swans on tea

Just another SFN Blogs site
  • Home
  • A very little about me
  • Sample Page

Science is Inductive: Film at 11

Published by swansont on July 31, 2008 04:04 am under Journalism, Physics, Science-general

Dealing with Uncertainty at Backreaction, in the context of “science is never 100% certain” and how this plays out with public perception.

There are times when this seems to be a no-win scenario: if you fail to address the uncertainty and have to make any changes to your conclusions, you lose credibility, but if you point out the uncertainty, someone will run with it, exaggerating it. One need go no further than discussions of global warming to see this in action.

One of my least favorite phrases in this area of discussion is “for all we know.” Statements that sound like “For all we know, the phenomenon could be caused by blargh” should be taken with a huge grain of salt, because one of the things science does is to widen the scope of what “all we know” entails, and correspondingly narrow the possible undiscovered explanations for the phenomenon. We rule things out, and attempt to do so in a quantifiable way — we limit the uncertainty. If you are doing an experiment and see something unusual in your data, you start systematically testing to see what could possibly be causing it. So if someone were to claim, “For all we know, that glitch is caused by a spurious magnetic field,” you can respond with “No, we tested the effect of a magnetic field, and eliminated that as a cause.” You do this all the time in setting up an experiment, and you continue to do it when running the experiment — doing everything you can to confirm that the correlation you see is actually causal. But I don’t think that this gets portrayed very well. There’s always someone out there trying to leverage science not being 100% certain, and instead portray uncertainty as being 0% certain, which is far from the truth.

Bee notes that

As I have previously said (eg in my post Fact or Fiction?) uncertainties are part of science. Especially if reports are about very recent research, uncertainties can be high.

And I recall that Feynman touches on this in Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!. Someone drew a conclusion based on the last data point in some experiment, and he realized that the last data point isn’t so trustworthy — if you weren’t pushing the limit of the apparatus, you’d have obtained more data, so this is certainly a valid point. And here one starts fighting the tendencies of the media, because if the result isn’t novel, it isn’t newsworthy. What ends up happening is that that the least reliable results, the ones most likely to be mistaken, are often the ones making the headlines. The study that challenges a long line of other research (which, being “as expected,” was ignored) gets notice, even though one expects, statistically, the occasional contradictory study. Such is the essence of random noise. This is made worse by the journalistic desire to show both sides of a story, even if there really aren’t two sides, as they have massively different amount of evidentiary support. This, too, misleads the general public about what is know, what is unknown and what level of confidence exists in science.

No Comment

  1. Uncle Al on July 31st, 2008

    The greatest obstacle to understanding reality is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. Reality is not a peer vote. “Autoritätsdusel ist der größte Feind der Wahrheit,” Albert Einstein, 1901.

    ” It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong,” Richard Feynman. No Higgs, no SUSY, no string theory. Get over it and start doing better (or at least different) (pdf)) experiments. Theory predicts what it is told to predict.

    OTOH… Vote with the stupid. How can so many people be wrong?

Posting your comment.

  • Recent Posts

    • When Does the Decade End?
    • This is the Hardest Job a Manager Has …
    • 5 Things You Should Know About Light
    • See Spot "Run"
    • The System Works
  • Recent Comments

    • Joey Cook on One Ringy-Dingy, Two Ringy-Dingy
    • Science Fanatic on Talk Like a Physicist Day
    • Chris Gould on Brian Cox is Full of **it
    • LaurieAG on Inmates Running the Asylum
    • Uncle Al on Curious About Curies
  • Archives

    • December 2019
    • February 2015
    • January 2015
    • December 2014
    • November 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • August 2014
    • July 2014
    • June 2014
    • May 2014
    • April 2014
    • March 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
    • December 2013
    • November 2013
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • October 2012
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
    • December 2008
    • November 2008
    • October 2008
    • September 2008
    • August 2008
    • July 2008
    • June 2008
    • May 2008
    • April 2008
    • March 2008
    • February 2008
    • January 2008
  • Categories

    • admin
    • Antiscience
    • Art
    • Blog Compendia
    • Blogging
    • Body
    • Books
    • Bureaucracy
    • Business
    • Cartoon
    • Conference stories
    • Cool stuff
    • DIY science
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Experiments
    • Food
    • Game
    • Geocaching
    • History
    • Humor
    • Illusions
    • Journalism
    • Lab Stories
    • Language
    • Links
    • Math
    • Metaphysics
    • Misc
    • Movies
    • Music
    • Navy
    • Not Really Science at All
    • Other science
    • peeve
    • photography
    • Photos
    • Physics
    • Politics
    • Quotes
    • Rants
    • Religion
    • Satire
    • Sci-Fi
    • Science-general
    • science-y observation
    • Security
    • Shameless self promotion
    • Sick sick sick
    • Silly
    • Sports
    • Tech
    • The Lab
    • Thermal IR
    • Time
    • TMI
    • Toys
    • trivia
    • TV
    • TYAGFITI
    • Typography
    • Uncategorized
    • Video
    • Weird
    • World Events
    • Writing
  • Meta

    • Log in
    • Entries feed
    • Comments feed
    • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2022 swans on tea
WordPress Theme based on Light Theme