In the Name of Science

PATRICK GLEESON

Science says jump. Science says sit. Science says turn right. Now left. Got you! I didn’t say Science says.

Science is easy to spot in the media – usually flaunted right in the title. It’s much harder, however, to identify its significance. Even in good faith, the communication of scientific views is often ambiguous or misleading, and our willingness to accept them without concern for context offers broadcasters a disconcerting influence over the choices we make.

I do not wish to dramatise the issue – there are certainly more pressing problems to solve. Nonetheless, our misperceptions and biases towards science are worth addressing, especially when their impact can be easily reduced.

What is science? The word ‘science’ serves two roles. Often it is a label for a diverse group of disciplines. When I say I study science, there’s a reasonable chance that I undertake lab-work, dabble in mathematics, and spend time analysing data. Stereotyped or not, the label has a remarkably positive reputation in pop culture and the public eye.

This sweeping reputation blurs the word’s more subtle function for differentiating reputable information. Science is invoked daily as a stamp of credibility: trust me, it’s science. Indeed, standards for reliability are baked into the dictionary definition of the term. Such standards, however, are not built into our perceptions, and we often rely heavily on science’s public image while forgetting that we might not be hearing the whole story.

The power of science If a friend of mine claims to have travelled from the future, I will laugh and let her know that I’ve just returned from Mars. However, there are several ways she can gain my trust; next week’s winning lottery ticket would be a good start. At the heart of science lies society’s most rigorous and robust criteria for when to consider information reliable and upholding them in the search for new information is its core business. This method – the scientific method – is science’s most important development.

We begin with an experiment. Claims must be supported by evidence, which must be obtained by repeatable means. Resulting theories must make falsifiable predictions, and have these predictions observed. Over time, this leads to accurate information. Eventually the preservation of reliability must extend beyond the experimental bubble because results must be communicated – we can’t run every test for ourselves. Scientific claims necessarily become separated from their data and methodology because it is neither feasible nor immediately helpful to include them for the public. As a result, the criteria for trust shift from raw evidence to reputable credentials and the further we travel from the source, the more reliant we become on media credibility.

Unfortunately, differences in scientific reliability are naturally obscured in mass publication, because better results don’t necessarily sound more reliable at face value; consider the effect of clickbait on article popularity. Moreover, success after success has charged the word science with a concerning authority of its own. We frequently hear ‘studies show; nine out of ten scientists agree’; or even just ‘science’ says. These phrases aren’t malicious, but a moment of rational thought makes clear that without further context, they also provide little credibility. Which studies? Which scientists? Most importantly, who disagrees? Since we can’t ask every journalist to conduct a comprehensive review of scientific literature, we should be aware that such claims are vulnerable to cherry picking – the use of one-sided evidence, whether unintentional or deliberate. This is problematic due to the subconscious belief that ‘what you see is all there is’. I emphasise that misperception requires neither flawed research nor failure of the press; the significance of scientific claims is always context dependent. On the other hand, self-reflection suggests that we are inclined to ascribe weight to such claims even without contextual details.

In the advertising realm, it is well known that a lab coat confers authority even to an actor on TV. One of my favourite oxymoronic phrases is ‘scientifically proven’, because science cannot prove – only support or contradict – illustrating the tendency to inflate the certainty of results. Finally, nine out of ten scientists will recommend This Brand of Toothpaste if you pick the right ten scientists.

Dr. Science Our biases can be neatly summarised as the presence of a certain fictitious character running around in our heads: ‘Dr. Science’. Incidentally, a satirical ’80s radio programme by a similar name made fun of a related impression. Our subconscious assumptions about science are:

1. Science is automatically credible – after all, it’s got a PhD. 2. Science is unanimous – it’s just ‘Dr. Science’, not ‘Dr. Science and friends’.

Like news, not all science is equal, and the media naturally makes it difficult to differentiate. The ‘credibility by default’ needs to be contested. We certainly shouldn’t just reject science but we need to stop mentally inserting ‘Dr.’ in front of ‘Science’, and start actively looking for reliability instead.

Our final issue, of scientific consensus, deserves a section to itself. There is a misperception of unanimity within the scientific community – that ‘the’ scientific view exists. This is the insidious problem with claims such as ‘science says chocolate’ is good for you – it hides the fact that science also says chocolate is bad. Science moves forward on average, but not necessarily in a straight line. Each new result presents the latest, not the greatest, of findings. In such a large body, even a little diversity can lead to different versions of the truth. The voice of a single scientist is good, but not enough, and we must seek the most widely supported results.

Strategies Here are some simple suggestions. First, consider the scale of claims: ‘900 out of 1000 scientists’ is more reliable than ‘9 out of 10’. Try looking elsewhere for reports on the same topic, and search in neutral terms – think ‘health effects of chocolate’ rather than ‘why chocolate is good for you.’

As always, check the original source, and see if there is more than one. Finally, remember that ‘Dr. Science’ is just a figment of your imagination.

Conclusion Scientists don’t want their claims to be accepted without question; they want readers to think critically, avoid inflating discoveries, and make scientific effort worthwhile by helping credible results rise to the top. This commentary is not new, and I am not unbiased. I am a single individual, I study science, and I certainly haven’t done enough research into scientific misperceptions. Nevertheless, I hope this makes you more aware of potential pitfalls next time ‘science says’.