

modified-vegan:

FYI science isn’t unbiased
You need to look at who’s funding the study
You need to look at the methods
You need to look at the type of statistical analysis
You need to use logic
Just because it’s “science” doesn’t mean it’s good science

You need to read the actual results and not rely on the abstract or the authors’ summary/interpretation or a media press release. 

Data in itself is non-ideological. Accurate or inaccurate. True or false.

The moment a human attempts to interpret that data it must pass through the filter of their personal philosophy and therefore becomes biased.

Science is not objectivity, only distributed subjectivity.

Also there’s the whole thing where scientific fraud happens a lot. Like that guy who was supposedly testing Ecstasy on rats and it caused a bunch of holes in their brain to form. Only later it came to light that instead of dosing the rats with bodymass-proportional  doses of Ecstasy comparable to the mg/kg that a human would take, he was actually dosing them with ridiculously high doses of meth. 

And then that study got used by the US government when deciding how regulated Ecstasy should be, and it didn’t come out until after that that this dude was committing major scientific fraud.

http://ahrp.org/integrity-of-scientific-findings-marred/

For added fun, the actual studies and results are frequently inaccessible, sequestered behind paywalls that don’t really benefit anyone. Sometimes, abstracts and news reports are all you have to go on, and they can be distorted or inaccurate.

Not to mention the fact that although all studies have to be able to be recreated, most never are. The very foundation of the scientific method is that for something to be true, anyone can follow this procedure and get similar results. But the problem is that there’s no one doing that. There’s hardly any funding toward experiments that have already been completed, they’re done, they have a conclusion, what more is there? So unless you have strong evidence to suggest that a study was flawed, you probably won’t get a repeat. Science is one of the most ironic fields in how biased it is in a search for truth.

Also “we tried this and found no significant result” generally doesn’t get you published.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s