Eye on Science, Science Blog, Michael D. Lemonick, TIME

July 29, 2007 8:16

Scientific Truth

Posted by Michael Lemonick | Comments (19) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

In response to my post about the amazing new addiction theory Ben Bonsens writes:

M.L. its usually not the eloquence of a thoughtful argument that proves a theory. Instead it is the repeatability by an outside second and third lab/study that proves a theory.
Further, science is basically the questioning of a system (hypothesis), determining a controlled environment to study the system (experiment), and reviewing the results as they pertain to the original question. Every one does this every day without even thinking. Otherwise we would still be in trees flinging our feces at each other.

As a researcher I read articles every day of experiments that compete with mine. Sometimes there are valid lessons to be learned and sometimes they don't know what they are talking about. But I can never discount someones work until I hear it out in its entirety.

True enough. But I'll bet you don't stop what you're doing and investigate every new theory that comes along. If you did, you probabably couldn't get any work done. I'm betting you only investigate new ideas that seem to you likely to be worth spending the time on, and with others, you make a judgment that they could conceivably be right but that it's too much of a long shot to worry about. That's what most scientists do, anyway.

As to the comment about eloquence vs. repeatability, of course, and if I gave the impression that I thought otherwise, then I wasn't clear. In psychology and psychiatry, though, the experimental system is very complex and messy, and controlled trials aren't always so easy.

Still, you and I agree that a valid idea will be proven over time, one way or another. I bet you also agree, though, that trying to convince journalists to do the evaluating is a pretty bogus proposition.

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

Reader Comments (19)

Yadgyu:

Eloquence and repeatabilty are good things. But neither one is really of no use if the science cannot be used to slove real world problems. I think that too many people get caught up in the science of science and the science of intelligence. Only other scientists care about these things. But these are not the people to please. The people to please are the ones that will continue to fund scientists.

A scientist has to be two-headed. They have to make imporatnt discoveries that will give credibilty to their work AND make important discoveries that have practical applications and lucrative financial rewards. All smart, not intelligent but smart, scientists know that you have to "play the game" with other scientists and financiers of science.

Posted by Yadgyu | July 30, 2007 2:36 PM

Ben Bonsens:

M.L. I'll bite. Yes I won't drop everything to explore a new theory. To do this properly it would take weeks or even years. Instead that is why a technical paper or a good trade journal is so handy. One can peruse the abstract and conclusion of any interesting titles to see if the author is full of b.s. or if they at least earned their B.S.

But as to "trying to convince journalists to do the evaluating" its only bogus if the author wants you to do a peer evaluation. You are not an expert in the field and as such its immoral.

I do feel though that a good journalist can benefit from using the Scientific Method just as a good scientist can benefit from using basic Journalism skills.

--I agree with the first paragraph for sure. So if our friend with the new theory on addiction is not full of B.S., his idea will undoubtedly get a good hearing from people equipped to evaluate it.

But it's quite clear that he's trying to get me, as a journalist, to evaluate it. So yes, it is bogus. Immoral, I'm not so sure, but quite clueless if he thinks this is a valid thing to ask.

You'll have to explain the third paragraph, though. What exactly do you mean by a journalist "using the Scientific Method" to evaluate a new theory? I honestly don't understand what you're getting at.
M.L.

Posted by Ben Bonsens | July 30, 2007 5:08 PM

Ben Bonsens:

Originally I was intending my last statement to say that the Scientific Method can be used as a means to solve problems in everyday life. And also to allude to the fact that many scientists cannot write clearly to save their lives. I think I proved the second statement much better than the first. Therefore I'll try to prop up the first one with the problem at hand.

To evaluate a new theory, consider the paper on its own. As such pose a question to it, "Does this hold water?" or "Is it obvious what this person is trying to achieve through their experiment?". Then perform the experiment, quick and dirty way for me is to read the abstract and conclusion. Then draw your own conclusions, "Author is confused/wrong/clueless/naive."

I still think that it is immoral because he could very easily be trying to use you as a means of propping up his theory before proper peer review. You said it best when you told him you couldn't send patients his way.

--Exactly.
M.L.

Posted by Ben Bonsens | July 30, 2007 8:20 PM

Jacob Reider, MD:

Interesting discussion - but the headline caught my eye - since (as it seems most of you would agree)- there is no such thing as scientific truth.

Data supports hypotheses. New hypotheses replace the old ones as better data becomes available.

Calling the prevailing hypothesis a "truth" would violate the basis or the scientific method.

Yet as the translators of science to the masses - journalists have the obligation to uphold this semantic distinction rather than muddy it. Carelessly using the words "truth" and "fact" in the coverage of scientific topics is a sin the science journalists should never commit

--Hmmm. I'm with you on "truth." But there are one or two things I think even a purist like you would agree are facts.
M.L.

Posted by Jacob Reider, MD | July 31, 2007 11:01 AM

A M:

First of all I have to point out that THIS IS NOT A NEW THEORY. Has anyone ever heard of Sobell? Finagrette? And the hundreds of others who do not think addiction is a disease?

I mostly agree that addicition is not a disease but rather a habit. This doesn't make it any less problematic, however, and those that disagree with the non-disease idea often believe we are irresponsible, insensitive, and ignorant. This is sad, actually.

The fact that there are neurochemical aspects of addiction does not necessarily make it a disease. Researchers have found that religiousity is actually genetic; does this make religiousity a disease? If you were more genetically prone to pick your nose compared to your neighbor, would this make picking your nose a disease?

In reality, arguing whether addiction is a disease or not really is just semantics and mostly a waste of time. We should be spending our time arguing about the best treatments. And unfortunately, very effective treatments still elude us.

--If it's just semantics, why did you go through all of your arguments? I actually agree that what we call it isn't as important as what we do about it.
M.L.

Posted by A M | August 1, 2007 8:57 AM

Corey:

M.L., I think at this point it might be useful to point something out to you. There's nothing magical about scientists. I'm one...I should know.

The only difference between myself and a non-scientist is that I took a whole bunch of graduate level courses and did some research-secondary and primary.

You're a science writer so I assume that you can read scientific articles. That's all you really need to be able to do-along with the ability to conduct logical analyses-in order to evaluate theories.

Yes...you do need some expertise, but that's something attainable with a little bit of reading.

Posted by Corey | August 3, 2007 8:58 AM

Maychic.com, On Scientific truth:

Scientific truth. In a world overflowing with lies, myth, half truths, bigotry, hypocrisy and ignorance, scientific truth may be the only light we have to help us move from darkness into the light of a new era and a world order of a glorious earth.
Maychic.com

Posted by Maychic.com, On Scientific truth | August 15, 2007 3:11 PM

Barton Paul Levenson:

[[Scientific truth. In a world overflowing with lies, myth, half truths, bigotry, hypocrisy and ignorance, scientific truth may be the only light we have to help us move from darkness into the light of a new era and a world order of a glorious earth.]]

A New Order, you might say? Or even a New World Order? What would this "world order" look like? What would be its public policies?

Posted by Barton Paul Levenson | August 20, 2007 1:03 PM

James Wachai:

I agree with Corey that a journalist doesn't need to be a scientist to report science. Scientists, just like lawyers or engineers, fancy jargon. We, the public, have no time for jargon-laden scientific reports. This is where a journalist's input is required - to simplify the complex for our easy synthesis. I studied education and literature in my undergraduate. This hasn't prevented me from writing for The Bulletin of the World Health Organization. Most, if not all, scientists can't communicate the simplest of their innovations to the general masses. Doesn't surprise you, for instance, hacks have taken over the debate over genetically modified foods? Where are the scientists who discovered GMOs? If fifty (50) scientists can gang up against these prophets of doom, the world wouldn't be witnessing the raw debate we currently have on GMOs. I support crop genetic engineering, and I have written as much in my blog. My support for the use of genetic engineering to revitalize Africa's agriculture stems from the fact that the continent always exhibit ambivalence to new technologies. As a result it ends up being left behind as other parts of the world flourish. Perhaps, African scientists need to be more aggressive in reporting science and technology. This way policy makers and farmers can appreciate the need to embrace new technologies.

Posted by James Wachai | August 30, 2007 1:11 PM

brg8:

تامر حسني-برامج-1-a1-19-b2-78-71-18-21-59-60-58-61-22-42-9-a9-b9-b3-bb-77-65-53-73-56-49-5-84-ss-دردشة-شات-دردشه-دردشات-دردشه
كتابيه-دردشة كتابية-شات
كتابي دردشه صوتيه-دردشة
صوتية-صوتيه-صوتي-شات
صوتي 57-63-62-67-6-b6-b7-ab-6-29-75-4-8-82-83-15-16-17-11-12-55-13-72-80-79-25-64-24-51-26-tt-برامج
جوال-مقاطع بلوتوث-مسجات-نغمات-ثيمات-العاب
جوال-تصاميم-هكر-صور-صور
انمي-صور فنانين-ماسنجر-افلام-افلام
اجنبيه-منتدى للتعارف-منتديات
ادبية-منتدى للبنات فقط-العاب-العاب
بنات-سكس اناشيد-صور
سيارات-رياضة-تحميل
اهداف-محمد-سياحة
وسفر-منتديات عامة-منتديات
اسلامية-منتديات سياسيه-تعليم
لغات اجنبيه-تعليم اللغه الانجليزية نكت-خواطر-شعر-قصص-اساطير-روايات-حكم
وامثال-ازياء-منتدى
العروس-طبخ-طب-علم
النفس-برق-موقع
اغاني-مركز تحميل منتديات-شات-دردشة-دليل
مواقع-مسجات--ثيمات-صور بنات-صور
حب-1-2-3-4-5
6-7-8-9-10-دردشة
بنت الدلع-دردشة بنات-شات
بنات-شات الحب-دردشة
الحب-منتديات بنات-شات
الغلا-صور رومانسيه-صور
رومنسيه-صور فناين-صور
سيارات-افلام-خواطر-ازياء-صور
حلوه-روايات-كويت
25-هيفاء وهبي-بنات
السعودية-موقع عمرو خالد-ناصر
الفراعنة-نانسي عجرم-ياسر
القحطاني-شات-نغمات
نوكيا-قصص وروايات-مسجات حب-مسجات
عتاب-مسجات شوق-
مسجات مقالب-مسجات
نكت-مسجات حلوة-بلياردو-شعر
حامد زيد-ازياء اطفال-ازياء
خليجية-فساتين سهرة-فساتين
افراح-مركز تحميل صور مقاطع فيديو مركز تحميل الصور تحميل صور صور رومانسية رسائل حب موقع باربي صور عيون منتديات صور بنات تحميل الماسنجر مسجات حب مسجات ثيمات العاب للبنات فقط mobile9 برامج الماسنجر مكياج خلفيات تحميل العاب صور أنمي ترجمة نصوص صور حب العاب تلبيس تلبيس باربي العاب ماريو sitemap صور سيارات برامج جوال رسائل الجوال موقع باربي اكواد جافا العاب بنات فساتين صور تلوين اليوتيوب صور مقاطع صوتية مقاطع فيديو للتحميل صور حلوه موسوعة الصور دليل مواقع صور قلوب تحميل برامج windows live messenger 9 عيون
برامج جوال وموبايل Drivers برامج صوت وفيديو تحميل العاب جديدة برامج شبكات برامج حماية برامج إدارة النظام برامج تصميم وفوتوشوب نسخ اقراص و DVD برامج كمبيوتر الكمبيوتر كتب عربية تحميل كتب عربية برامج اطفال برامج بورتابل portable برامج عربية ومعربة برنامج هندسة معمارية برنامج ضغط وفك ضغط تعاريف الأجهزة وخدمات أخرى برامج المكتبة برامج منوعة موقع برامج العاب بنات العاب مسجات مرض منتديات صور صدام حسين العاب تلبيس العاب باربي العاب ترتيب غرف العاب طبخ العاب مغامرات العاب اكشن العاب ميك اب العاب مكياج العاب بنات منوعة hguhf hguhf fkhj tr'-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138