Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Does ‘The Science’ Say? It’s Getting Harder To Tell: We too often only take facts on faith if they support the policies of our preferred political party.
The Federalist ^ | 02/16/2021 | Steven Zhou

Posted on 02/16/2021 8:26:57 AM PST by SeekAndFind

In late January, President Joe Biden issued a statement committing his administration to restore the public’s trust by “[making] evidence-based decisions guided by the best available science and data,” without bias from political preferences. Sounds like a great idea, and in an age of constant misinformation and confusion, likely to be well-received on both sides of the aisle.

But what if the scientific evidence itself is flawed? Take, for example, Biden’s plan to double the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Some of the “science” on the issue says raising the minimum wage will profoundly benefit the economy and average quality of life.

Too often, however, fact-checking stops as soon as someone cites a study published in an academic journal with a fancy-sounding name. What people don’t realize is that data conflicts all the time, and everyone — yes, even well-credentialed academics — makes mistakes.

Consider again the minimum-wage issue. Contrary to what political spokespeople would have you believe, the totality of scientific literature on the effects of raising the minimum wage contains a substantial amount of conflicting evidence. Even on controversial and highly scrutinized topics such as the coronavirus, there have been errors of quality control on the rigor and reliability of the scientific citation.

Experts aren’t infallible. Indeed, the sooner we recognize this truth and then take steps for quality control, the sooner we can mitigate the often unintentional spread of misinformation and poorly informed policy decisions.

As someone who both works in academia and writes for traditional media, I’ve been struck by the lack of public awareness about different levels of quality and data transparency in scientific journals. Just because a study has been published in a scientific journal doesn’t mean it’s conclusive or even constructive evidence to support an argument.

Today, more than 2.5 million academic journals are publishing annually, quarterly, or even monthly worldwide, while the number of journals grows each year. This “academic proliferation” has created new problems, including predatory pay-to-publish journals and poor peer-review quality control.

For instance, Cabell’s Blacklist lists more than 10,000 journals that target desperate academics, offering them publication based on how much they can pay, rather than the quality of their work. When you think about the way we use these journals, that’s an incredibly troubling reality. Scientific publications are cited as evidence because, supposedly, they have been thoroughly reviewed by experts and checked for any errors in their data analysis or study design.

Unfortunately, however, poor-quality “scientific” papers exist in abundance, and they’re hard to identify even for those who generally know what to look for. The only metric academics currently use to evaluate journal quality is the “impact factor,” a figure showing the number of articles a journal has published or the number of times an article is cited by other researchers.

Still, the impact factor is akin to a Yelp rating, providing only a measure of quantity and popularity, with no standard of objective quality. As such, to boost a journal’s ranking, the impact factor is sometimes manipulated through questionable research practices.

While academics may know what the “best journals” are through personal experience in writing, submitting, reviewing, and reading these journals, the general reader is often left out at sea. For those who aren’t specialists in the given academic topic, there’s simply no method of identifying which journals are reputable and trustworthy.

Additionally, even if the general reader were aware of what journals are reputable, researchers still make mistakes. Statistical analysis is often overly complicated and opaque. A journal may print a study one month, only to discover at a later date the data was flawed. The journal may print retractions, but not before the article has been cited numerous times in the press, or the evidence has been used to support a policy decision (like one of Biden’s executive orders).

To address this situation, academics need to take steps toward quality control and journalists and policymakers must be sure to cite only high-quality research.

Many have suggested much-needed reforms in the incentive structure of rapid publishing found in academia. The pressure to increase in quantity at the expense of quality for hiring or promotion or research grant funding is a core driver of academic proliferation. Moreover, recent organizations such as the Open Science Framework have set standards for data transparency allowing anyone to check researchers’ work to ensure integrity in the analysis.

Meanwhile, policymakers are starting to introduce more stringent guidelines on how to use academic research. The Environmental Protection Agency, for example, recently finalized a rule that codifies internal requirements to check for data transparency before relying on research for decision-making.

Ultimately, we should all be wary when someone claims “the science says…,” as far too many of us take facts on faith so long as they support the policies of our preferred political party.


Steven Zhou is a Ph.D. student in industrial-organizational psychology at George Mason University. His research interests and expertise include leadership development, employee motivation, and statistical data analysis.


TOPICS: Science; Society
KEYWORDS: politics; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 02/16/2021 8:26:57 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Experts” have agendas.

Whoever pays them owns them.


2 posted on 02/16/2021 8:28:30 AM PST by cgbg (A kleptocracy--if they can keep it. Think of it as the Cantillon Effect in action.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"The science"says nothing. All the noise is made by scientists and others who purport to know what "the science" is saying. The science is not at thing. Science is a process of refining hypotheses and evidence to reach an explanatory fit for something observed in nature.

Most of the noise made about "the science" is made by folks with a political or financial axe to grind with no particular concern about participating in a scientific process to understand whatever truth there might be that is within the capacity of humans and their limitations to comprehend.

3 posted on 02/16/2021 8:31:10 AM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The politicization of science is absolute now. This is what happens when you squash dissent and skepticism because the “hypothesis” fits an agenda.

“Follow the science” really means “submit to our agenda”.


4 posted on 02/16/2021 8:32:42 AM PST by volunbeer (Find the truth and accept it - anything else is delusional)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This applies to all political persuasions.

Just look at some of the lunatics that come around these parts.


5 posted on 02/16/2021 8:37:07 AM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

6 posted on 02/16/2021 8:37:29 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cgbg

Eisenhower’s farewell speech warned us about the military-industrial complex. In that same speech, he also warned about the government and big science. You don’t hear about that last from the same Leftists who rail against the MIC, when they are pushing Climate Change and Covid lockdowns.


7 posted on 02/16/2021 8:39:07 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
“[making] evidence-based decisions guided by the best available science and data,”

The b.s. is thick in that one.

Tell you what, Creepy, I will follow the same guidelines that Gavin Nuisance and Nanzi Polizei practice. In other words, I will wear my mask whenever I am in the presence of a TV camera.

8 posted on 02/16/2021 8:42:51 AM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

Eisenhower’s farewell speech was brilliant—the man _called_ it.

What is interesting about science is that the “established science” of one generation usually is overturned by new discoveries that overturn the accepted wisdom.

The famous old quote “The best way for science to advance is for the old scientists to die.”


9 posted on 02/16/2021 9:07:20 AM PST by cgbg (A kleptocracy--if they can keep it. Think of it as the Cantillon Effect in action.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Funny. On another social media site, I was severely criticized for saying that one usually picks the expert who says things that they agree with.


10 posted on 02/16/2021 9:17:06 AM PST by DugwayDuke (Most prefer experts who only say things they agree with.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I always bristle when I hear “follow THE science”. As if science is utterly controlled by known Laws. It’s not.
The Scientific Method is not a familiar thing to most who use the definite article in their oft-repeated declaration of what is known.
Usually, I think to myself, “‘THE science?’, they must mean ‘Political Science!’”

Follow the science? Sure.

Consider these: Biology (gestation process), biology and Sports Medicine (XX and XY chromosomes); climatology (and the influence of the solar cycle), genealogy (“Are you crossing the border with your own children?”), Economics (“So, how many jobs do we lose if we ‘Go Green?”). Medical Science (natural immunity).,. There’s more.


11 posted on 02/16/2021 9:39:32 AM PST by Ken Regis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke

The “woke” folks were sure they had already banned anyone who disagreed with them....


12 posted on 02/16/2021 9:40:23 AM PST by cgbg (A kleptocracy--if they can keep it. Think of it as the Cantillon Effect in action.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Making actual science more into a joke everyday.

And given most scientists are Left leaning, no outcry from them at all as the Left’s ‘what the science says’ makes a mockery of actual science.....GG.


13 posted on 02/16/2021 9:41:41 AM PST by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken Regis

Have a look at the medical science concerning the treatment of ulcers, and how that changed, and changed radically, 15 or 20 years ago.

If we had settled for the accepted science, a lot of people would continue to be in pain.


14 posted on 02/16/2021 9:42:07 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ken Regis

Rubert Sheldrake has a classic lecture on “The Science Delusion”.

It was a Ted Talk before the “scientists” banned it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg


15 posted on 02/16/2021 9:42:33 AM PST by cgbg (A kleptocracy--if they can keep it. Think of it as the Cantillon Effect in action.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Consider that the people gabbling most about following “The” science have never read a scientific paper in their lives and you’ll get an idea of how shallow this claim really is. These are people claiming nothing less than being the Party Of Science and who have declared sexual dimorphism to be merely a social construct. I’ve seen better science than that from tribal African witch doctors.


16 posted on 02/16/2021 9:48:51 AM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cgbg

cgbg wrote: “The “woke” folks were sure they had already banned anyone who disagreed with them....”

Actually, I had my posting privileges removed for five weeks for “Posting numerous times on many forums with the intention to promote anything, or bring attention to an issue (whether positive or negative) is not allowed.” The issue I ‘brought attention to’ was the absurdity of many of the coronavirus mitigation protocols.

I did notice some chatter between other posters about putting me on ignore. I suspect they complained to management until I was ‘cancelled’.


17 posted on 02/16/2021 9:53:32 AM PST by DugwayDuke (Most prefer experts who only say things they agree with.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cgbg
From C-Span:

President Dwight Eisenhower Farewell Address


Transcript of President Dwight D. Eisenhowers Farewell Address (1961)

My fellow Americans:
Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.


Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.


II

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

III

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology-global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle-with liberty at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small,there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research-these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we which to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs-balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage-balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between action of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

IV

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peace time, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.


V

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we-you and I, and our government-must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.


VI

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war-as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years-I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.


VII

So-in this my last good night to you as your President-I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find somethings worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I-my fellow citizens-need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing inspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Transcription courtesy of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum.

18 posted on 02/16/2021 9:59:13 AM PST by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bratch

Ike brilliantly identified most of the problems we have today.

But—notice that he did not have actual solutions, just goals.

As long as the sociopaths are allowed to live among us (and work their way to the top of large institutions), civilization cannot survive for the long term.

Humanity must be able to identify the sociopaths early in life, and ban them from any positions of responsibility or authority.


19 posted on 02/16/2021 10:05:16 AM PST by cgbg (A kleptocracy--if they can keep it. Think of it as the Cantillon Effect in action.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cgbg

It’s a good plan, in theory.

Unfortunately, mental disorders have been one of the most popular go-to excuses for totalitarian regimes to imprison their political opponents.

So I’m not sure that would be a workable solution in our modern times.


20 posted on 02/16/2021 10:21:37 AM PST by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson