Good Science vs Bad

38 views
Skip to first unread message

Dr Q

unread,
Mar 14, 2017, 1:35:32 PM3/14/17
to az-2-...@googlegroups.com
What is the difference between good science and bad science?  Can a person with no education in science see the difference?  I believe the answer is yes.  I also believe it is important for voters, because there is so much bad science on the news and in our political discussions.

The purpose of this topic is to explore the difference without getting sidetracked on the specifics of any particular debate.  There are examples of good and bad science on either side.  Here is an example of one of the most common problems in public discussions involving science, a logical fallacy called "cherry picking".

Here is a video showing five characteristics of science denial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXA777yUndQ&feature=youtu.be

And here is a website for analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement - examples of "the finest lunacy the Internet has to offer":

http://rationalwiki.org

And for a really complete taxonomy of logical fallacies:

https://logfall.wordpress.com

Let's see some other good examples of bad science.  A good example should be clear to everyone, regardless of their political views.

Dr Q

unread,
Mar 15, 2017, 11:32:34 PM3/15/17
to AZ-2 Forum
One thing many bad arguments have in common is an intent to obfuscate an issue or create a distraction, rather than seek the truth.  The list is long, but my favorites include:  Red Herrings, Straw Men, Ad Hominem, Stonewalling, Argument from Authority, and various forms of Proof by Verbosity (Argument Ad Nauseum, Technobabble, Filibuster, and the Gish Gush).

We need not look far for examples of Ad Hominem.  Candidate debates in the Republican primary were almost entirely ad hominem.  Nothing can be learned about the issues.  Ad hominem works well with stonewalling, as Bush 41 showed in his famous confrontation with Dan Rather over his role in the Iran-Contra scandal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqwQw3THRvU

Filibuster is defensive obfuscation, what we see in TV interviews when a weasel is cornered and needs to run out the clock.  The Gish Gush is similar but is used more on the attack rather than defense.  The best political surrogates are able to pivot quickly from defense to offense and overwhelm an opponent with a flood of irrefutable nonsense.  It works best in timed debates and tightly scheduled TV interviews.

If more people understood these tactics, they would not be so effective on TV, and maybe, just maybe, our political discussions would improve and we would have better government.

Dr Q

unread,
Mar 19, 2017, 8:27:55 AM3/19/17
to az-2-...@googlegroups.com
Here is a famous recent example of cherry picking.  Senator Inhofe, perhaps the most anti-science politician in Washington, used the fact that it snowed in Washington on a day in February, to support his argument that "manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" Senator Inhofe has a BA from the University of Tulsa Oklahoma.  He should know better.

For those who still have some doubts about the actual records on global temperatures, here are some excellent graphs:
Check out the records for your own city here:

And for a good general website explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation:
https://skepticalscience.com

And for the ultimate simple explanation of climate science:

Dr Q

unread,
Apr 25, 2017, 7:55:50 AM4/25/17
to AZ-2 Forum
Here is another example of really bad science.  The Heartland Institute, an organization that has worked to deny the scientific consensus on various issues impacting industry profits including the link between cigarettes and cancer, has now published a booklet seeking to deny the connection between climate change and man's burning of fossil fuels.  http://store.heartland.org/shop/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming/

They are bypassing any peer review, avoiding real scientists as much as they can, and distributing their booklet directly to science teachers in high schools and lower grades.  Reminds me of the creationists trying to push their junk science into the curriculum.  I say, bring it on.  Nothing like a vigorous debate to get students' attention, and to help them learn the difference between good science and bad.

Here are some links on this topic I found interesting:
 - two scientists debunking the Heartland booklet
 - comments on Heartland and it's disinformation campaign from the National Center for Science Education
 - more about the Heartland Institute and its credibility problems
- Why don't the deniers offer an alternative explanation for the observed climate changes?

Dr Q

unread,
Aug 8, 2017, 12:31:03 PM8/8/17
to AZ-2 Forum
This is a little off the topic of science, but I think the same principles of good science vs bad can be applied to politics.  People who are good at science are good at the critical thinking necessary to distinguish truth vs falsity in political discussions.

I recently had a discussion with a Trump supporter defending the belief that the "media" are all lying about Trump and there is a left-wing conspiracy to discredit him.  Fox News says one thing, Rachel Maddow says another.  How do we know what is true?  Can we rely on fact-checking websites?  No, they are "part of the conspiracy".

I gave him 100 examples of provable lies by Trump.
No good.  The NY Times itself is "lying".
I asked for an example of the "media" lying about Trump.  He said he heard a statement that Fox News "represents" the Republican Party.  That's a statement of opinion, not a lie.  It seems we have a basic problem even agreeing on the definition of "lie".  A lie is more than a simple mis-statement of fact.  It has to be done deliberately with the intention to deceive.  If the error is corrected as soon as it is discovered, that is just a mistake, not a lie.  If the error is never corrected, and is repeated again and again, and it is something easily checked, then it becomes a lie (and that includes willful ignorance).  We may not be able to prove intent, but "beyond reasonable doubt" is good enough.  It is beyond reasonable doubt that Trump knows Obama was not born in Kenya.

Why are there so many people living in a separate "right-wing reality" with its own "alternative facts", and what seems like complete isolation from the real world?  This includes people who are intelligent and quite capable of critical thinking in areas other than politics.  I believe that this right-wing reality serves a need to express anger at our political system.  Truth does not matter when you feel that kind of anger.


Dr Q

unread,
Sep 7, 2017, 8:35:10 PM9/7/17
to az-2-...@googlegroups.com
When scientists argue about a theory, to most people it can sound very much like an argument over politics or religion. The discussion can get quite heated. You'll even hear words like "bullshit", or "idiotic", but there is a key difference between how scientists argue compared to politicians, lawyers, religious bigots, or much of the general public.  A good scientist is motivated by a desire to learn the truth, not just win an argument.  A good scientist will immediately acknowledge truth, even if it means losing an argument.  Argument is seen as a tool to discover truth, not as a contest you must win no matter how bad your position.

People who understand a subject can easily recognize when someone is just arguing to win and has no desire to seek the truth.  The level of understanding needed to have a reliable "bullshit detector" depends on the subject.  Particle physics might require a PhD in the relevant subject.  Political discussions on TV require some background information on the topic, but usually not a high level of education.  The blatant disregard for truth we see from some advocates, is only effective because of the near total ignorance of the typical TV audience.  I find it very frustrating to watch most interviews, especially if the questioner lacks sufficient knowledge to point out the fallacies.  I love it when a "true believer" gets hammered by the facts.  I feel no sympathy when a weasel is cornered and the interviewer won't let him change the subject.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages