Entering the Conversation

Liberman’s blog on the nature of bad scientific writing can be very enlightening to audiences by showing them that even scientists can get data wrong. Most of the public that read topics involving science accept blindingly what the author is saying because they assume the author knows more than them. Or, if a writer of bad science uses a lot of numbers and equations, the public would accept his or her proposal because they simply get flustered at the sight of numbers.

While I was reading the textbook, Abusing Science, for my philosophy class I came across something that reflects this idea. The chapter was discussing how a Creationist named Henry Morris argued against the theory of evolution by using formulas and probability statistics to prove that mutations in genetic make ups are rare. Morris’s mathematical findings were proven false by evolutionary scientists meaning his writing was ‘bad science’ that others, who are less informed, could have believed. The evolutionary scientist that proved Morris wrong states “it is hard to resist the impression that all of Morris’s computations are designed to bamboozle those who become weak at the knees at the sight of numbers.” This relates to Liberman’s argument because it is yet another example of how scientists can write inaccurate information and have the public believe it.

Liberman uses the information in a scientific article written by Denis Campbell as evidence to argue his point. Campbell stated that omega-3 fatty acids counteract the effects of ADHD and help children concentrate and do better in school This was proven wrong by scientific experiments which showed that children did not do better in school after treatments of the fish oil making the article that stated it did “bad science.” This could be considered logical evidence because the author of the blog uses data from the findings of these experiments to argue his point. There is also a use of ethical evidence when Liberman attacks the authors of bad science by claiming that they are untrustworthy and their findings most of the time are incorrect. This evidence is helpful because it gives readers an example of how scientist can be wrong in their writings. If Liberman were to state his argument that bad science is written every day without supporting it with an example, readers would be skeptical of his proposal and think him too harsh.

The question Liberman then presents is “how can the ‘health correspondent’ for a serious intellectual newspaper be so incredibly careless? And why hasn't he been fired?” Firing the scientists that write about incorrect findings may be his solution to the problem but it is not mine. Science is a very tricky study and sometimes evidence may seem convincing at first which leads people to believe a conclusion to be true even if it is not. I believe that an important part of what makes a theory “scientific” is its ability to be proven false, or to be falsifiable, when new information comes along. Therefore, my solution would be to simply allow mistakes in scientific writing to be acceptable because science is an ever changing subject that can, and should, be proven false from time to time.