info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
10 Questions To Distinguish Real From Fake Science WARNING TO SOYLENT POTATOES JAMES MCGINNIE-BOY
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Sergio
Jan 18, 2016, 9:10:58 PM1/18/16
to
Pseudoscience is the shaky foundation of practices–often medically
related–that lack a basis in evidence. It’s “fake” science dressed up,
sometimes quite carefully, to look like the real thing. If you’re alive,
you’ve encountered it, whether it was the guy at the mall trying to sell
you Power Balance bracelets, the shampoo commercial promising you that
“amino acids” will make your hair shiny, or the peddlers of “ natural
remedies” or fad diet plans, who in a classic expansion of a basic tenet
of advertising, make you think you have a problem so they can sell you
something to solve it.
Pseudosciences are usually pretty easily identified by their emphasis on
confirmation over refutation, on physically impossible claims, and on
terms charged with emotion or false “sciencey-ness,” which is kind of
like “truthiness” minus Stephen Colbert. Sometimes, what peddlers of
pseudoscience say may have a kernel of real truth that makes it seem
plausible. But even that kernel is typically at most a half truth, and
often, it’s that other half they’re leaving out that makes what they’re
selling pointless and ineffectual. But some are just nonsense out of the
gate. I’d love to have some magic cream that would melt away fat or make
wrinkles disappear, but how likely is it that such a thing would be
available only via late-night commercials?
What science consumers need is a cheat sheet for people of sound mind to
use when considering a product, book, therapy, or remedy. Below are the
top-10 questions you should always ask yourself–and answer–before
shelling out the benjamins for anything, whether it’s anti-aging cream,
a diet fad program, books purporting to tell you secrets your doctor
won’t, or jewelry items containing magnets:
1. What is the source? Is the person or entity making the claims someone
with genuine expertise in what they’re claiming? Are they hawking on
behalf of someone else? Are they part of a distributed marketing scam?
Do they use, for example, a Website or magazine or newspaper ad that’s
made to look sciencey or newsy when it’s really one giant advertisement
meant to make you think it’s journalism?6. Is there mention of a
conspiracy of any kind? Claims such as, “Doctors don’t want you to know”
or “the government has been hiding this information for years,” are
extremely dubious. Why wouldn’t the millions of doctors in the world
want you to know about something that might improve your health? Doctors
aren’t a monolithic entity in an enormous white coat making collective
decisions about you any more than the government is some detached
nonliving institution making robotic collective decisions. They’re all
individuals, and in general, they do want you to know.
2. What is the agenda? You must know this to consider any information in
context. In a scientific paper, look at the funding sources. If you’re
reading a non-scientific anything, remain extremely skeptical. What does
the person or entity making the claim get out of it? Does it look like
they’re telling you you have something wrong with you that you didn’t
even realize existed…and then offering to sell you something to fix it?
I’m reminded of the douche solution commercials of my youth in which a
young woman confides in her mother that sometimes, she “just doesn’t
feel fresh.” Suddenly, millions of women watching that commercial were
mentally analyzing their level of freshness “down there” and pondering
whether or not to purchase Summer’s Eve.
3. What kind of language does it use? Does it use emotion words or a lot
of exclamation points or language that sounds highly technical (amino
acids! enzymes! nucleic acids!) or jargon-y but that is really
meaningless in the therapeutic or scientific sense? If you’re not sure,
take a term and google it, or ask a scientist if you can find one.
Sometimes, an amino acid is just an amino acid. Be on the lookout for
sciencey-ness. As Albert Einstein once pointed out, if you can’t explain
something simply, you don’t understand it well. If peddlers feel that
they have to toss in a bunch of jargony science terms to make you think
they’re the real thing, they probably don’t know what they’re talking
about, either.
4. Does it involve testimonials? If all the person or entity making the
claims has to offer is testimonials without any real evidence of
effectiveness or need, be very, very suspicious. Anyone–anyone–can write
a testimonial and put it on a Website. Example: ”I felt that I knew
nothing about science until The Science Consumer blog came along! Now,
my brain is packed with science facts, and I’m earning my PhD in
aerospace engineering this year! If it could do it for me, The Science
Consumer blog can do it for you, too! THANKS, SCIENCE CONSUMER BLOG!
–xoxo, Julie C., North Carolina”
5. Are there claims of exclusivity? People have been practicing science
and medicine for thousands of years. Millions of people are currently
doing it. Typically, new findings arise out of existing knowledge and
involve the contributions of many, many people. It’s quite rare–in fact,
I can’t think of an example–that a new therapy or intervention is
something completely novel without a solid existing scientific
background to explain how it works, or that only one person figures it
out. It certainly wouldn’t just suddenly appear one night on an
infomercial. Also, watch for words like “proprietary” and “secret.”
These terms signal that the intervention on offer has likely not been
exposed to the light of scientific critique.
6. Is there mention of a conspiracy of any kind? Claims such as,
“Doctors don’t want you to know” or “the government has been hiding this
information for years,” are extremely dubious. Why wouldn’t the millions
of doctors in the world want you to know about something that might
improve your health? Doctors aren’t a monolithic entity in an enormous
white coat making collective decisions about you any more than the
government is some detached nonliving institution making robotic
collective decisions. They’re all individuals, and in general, they do
want you to know.
7. Does the claim involve multiple unassociated disorders? Does it
involve assertions of widespread damage to many body systems (in the
case of things like vaccines) or assertions of widespread therapeutic
benefit to many body systems or a spectrum of unrelated disorders?
Claims, for example, that a specific intervention will cure cancer,
allergies, ADHD, and autism (and I am not making that up) are frankly
irrational.
8. Is there a money trail or a passionate belief involved? The least
likely candidates to benefit fiscally from conclusions about any health
issue or intervention are the researchers in the trenches working on the
underpinnings of disease (genes, environmental triggers, etc.), doing
the basic science. The likeliest candidates to benefit are those who (1)
have something patentable on their hands; (2) market “cures” or
“therapies”; (3) write books or give paid talks or “consult”; or (4)
work as “consultants” who “cure.” That’s not to say that people who
benefit fiscally from research or drug development aren’t trustworthy.
Should they do it for free? No. But it’s always, always important to
follow the money. Another issue that’s arisen around pseudoscience is
whether or not a bias of passionate belief is as powerful as fiscal
motivation. If you have a bias detector, turn it on to full power when
evaluating any scientific claim. If yours is faulty–which you might not
realize because of bias–perhaps you can find someone in real life or
online with a hypersensitive bias detector. Journalists, by nature of
training and their work, often seem to operate theirs on full power.
9. Were real scientific processes involved? Evidence-based interventions
generally go through many steps of a scientific process before they come
into common use. Going through these steps includes performing basic
research using tests in cells and in animals, clinical research with
patients/volunteers in several heavily regulated phases, peer-review at
each step of the way, and a trail of published research papers. Is there
evidence that the product or intervention on offer has been tested
scientifically, with results published in scientific journals? Or is it
just sciencey-ness espoused by people without benefit of expert review
of any kind?
10. Is there expertise? Finally, no matter how much you dislike
“experts” or disbelieve the “establishment,” the fact remains that
people who have an MD or a science PhD or both after their names have
gone to school for 24 years or longer, receiving an in-depth, daily,
hourly education in the issues they’re discussing. If they’re
specialists in their fields, tack on about five more years. If they’re
researchers in their fields, tack on more. They’re not universally blind
or stupid or venal or uncaring or in it for the money; in fact, many of
them are exactly the opposite. If they’re doing research, usually
they’re not Rockefellers. Note that having “PhD” or even “MD” after a
name or “Dr” before it doesn’t automatically mean that the degree or the
honorific relates to expertise in the subject at hand. I have a PhD in
biology. If I wrote a book about chemical engineering and slapped the
term PhD on there, that still doesn’t make me an expert in chemical
engineering. And I’m just one person with one expert voice in the things
I do know well. I recommend listening to more than one expert voice.
related–that lack a basis in evidence. It’s “fake” science dressed up,
sometimes quite carefully, to look like the real thing. If you’re alive,
you’ve encountered it, whether it was the guy at the mall trying to sell
you Power Balance bracelets, the shampoo commercial promising you that
“amino acids” will make your hair shiny, or the peddlers of “ natural
remedies” or fad diet plans, who in a classic expansion of a basic tenet
of advertising, make you think you have a problem so they can sell you
something to solve it.
Pseudosciences are usually pretty easily identified by their emphasis on
confirmation over refutation, on physically impossible claims, and on
terms charged with emotion or false “sciencey-ness,” which is kind of
like “truthiness” minus Stephen Colbert. Sometimes, what peddlers of
pseudoscience say may have a kernel of real truth that makes it seem
plausible. But even that kernel is typically at most a half truth, and
often, it’s that other half they’re leaving out that makes what they’re
selling pointless and ineffectual. But some are just nonsense out of the
gate. I’d love to have some magic cream that would melt away fat or make
wrinkles disappear, but how likely is it that such a thing would be
available only via late-night commercials?
What science consumers need is a cheat sheet for people of sound mind to
use when considering a product, book, therapy, or remedy. Below are the
top-10 questions you should always ask yourself–and answer–before
shelling out the benjamins for anything, whether it’s anti-aging cream,
a diet fad program, books purporting to tell you secrets your doctor
won’t, or jewelry items containing magnets:
1. What is the source? Is the person or entity making the claims someone
with genuine expertise in what they’re claiming? Are they hawking on
behalf of someone else? Are they part of a distributed marketing scam?
Do they use, for example, a Website or magazine or newspaper ad that’s
made to look sciencey or newsy when it’s really one giant advertisement
meant to make you think it’s journalism?6. Is there mention of a
conspiracy of any kind? Claims such as, “Doctors don’t want you to know”
or “the government has been hiding this information for years,” are
extremely dubious. Why wouldn’t the millions of doctors in the world
want you to know about something that might improve your health? Doctors
aren’t a monolithic entity in an enormous white coat making collective
decisions about you any more than the government is some detached
nonliving institution making robotic collective decisions. They’re all
individuals, and in general, they do want you to know.
2. What is the agenda? You must know this to consider any information in
context. In a scientific paper, look at the funding sources. If you’re
reading a non-scientific anything, remain extremely skeptical. What does
the person or entity making the claim get out of it? Does it look like
they’re telling you you have something wrong with you that you didn’t
even realize existed…and then offering to sell you something to fix it?
I’m reminded of the douche solution commercials of my youth in which a
young woman confides in her mother that sometimes, she “just doesn’t
feel fresh.” Suddenly, millions of women watching that commercial were
mentally analyzing their level of freshness “down there” and pondering
whether or not to purchase Summer’s Eve.
3. What kind of language does it use? Does it use emotion words or a lot
of exclamation points or language that sounds highly technical (amino
acids! enzymes! nucleic acids!) or jargon-y but that is really
meaningless in the therapeutic or scientific sense? If you’re not sure,
take a term and google it, or ask a scientist if you can find one.
Sometimes, an amino acid is just an amino acid. Be on the lookout for
sciencey-ness. As Albert Einstein once pointed out, if you can’t explain
something simply, you don’t understand it well. If peddlers feel that
they have to toss in a bunch of jargony science terms to make you think
they’re the real thing, they probably don’t know what they’re talking
about, either.
4. Does it involve testimonials? If all the person or entity making the
claims has to offer is testimonials without any real evidence of
effectiveness or need, be very, very suspicious. Anyone–anyone–can write
a testimonial and put it on a Website. Example: ”I felt that I knew
nothing about science until The Science Consumer blog came along! Now,
my brain is packed with science facts, and I’m earning my PhD in
aerospace engineering this year! If it could do it for me, The Science
Consumer blog can do it for you, too! THANKS, SCIENCE CONSUMER BLOG!
–xoxo, Julie C., North Carolina”
5. Are there claims of exclusivity? People have been practicing science
and medicine for thousands of years. Millions of people are currently
doing it. Typically, new findings arise out of existing knowledge and
involve the contributions of many, many people. It’s quite rare–in fact,
I can’t think of an example–that a new therapy or intervention is
something completely novel without a solid existing scientific
background to explain how it works, or that only one person figures it
out. It certainly wouldn’t just suddenly appear one night on an
infomercial. Also, watch for words like “proprietary” and “secret.”
These terms signal that the intervention on offer has likely not been
exposed to the light of scientific critique.
6. Is there mention of a conspiracy of any kind? Claims such as,
“Doctors don’t want you to know” or “the government has been hiding this
information for years,” are extremely dubious. Why wouldn’t the millions
of doctors in the world want you to know about something that might
improve your health? Doctors aren’t a monolithic entity in an enormous
white coat making collective decisions about you any more than the
government is some detached nonliving institution making robotic
collective decisions. They’re all individuals, and in general, they do
want you to know.
7. Does the claim involve multiple unassociated disorders? Does it
involve assertions of widespread damage to many body systems (in the
case of things like vaccines) or assertions of widespread therapeutic
benefit to many body systems or a spectrum of unrelated disorders?
Claims, for example, that a specific intervention will cure cancer,
allergies, ADHD, and autism (and I am not making that up) are frankly
irrational.
8. Is there a money trail or a passionate belief involved? The least
likely candidates to benefit fiscally from conclusions about any health
issue or intervention are the researchers in the trenches working on the
underpinnings of disease (genes, environmental triggers, etc.), doing
the basic science. The likeliest candidates to benefit are those who (1)
have something patentable on their hands; (2) market “cures” or
“therapies”; (3) write books or give paid talks or “consult”; or (4)
work as “consultants” who “cure.” That’s not to say that people who
benefit fiscally from research or drug development aren’t trustworthy.
Should they do it for free? No. But it’s always, always important to
follow the money. Another issue that’s arisen around pseudoscience is
whether or not a bias of passionate belief is as powerful as fiscal
motivation. If you have a bias detector, turn it on to full power when
evaluating any scientific claim. If yours is faulty–which you might not
realize because of bias–perhaps you can find someone in real life or
online with a hypersensitive bias detector. Journalists, by nature of
training and their work, often seem to operate theirs on full power.
9. Were real scientific processes involved? Evidence-based interventions
generally go through many steps of a scientific process before they come
into common use. Going through these steps includes performing basic
research using tests in cells and in animals, clinical research with
patients/volunteers in several heavily regulated phases, peer-review at
each step of the way, and a trail of published research papers. Is there
evidence that the product or intervention on offer has been tested
scientifically, with results published in scientific journals? Or is it
just sciencey-ness espoused by people without benefit of expert review
of any kind?
10. Is there expertise? Finally, no matter how much you dislike
“experts” or disbelieve the “establishment,” the fact remains that
people who have an MD or a science PhD or both after their names have
gone to school for 24 years or longer, receiving an in-depth, daily,
hourly education in the issues they’re discussing. If they’re
specialists in their fields, tack on about five more years. If they’re
researchers in their fields, tack on more. They’re not universally blind
or stupid or venal or uncaring or in it for the money; in fact, many of
them are exactly the opposite. If they’re doing research, usually
they’re not Rockefellers. Note that having “PhD” or even “MD” after a
name or “Dr” before it doesn’t automatically mean that the degree or the
honorific relates to expertise in the subject at hand. I have a PhD in
biology. If I wrote a book about chemical engineering and slapped the
term PhD on there, that still doesn’t make me an expert in chemical
engineering. And I’m just one person with one expert voice in the things
I do know well. I recommend listening to more than one expert voice.
James McGinn
Jan 18, 2016, 9:34:34 PM1/18/16
to
Sometimes pseudoscience is obvious, as this article suggests.
Sometimes pseudoscience looks like real science. Much of
meteorology and climatology, for example, is pseudoscience,
but you wouldn't know it unless you studied it. Likewise,
unless you genuinely study a subject you can't distinguish
a breakthrough from psuedoscience in that breakthroughs share
one common characteristic with pseudoscience, they are often
achieved by outsiders. I am a perfect example of this.
The lesson here is that there really is no substitute for
intelligence and hard work -- sorry to burst your little
bubble.
Sergio
Jan 18, 2016, 10:44:35 PM1/18/16
to
On 1/18/2016 8:34 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> Sometimes pseudoscience is obvious, as this article suggests.
> Sometimes pseudoscience looks like real science. Much of meteorology
> and climatology, for example, is pseudoscience, but you wouldn't know
> it unless you studied it. Likewise, unless you genuinely study a
> subject you can't distinguish a breakthrough from psuedoscience in
> that breakthroughs share one common characteristic with
> pseudoscience, they are often achieved by outsiders. I am a perfect
> example of this.
you example of troll.
>
> Sometimes pseudoscience is obvious, as this article suggests.
> Sometimes pseudoscience looks like real science. Much of meteorology
> and climatology, for example, is pseudoscience, but you wouldn't know
> it unless you studied it. Likewise, unless you genuinely study a
> subject you can't distinguish a breakthrough from psuedoscience in
> that breakthroughs share one common characteristic with
> pseudoscience, they are often achieved by outsiders. I am a perfect
> example of this.
10 Questions To Distinguish Real From Fake Science
1. What is the source? Is the person or entity making the claims someone
with genuine expertise in what they’re claiming?
2. What is the agenda? You must know this to consider any information in
context.
3. What kind of language does it use? Does it use emotional words,
language that sounds highly technical or jargon-y but that is really
meaningless in the therapeutic or scientific sense?
YES, meaningless drivial
4. Does it involve testimonials?
5. Are there claims of exclusivity? People have been practicing science
and medicine for thousands of years.
6. Is there mention of a conspiracy of any kind? Claims such as,
“Doctors don’t want you to know” or “the government has been hiding this
information for years,” are extremely dubious.
7. Does the claim involve multiple unassociated mental disorders?
YES, one sick little monkey.
8. Is there a money trail or a passionate belief involved?
9. Were real scientific processes involved?
10. Is there expertise?
NO
.
...........James MCGOONIE FAILS ALL 10............
James McGinn
Jan 18, 2016, 11:03:35 PM1/18/16
to
On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 7:44:35 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 1/18/2016 8:34 PM, James McGinn wrote:
One last thing, your cut and paste skills are exemplary.
> On 1/18/2016 8:34 PM, James McGinn wrote:
Sergio
Jan 18, 2016, 11:21:56 PM1/18/16
to
don't feel bad because you failed the 10 question test, you failed it
before, and remember that your theories are, and remain, *Disproved*.
I get my info from Wiki, Google, even books, unlike you who pulls it out
of your imagination, wherever that has been.
0 new messages