Is Science Factual, a Hoax or Bull? Where are the Fact checkers?
It is too often that we take all scientific research as facts without thinking if what we were told even makes since or look at WHO is presenting the information or FUNDING the research. Science is good; the problem is the loop holes and the system in which research is yielded and presented. It is fair to say that all things are distorted in some way because we are human, but too much distortion can harm us and science. One may ask how is science is distorted…p-hacking, individual research, media, bias and money are just a few in which scientific research is distorted.
What is p-hacking? It is when researchers mess with data by making smaller data sets or messing with variables to yield certain or interesting data. In learning P-hacking it is, I understand when John Oliver says that science can be bullshit. There is always to two stories or multiple stories as to why scientist would resort to such backhanded methods. Scientist are under by institutions to publish as much as possible, by grants and founding to put shocking results or something new and to publish somewhere prestigious. When things are published, reapplication, which is the science world of saying peer review or redoing experiments, is rarely funded or done. There is no reward system and or no publishing for people who check experiments or correct experiment, so no body spends time fact checking research. This leads to scientific “facts” that are not true. There are individual researchers that use p-hacking as a way of gaining success or yielding results.
Some scientists release the information to media sources, and media sources, such as the news, relay information to the wider public without confirming the information or looking at their sources. Some of the media resources oversimplify the scientific research till the point that it does not match the original resources. There is a great deal of distortion in in Media sources in regards to scientific findings. Media sources sometimes does not look at certain objects or foods are suddenly seen as bad or at times good. The debate on coffee, chocolate and wine are some of the more debated issues of science researchers. Depending on research studies, one of these foods and drinks are good or bad. Why are researcher concerned with these foods? Why are scientist so concerned with cancer? The general public are interested on these things and seek justification for doing or not doing things, and they look toward science to justify their means.
On the site Fivethirtyeightscience, it was said that “If we’re going to rely on science as a means for reaching the truth — and it’s still the best tool we have — it’s important that we understand and respect just how difficult it is to get a rigorous result.” This quote is essentially saying that eye opening data and catchy titles that interest the general public is not true science, and that actual and factual science takes time. There have been cases where the news uses data that was applied to mice, and “[it can been proven that only 20% of research applied to mice translates to human application]”. Media resources and the general public are always looking for answers, and they leave no room for scientist to full test their findings. Scientific experiments and data are riddled with mistakes because that is the nature of being human. Rushed p-hacking methods makes science less factual and true. We need science to reach the truth, and if it there are all of these barriers blocking the truth then we cannot find the true meaning of data and facts. People should be rewarded for checking experiments not ridiculed, and people should not be rewarded for misleading data and results.
I refuse to believe that EVERYTHING I do or use gives me cancer. The media has showed over and over again that cancer is everywhere and in everything. What I am about is that when there is is actual scientific data that correlates something to cancer, I won’t listen to it. I think the reapplication of experiments and data will make other scientist more truthful in their research.
