4 ms·

Richard Feynman spoke specifically to this point in his Cargo Cult Science piece: http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html http://neurotheory.colum

Richard Feynman spoke specifically to this point in his Cargo Cult Science piece: http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html "That is the experiment that makes rat-running experiments sensible, because it uncovers that clues that the rat is really using-- not what you think it's using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat-running."

Balgair 13y ago
First, thank you. I have been looking for this for years! Now i have something to search for to find the paper. I worked in a rat lab for a while that tried testing smells. It was impossible to get data, but sure enough, the professor insisted that stuff was there and published weak papers that were rejected thoroughly. We had about 15 rats and at least 50 major variables to test, if not more confounding variables. I used to read PhD comics as a salve, and then realized that it was a shield. So many grad students feel so badly precisely because they know that the science is crap and no-one will read it anyway because we all know it is crap[0][1]. The rule is getting to be; If the P-value is at 0.05, flip a coin; heads I read it, tails I eat lunch. This isn't just isolated to the ivory tower either. The public sees this and not just from friends and family. These back and forth studies screaming 'coffee is a super-food' and then 'coffee is poison' are an example. They give the public an impression that we scientists don't have a clue. And, true, we may not, but allowing the press to scream these things for funding and publicity's sake is a tragedy of the commons. Yes, I know, you can't expect everything to be perfect. But what we have is so very far from that (and yes, I know, China or India are waaay worse). Still, to see in the grad student's eyes that they know the last 6 years were total crap is tragic, especially when the professor insists it isn't to new students and older ones know they can do nothing to persuade the new ones differently. [0]http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-t... [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._A._Ioannidis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._A._Ioannidis
- kennywinker 13y ago
  > These back and forth studies screaming 'coffee is a super-food' and then 'coffee is poison' are an example. They give the public an impression that we scientists don't have a clue. I think that is more the fault of the type of science journalism the public is exposed to. The paper says "compound extracted from coffee found to enhance cell uptake of flavonoids in mice" and the media screams "coffee: the new superfood?" Weak science is one thing, but no matter how strong the science is you can count on the media to get it wrong.
  - Balgair 13y ago
    True, but then you have a responsibility (according to Dr. Feynman) to go back out there and state the limits and facts. Not to just sit by and throw up your hands and say 'oh, it's just clickbait, who cares, everyone knows it is BS'. That leads the public to think scientists don't care and it leads grads students to think it's ok that your research gets maligned and strewn as long at it's 'publicity.' Science is better than that, as least to Dr. Feynman. Personally, I agree with him.

Balgair 13y ago

First, thank you. I have been looking for this for years! Now i have something to search for to find the paper. I worked in a rat lab for a while that tried testing smells. It was impossible to get data, but sure enough, the professor insisted that stuff was there and published weak papers that were rejected thoroughly. We had about 15 rats and at least 50 major variables to test, if not more confounding variables. I used to read PhD comics as a salve, and then realized that it was a shield. So many grad students feel so badly precisely because they know that the science is crap and no-one will read it anyway because we all know it is crap[0][1]. The rule is getting to be; If the P-value is at 0.05, flip a coin; heads I read it, tails I eat lunch. This isn't just isolated to the ivory tower either. The public sees this and not just from friends and family. These back and forth studies screaming 'coffee is a super-food' and then 'coffee is poison' are an example. They give the public an impression that we scientists don't have a clue. And, true, we may not, but allowing the press to scream these things for funding and publicity's sake is a tragedy of the commons. Yes, I know, you can't expect everything to be perfect. But what we have is so very far from that (and yes, I know, China or India are waaay worse). Still, to see in the grad student's eyes that they know the last 6 years were total crap is tragic, especially when the professor insists it isn't to new students and older ones know they can do nothing to persuade the new ones differently. [0]http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-t... [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._A._Ioannidis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._A._Ioannidis

kennywinker 13y ago
> These back and forth studies screaming 'coffee is a super-food' and then 'coffee is poison' are an example. They give the public an impression that we scientists don't have a clue. I think that is more the fault of the type of science journalism the public is exposed to. The paper says "compound extracted from coffee found to enhance cell uptake of flavonoids in mice" and the media screams "coffee: the new superfood?" Weak science is one thing, but no matter how strong the science is you can count on the media to get it wrong.
- Balgair 13y ago
  True, but then you have a responsibility (according to Dr. Feynman) to go back out there and state the limits and facts. Not to just sit by and throw up your hands and say 'oh, it's just clickbait, who cares, everyone knows it is BS'. That leads the public to think scientists don't care and it leads grads students to think it's ok that your research gets maligned and strewn as long at it's 'publicity.' Science is better than that, as least to Dr. Feynman. Personally, I agree with him.