Evaluating Scientific Studies

One thing we all have to do as skeptics is see what other people are saying or studying and evaluate it to see if it stands up. No one person can do all the research needed in even just one subject. Lots of scientists and people need to contribute to science in many different ways. There's a system set up where studies are peer reviewed. Science involves lots of people, so it's not perfect but it is self-correcting and it's by far the best way to go about understanding and learning about the universe.

Never rely on one scientist. That would be an appeal to authority. It's not to say you can't look to a scientist and value his work, but it should be peer reviewed and replicated by others as well. Scientists really do need to stand on the shoulders of giants, and to have other scientists stand next to them.

The other day I was listening to an older episode of The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe: Episode 123 and Dr. Steven Novella was talking about this subject, regarding fringe science. It was interesting enough that I transcribed part of the episode to share with you. You can extrapolate this information when reading about studies done especially in the paranormal/fringe areas.

First he was talking about how scientists have to study scientific literature. As skeptics we also have to at least have a grasp on how things work. Also he explains where skeptics come in. Here's what he said:

39:35 You have to develop the ability and the skill to interpret the literature, even if you're not doing research in that area. What scientific skeptics are trying to do is provide the kind of peer review and critical analysis that typically happens in mainstream science, and apply that to more of these fringe areas because mainstream scientists are ignoring it, out of hand, usually.

A few minutes later, Dr. Novella was talking about science that claimed to verify the supernatural (psychic dogs and other phenomena. Listen to the whole episode for the complete story).
44:47 In order for science to be compelling enough to establish a new phenomenon in science, we need to see a few things, all at the same time:

1. Science that has good methodology, where any artifacts are weeded out.


2. Results that are statistically significant.


3. Replication, so we know it's not just one lab or one scientist.


4. An effect size that is above noise.

That doesn't even include a mechanism which would be the icing on the cake.

More Groovy Science 3

Another science extravaganza! Here are some recent interesting studies:

• Dark Chocolate Lowers Blood Pressure


• Anxiety May Be at Root of Religious Extremism


• Brain Differences Found Between Believers In God And Non-Believers


• Honey as an Antibiotic: Scientists Identify a Secret Ingredient in Honey That Kills Bacteria


• Honey Bee Venom May Help Design New Treatments to Alleviate Muscular Dystrophy, Depression and Dementia


• How Fast Can Microbes Break Down Oil Washed Onto Gulf Beaches?


• Bicycling, Brisk Walking Help Women Control Weight


• Nano-Sized Advance Toward Next Big Treatment Era in Dentistry


• Complex, Multicellular Life from Over Two Billion Years Ago Discovered


• Cocoa Flavanols Improve Vascular and Blood Pressure Measures for Coronary Artery Disease Patients


• Road Surface Purifies Air by Removing Nitrogen Oxides


• Cell Phone Microscope Poised to Begin Trials in Africa


• Tibetan Adaptation to High Altitude Occurred in Less Than 3,000 Years

People Trust Peers, Not Science

This is depressing, but not surprising, I guess. Three psychological studies have come out recently all saying about the same thing. People trust their peers and tend to distrust authority (the government) and scientific information.

I heard about this on The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, episode 254, from May 26th. If you want to listen to Dr. Steven Novella talk about the three studies, start around the 23:30 minute mark. This segment goes to about 35:20, but the whole episode is good, of course.

The attitudes of parents toward the MMR vaccine and autism: The study concluded that parents had a significant bias toward believing information that they heard from other parents. The parents were mostly affected by their peers, and did not seem to be affected at all by what the scientific evidence said, and they seemed to inherently distrust information that came from the government. Not a surprising result.

Raising a general level of scientific literacy would be the best thing we could do to help this mess we're in. My fear is that people are so anti-science and anti-intelligence these days that I don't know how we could go about it, that people aren't interested in learning anything that goes against their narrow world views. Another thing we could do (as recommended by Steven) is to change regulation so that it's rational and evidence-based, not based on public opinion.

An Awesome Last Supper and A Video

This is the best Last Supper painting I've ever seen, no offense to the original. I would rather sit around with these people than the original  crew any day.

I'm embarrassed to say there are a few faces there I can't name. Anyone want to list everyone from left to right? I'd rather ask for your help than get it wrong. (click the image for full size. Sorry, I don't know the artist!)

Here is a video of Christopher Hitchens answering a question from an audience member at a debate. Why we should fight religion. (6 minutes)