I am interested in the information that is lost as scientists proceed from experiment to publication. The real factors that slip through the cracks of expediency. What is more important in the communication of research, the method, or the factoid results that come from it? Are we too trusting in the scientific method? Has peer-review become a substitute for a wider interrogation of method?
These are just a few questions going through my mind as I read "Simplification in Scientific Work: An Example from Neuroscience Research" - a 1983 article by the late Susan Leigh Star. I was particularly struck by an early observation in the article that "published scientific conclusions tend to present results as faits acomplis, without mention of production of decision-making processes." I am not sure that this is so true today, but I am intrigued by the possibility that it is exactly that loss of information (as research is presented with a higher degree of 'granualrity') that opens a door for skepticism in the wider community. When a large body of research by multiple scientific schools tends to agree on a matter, there is sometimes an impression given that they are all doing exactly the same experiments. Whilst the broad methods are the same, of course expedient decisions are made and this causes subtle differences. These are not always thoroughly explained, even if they are justified. I can't help but think that something in this is relevant to the skeptical program in climate change. Is this what lets in the calls of "conspiracy"?
More to read, more to do. I have a few other things on my plate, but this is an intriguing line of research.
Showing posts with label science communication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science communication. Show all posts
Friday, September 3, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Scientist at heart
When you think of a scientist, you probably imagine a person dressed in a white lab coat, wearing thick glasses and adorned with white, straggly hair. Perhaps you think of Albert Einstein. The reality is quite different; scientists, overall, do not conform to this stereotype. They do not have a particular uniform, and they do not wear a badge. What makes someone a scientist?
The answer is in the way they think. They employ “the scientific method”. But what is the scientific method? The concept really boils down to a way of formulating ideas and testing them; a way of explaining the world through systematic observation and hypothesis testing. In short, a way of telling reality from fantasy.
You start with a question about the world around you. This may have come from your observations. You come up with a statement about this question, and this is known as a hypothesis. You predict what you would see if your hypothesis were correct. From there, you design and conduct an experiment to see if these predictions hold true. You then interpret the results to see if they support or disagree with your hypothesis. Finally, you report your experiment in full and submit it to review by other scientists.
The thing is, you can only support your hypothesis, not prove it. There may have been errors in your method. You may have got lucky even. However, because people can read your methods, they can repeat the experiment. Repeated success means the results are reliable.
Over time, more support may be collected, and your hypothesis might be accepted as a correct theory. That gravity makes objects of mass attracted to each other (like Newton’s proverbial apple falling to the earth) is one such theory, supported by mountains of scientific evidence.
Evidence is what it is about. That is at the core of the thinking. Theories need to be testable. Interpretation alone is not enough. Ideas and theories are not enough. Skeptical thinking doesn’t cover it. To be truly scientific you must imagine what a theory predicts, ask what evidence for that might look like, and then demand evidence that experiments actually do show it.
At the core of the scientific thinker is a rational process to discover the likely truth of the matter, supported by evidence. That is what makes a scientist, a scientist.
We can all do this, we just need to ask questions, and to think about how we might answer them in a reliable way. Do this, and the climate of uncertainty can be lifted on a great many issues. We can all be scientists at heart.
The answer is in the way they think. They employ “the scientific method”. But what is the scientific method? The concept really boils down to a way of formulating ideas and testing them; a way of explaining the world through systematic observation and hypothesis testing. In short, a way of telling reality from fantasy.
You start with a question about the world around you. This may have come from your observations. You come up with a statement about this question, and this is known as a hypothesis. You predict what you would see if your hypothesis were correct. From there, you design and conduct an experiment to see if these predictions hold true. You then interpret the results to see if they support or disagree with your hypothesis. Finally, you report your experiment in full and submit it to review by other scientists.
The thing is, you can only support your hypothesis, not prove it. There may have been errors in your method. You may have got lucky even. However, because people can read your methods, they can repeat the experiment. Repeated success means the results are reliable.
Over time, more support may be collected, and your hypothesis might be accepted as a correct theory. That gravity makes objects of mass attracted to each other (like Newton’s proverbial apple falling to the earth) is one such theory, supported by mountains of scientific evidence.
Evidence is what it is about. That is at the core of the thinking. Theories need to be testable. Interpretation alone is not enough. Ideas and theories are not enough. Skeptical thinking doesn’t cover it. To be truly scientific you must imagine what a theory predicts, ask what evidence for that might look like, and then demand evidence that experiments actually do show it.
At the core of the scientific thinker is a rational process to discover the likely truth of the matter, supported by evidence. That is what makes a scientist, a scientist.
We can all do this, we just need to ask questions, and to think about how we might answer them in a reliable way. Do this, and the climate of uncertainty can be lifted on a great many issues. We can all be scientists at heart.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
A communications journey begins
Blogging was, until very recently, a highly self-indulgent exercise in hoping someone is listening. To be frank, I was doing it to practice my writing skills and see if I can elucidate the odd scientific or other concept well. Given that hardly anyone has read this blog, I’m uncertain as to the success of that idea!
However, enter August 2010 and I am enrolled in a Science Communication masters degree at the University of Western Australia. In one unit, I will have to do blog entries. So, my time has come for judgement. The number of readers of my work is to double, or triple (you can’t actually divide by zero, so I’ll just count myself as a reader of my own work). Lecturers, tutors and classmates will read me! I will rule the world. No, class is in fact likely where it will end. Nonetheless, I now have purpose. Whilst the unit only demands a couple of blog entries, I will attempt to throw up a few more here and track progress through the course.
A science communication course is a little bit of an enigma to me still. I am doing it because I am interested in doing it. I would also like a related career in it one day, but realistically, I don’t think such jobs exist. At least not readily and this contrasts with my ‘native’ qualifications in geology. Perhaps here I should state my ‘hopes and dreams’ along these lines. Say with a 10 year timeline. That’s not too ambitious or overly forward-looking is it? Therefore, I humbly ask that within 10 years I have written a book on sciencey stuff and contribute regularly to some paid media, be that print or radio (perhaps). Oh and make millions of dollars. That is all.
However, enter August 2010 and I am enrolled in a Science Communication masters degree at the University of Western Australia. In one unit, I will have to do blog entries. So, my time has come for judgement. The number of readers of my work is to double, or triple (you can’t actually divide by zero, so I’ll just count myself as a reader of my own work). Lecturers, tutors and classmates will read me! I will rule the world. No, class is in fact likely where it will end. Nonetheless, I now have purpose. Whilst the unit only demands a couple of blog entries, I will attempt to throw up a few more here and track progress through the course.
A science communication course is a little bit of an enigma to me still. I am doing it because I am interested in doing it. I would also like a related career in it one day, but realistically, I don’t think such jobs exist. At least not readily and this contrasts with my ‘native’ qualifications in geology. Perhaps here I should state my ‘hopes and dreams’ along these lines. Say with a 10 year timeline. That’s not too ambitious or overly forward-looking is it? Therefore, I humbly ask that within 10 years I have written a book on sciencey stuff and contribute regularly to some paid media, be that print or radio (perhaps). Oh and make millions of dollars. That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
