[ Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ]
5820
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: The 10 Mistakes People Make When Arguing Science
|
The 10 Mistakes People Make When Arguing Science (Op-Ed) Will J Grant, Australian National University and Rod Lamberts, Australian National University | March 24, 2015 01:32am ET This article was originally published on The Conversation. The publication contributed this article to Space.com's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. UNDERSTANDING RESEARCH: What do we actually mean by research and how does it help inform our understanding of things? Understanding what’s being said in any new research can be challenging and there are some common mistakes that people make. Have you ever tried to interpret some new research to work out what the study means in the grand scheme of things? Well maybe you’re smart and didn’t make any mistakes – but more likely you’re like most humans and accidentally made one of these 10 stuff ups. 1. Wait! That’s just one study! You wouldn’t judge all old men based on just Rolf Harris or Nelson Mandela. And so neither should you judge any topic based on just one study. If you do it deliberately, it’s cherry-picking. If you do it by accident, it’s an example of the exception fallacy. The well-worn and thoroughly discredited case of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine causing autism serves as a great example of both of these. People who blindly accepted Andrew Wakefield’s (now retracted) study - when all the other evidence was to the contrary - fell afoul of the exception fallacy. People who selectively used it to oppose vaccination were cherry-picking. 2. Significant doesn’t mean important Some effects might well be statistically significant, but so tiny as to be useless in practice.  Associations (like correlations) are great for falling foul of this, especially when studies have huge number of participants. Basically, if you have large numbers of participants in a study, significant associations tend to be plentiful, but not necessarily meaningful. One example can be seen in a study of 22,000 people that found a significant (p<0.00001) association between people taking aspirin and a reduction in heart attacks, but the size of the result was miniscule. The difference in the likelihood of heart attacks between those taking aspirin every day and those who weren’t was less than 1%. At this effect size – and considering the possible costs associated with taking aspirin – it is dubious whether it is worth taking at all. 3. And effect size doesn’t mean useful We might have a treatment that lowers our risk of a condition by 50%. But if the risk of having that condition was already vanishingly low (say a lifetime risk of 0.002%), then reducing that might be a little pointless. We can flip this around and use what is called Number Needed to Treat (NNT). In normal conditions if two random people out of 100,000 would get that condition during their lifetime, you’d need all 100,000 to take the treatment to reduce that number to one. 4. Are you judging the extremes by the majority? Biology and medical research are great for reminding us that not all trends are linear. We all know that people with very high salt intakes have a greater risk of cardio-vascular disease than people with a moderate salt intake.  But hey – people with a very low salt intake may also have a high risk of cardio-vascular disease too. The graph is U shaped, not just a line going straight up. The people at each end of the graph are probably doing different things. 5. Did you maybe even want to find that effect? Even without trying, we notice and give more credence to information that agrees with views we already hold. We are attuned to seeing and accepting things that confirm what we already know, think and believe. There are numerous example of this confirmation bias but studies such as this reveal how disturbing the effect can be. In this case, the more educated people believed a person to be, the lighter they (incorrectly) remembered that person’s skin was. 6. Were you tricked by sciencey snake oil? You won’t be surprised to hear that sciencey-sounding stuff is seductive. Hey, even the advertisers like to use our words! But this is a real effect that clouds our ability to interpret research. In one study, non-experts found even bad psychological explanations of behaviour more convincing when they were associated with irrelevant neuroscience information. And if you add in a nice-and-shiny fMRI scan, look out! 7. Qualities aren’t quantities and quantities aren’t qualitites For some reason, numbers feel more objective than adjectivally-laden descriptions of things. Numbers seem rational, words seem irrational. But sometimes numbers can confuse an issue. For example, we know people don’t enjoy waiting in long queues at the bank. If we want to find out how to improve this, we could be tempted to measure waiting periods and then strive to try and reduce that time. But in reality you can only reduce the wait time so far. And a purely quantitative approach may miss other possibilities. If you asked people to describe how waiting made them feel, you might discover it’s less about how long it takes, and more about how uncomfortable they are. 8. Models by definition are not perfect representations of reality A common battle-line between climate change deniers and people who actually understand evidence is the effectiveness and representativeness of climate models. But we can use much simpler models to look at this. Just take the classic model of an atom. It’s frequently represented as a nice stable nucleus in the middle of a number of neatly orbiting electrons. While this doesn’t reflect how an atom actually looks, it serves to explain fundamental aspects of the way atoms and their sub-elements work. This doesn’t mean people haven’t had misconceptions about atoms based on this simplified model. But these can be modified with further teaching, study and experience. 9. Context matters The US president Harry Truman once whinged about all his economists giving advice, but then immediately contradicting that with an “on the other hand” qualification. Individual scientists - and scientific disciplines - might be great at providing advice from just one frame. But for any complex social, political or personal issue there are often multiple disciplines and multiple points of view to take into account. To ponder this we can look at bike helmet laws. It’s hard to deny that if someone has a bike accident and hits their head, they’ll be better off if they’re wearing a helmet. But if we are interested in whole-of-society health benefits, there is research suggesting that a subset of the population will choose not to cycle at all if they are legally required to wear a helmet. Balance this against the number of accidents where a helmet actually makes a difference to the health outcome, and now helmet use may in fact be negatively impacting overall public health. Valid, reliable research can find that helmet laws are both good and bad for health. 10. And just because it’s peer reviewed that doesn’t make it right Peer review is held up as a gold standard in science (and other) research at the highest levels. But even if we assume that the reviewers made no mistakes or that there were no biases in the publication policies (or that there wasn’t any straight out deceit), an article appearing in a peer reviewed publication just means that the research is ready to be put out to the community of relevant experts for challenging, testing, and refining. It does not mean it’s perfect, complete or correct. Peer review is the beginning of a study’s active public life, not the culmination. And finally … Research is a human endeavour and as such is subject to all the wonders and horrors of any human endeavour. Just like in any other aspect of our lives, in the end, we have to make our own decisions. And sorry, appropriate use even of the world’s best study does not relieve us of this wonderful and terrible responsibility. There will always be ambiguities that we have to wade through, so like any other human domain, do the best you can on your own, but if you get stuck, get some guidance directly from, or at least originally via, useful experts. |
5821
From: jeffersonzuma, [DNS_Address]
Subject: #ll:it is "scientific" to slander what belies the state religion
URL: http://www.naturalnews.com/033425_BMJ_Andrew_Wakefield.html
|
1. Wait! That’s just one study! You wouldn’t judge all old men based on just Rolf Harris or Nelson Mandela. And so neither should you judge any topic based on just one study. If you do it deliberately, it’s cherry-picking. If you do it by accident, it’s an example of the exception fallacy. The well-worn and thoroughly discredited case of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine causing autism serves as a great example of both of these. People who blindly accepted Andrew Wakefield’s (now retracted) study - when all the other evidence was to the contrary - fell afoul of the exception fallacy. People who selectively used it to oppose vaccination were cherry-picking. *** 1. Wait! That’s just one study! You wouldn’t judge all old men based on just Rolf Harris or Nelson Mandela. And so neither should you judge any topic based on just one study. If you do it deliberately, it’s cherry-picking. If you do it by accident, it’s an example of the exception fallacy. The well-worn and thoroughly discredited case of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine causing autism serves as a great example of both of these. People who blindly accepted Andrew Wakefield’s (now retracted) study - when all the other evidence was to the contrary - fell afoul of the exception fallacy. People who selectively used it to oppose vaccination were cherry-picking. |
5822
From: jeffersonzuma, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Andrew Wakefield, as plaintiff v. the uncon est. state religion
|
Dr. Andrew Wakefield isn't taking the allegations against him lightly. The ‘gloves’ are on with Dr. Andrew Wakefield in one corner, and Brian Deer, the British Medical Journal (BMJ), and Dr. Fiona Godley in the other corner! Andrew Wakefield, as plaintiff is not about to take the destruction of his reputation lying down. Quoting from petition to the court in Travis County, Texas we find “charges made by the defendants that Dr. Wakefield fraudulently and intentionally manipulated or falsified data or diagnoses in the Lancet paper are false.” “…Defendants [Deer, BMJ et al] knowingly and with actual malice, misrepresented information, data and diagnoses, for the purpose of creating the false impression that it was Dr. Wakefield who had manipulated or altered data and diagnoses.” Further, the Petition states, “On a January 5, 2011 the Defendants published their article entitled Secrets of the MMR Scare: How the Case Against the MMR Vaccine was Fixed, authored by Brian Deer (Exhibit A). This article contains numerous false and misleading statements concerning Plaintiff, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, which constitute libel per se and per quod. Examples of the defamatory statements in this article include the following: “ The petition to the court goes on enumerating details of the case. I have followed this situation from inception and personally am convinced that Dr. Wakefield is a hero embroiled in a current–life David and Goliath story. Dr. Wakefield is up against the most powerful (and I believe, evil) forces of our time in the form of the pharmaceutical/medical industry. I pray for him to prevail. But win or lose, I personally wish to thank him for the gift of light and truth he is bringing forward in service of us all, and especially for the many damaged children of our time that I personally know to be wrought by vaccines. You can read in the PDF petition in its entirety as follows: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/04/BritMedJ.pdf Andrew Wakefield reveals the the inside story of the vaccine-autism connection, and his controversial research. As Andrew Wakefield states in his prologue, “If autism does not affect your family now, it will. If something does not change—and change soon—this is almost a mathematical certainty. This book affects you also. It is not a parochial look at a trivial medical spat in the United Kingdom, but dispatches from the battlefront in a major confrontation—a struggle against compromise in medicine, corruption of science, and a real and present threat to children in the interests of policy and profit. It is a story of how ‘the system’ deals with dissent among its doctors and scientists.” In the pursuit of possible links between childhood vaccines, intestinal inflammation, and neurologic injury in children, Wakefield lost his job in London’s Royal Free Hospital, his country of birth, his career, and his medical license. A recent General Medical Council ruling stated that he was “dishonest, irresponsible and showed callous disregard for the distress and pain of children.” Maligned by the medical establishment and mainstream media, Wakefield endeavors to set the record straight in Callous Disregard. While explaining what really happened, he calls out the organizations and individuals that are acting not for the sake of children affected by autism, but in their own self-interests. Andrew Wakefield reveals the inside story of desperate parents trying to help their autistic children, only to be labeled as abusers by social workers, medical professionals, and the courts. As the number of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders grows each year, new discoveries and controversies arise. Andrew Wakefield explores many of these in his thorough investigation of the recent trial case of the “Arizona 5,” which destroyed an Arizona family. Two parents, with five children on the spectrum, were accused of Münchausen syndrome by proxy—a rare form of child abuse—and were ganged up on by physicians, child protective services, and the courts, who alleged that the parents fabricated medical symptoms in all five children. However, Wakefield now presents ample evidence that was disregarded and which would have proven the parents’ innocence. Families affected by autism suffer great hardship and prejudice, particularly as they navigate the uncertain waters of diagnosis, treatment, and education. The shocking story of the Arizona 5 family delves into the tremendous challenges some parents have to face, especially if their views on how to treat the syndrome don’t align with the medical world’s standards. Wakefield also includes numerous studies and research trials that support the controversial yet significant roles that vaccines and diet play in autism, factors many medical professionals wrongfully dismiss. |
5823
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Andrew Wakefield, as plaintiff v. the uncon est. state religion
Responses:
[5824]
5824
From: jeffersonzuma, [DNS_Address]
Subject: trippy how you have nothing but childish b.s. shows no reasoning (NT)
| (NT) |
Responses:
None
[ Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ]