What is "Bad" Science?

[dybmh]

Hello,

I'd like to compile a list of indicators of "bad" science, particularly the poor methods and deceptive practices in use by religious people attempting to misuse and or abuse the label "science" to fraudulently assert credibility and to attack the skeptics and critics of their so-called scientific conclusions: "You're denying science!"

Examples:

• Improper or limited sampling of data
• Poor method engineering which does not accurately test the hypothesis
• Lacking critical self-analysis on completion and avoiding making necessary changes in future
• Hiding results which are uncomfortable for the researcher and their community

Follow-up question: How many of these faults need to present before even the labeling: "bad science" becomes untenable. When do the faults warrant: "That's not science at all!"

@Jayhawker Soule , @jimb , you are both cordially invited to participate and hopefully contribute.

 

[dybmh]

@Heyo, @It Aint Necessarily So , @Subduction Zone , @shunyadragon , @sayak83 , @Polymath257

Are any of you able to assist with this?

Thank you very kindly,

 

[Ebionite]

Claiming to _be_ science, eg Anthony Fauci.

 

[dybmh]

Claiming to _be_ science, eg Anthony Fauci.

elaborate?

 

[Ebionite]

Fox News Dr. Fauci Montage: I Am the Science

‘I’m the bad guy to an entire subset of people because I represent something that is uncomfortable for them, it’s called the truth’

grabien.com

 

[dybmh]

Fox News Dr. Fauci Montage: I Am the Science

‘I’m the bad guy to an entire subset of people because I represent something that is uncomfortable for them, it’s called the truth’

grabien.com

OK

Claiming to _be_ science, eg Anthony Fauci.

I didn't hear him say those words. "I am science". It was a short video. Did you hear those words?

 

[McBell]

Fox News Dr. Fauci Montage: I Am the Science

‘I’m the bad guy to an entire subset of people because I represent something that is uncomfortable for them, it’s called the truth’

grabien.com

ah yes, Grabien, a news market place where you can purchase your news already quote mined to your hearts content.

 

[Ebionite]

I didn't hear him say those words. "I am science". It was a short video. Did you hear those words?

It's implied by what he said - to attack Anthony Fauci is to attack science.


FAUCI: "It's easy to criticize, but they are really criticizing science. (...) You are really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you are attacking science. (...) I’m the bad guy to an entire subset of people because I represent something that is uncomfortable for them. It’s called the truth."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello,

I'd like to compile a list of indicators of "bad" science, particularly the poor methods and deceptive practices in use by religious people attempting to misuse and or abuse the label "science" to fraudulently assert credibility and to attack the skeptics and critics of their so-called scientific conclusions: "You're denying science!"

Examples:

• Improper or limited sampling of data
• Poor method engineering which does not accurately test the hypothesis
• Lacking critical self-analysis on completion and avoiding making necessary changes in future
• Hiding results which are uncomfortable for the researcher and their community

Follow-up question: How many of these faults need to present before even the labeling: "bad science" becomes untenable. When do the faults warrant: "That's not science at all!"

@Jayhawker Soule , @jimb , you are both cordially invited to participate and hopefully contribute.

All of those are very good indicators. I like to keep it simple, most people that follow bad science do not even understand the scientific method or the concept of scientific evidence. I like to ask them how they would test their beliefs. Specifically what observations would refute their beliefs. If they cannot give examples then they either do not understand their sources or even worse their sources are pseudoscience.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's implied by what he said - to attack Anthony Fauci is to attack science.


FAUCI: "It's easy to criticize, but they are really criticizing science. (...) You are really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you are attacking science. (...) I’m the bad guy to an entire subset of people because I represent something that is uncomfortable for them. It’s called the truth."

Yes, because you do not know how to refute science and yet have the gall to call it "bad science".

 

[Heyo]

@Heyo, @It Aint Necessarily So , @Subduction Zone , @shunyadragon , @sayak83 , @Polymath257

Are any of you able to assist with this?

Thank you very kindly,

I like to differentiate between "bad science" and "not science".

"Not science" is what, for example, the DI and AiG do. They don't publish in scientific journals, and they don't respect the scientific method at all.

"Bad science" is what happens within the scientific community. Shortcutting the publication process, like Fleischmann and Pons did, is bad science. P-value hacking, the scientific Texas Sharpshooter method, is bad science. Positivity biased publishing is a systemic problem and bad science. Dogma is really bad science, but it still exists in some fields. There are some (older) archaeologists who still insist that there were no female warriors, at least not in [insert period they are studying].
Those are the ones off the top of my head.

And then there is "bad reporting". Secondary literature, like popular science magazines and science columns in newspapers, like to sensationalize and exaggerate findings. That's not the fault of the scientists, but it confuses the public.

 

[I Am Hugh]

What is bad science? The same as bad religion. Science is the weatherman. With all of their training and technology they are often wrong. I don't pay much attention to science, especially when it alleges to have anything to do with the Bible or religion. Which it shouldn't.

 

[dybmh]

It's implied by what he said - to attack Anthony Fauci is to attack science.

I heard: "They're not attacking me; They're attacking what I represent, science."

FAUCI: "It's easy to criticize, but they are really criticizing science. (...) You are really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you are attacking science. (...) I’m the bad guy to an entire subset of people because I represent something that is uncomfortable for them. It’s called the truth."

Do you have the full interview?

 

[dybmh]

the scientific Texas Sharpshooter method, is bad science

Yes. I had included this in the first example in the OP: "Improper or limited sampling of data". Everyone's a sharp-shooter if you only count the data which hits the bullseye.

Question is the there a corresponding yet inverse fallacy? Something like: "Everyone's a loser if you only count the failures."? It's a form of confirmation bias, right? But, something closer to the sharp-shooter fallacy where the scientist omits data from a very large sample for the purpose of forcing criticism?

Dogma is really bad science, but it still exists in some fields.

Yes. I had hoped to include this in the last example in the OP: "Hiding results which are uncomfortable for the researcher and their community." Is that what you meant? The results are not conforming the the scientist's dogma? So they hide the results? Maybe it could also come in the form of the second example in the OP: "Poor method engineering which does not accurately test the hypothesis"? The scientist, perhaps unintentionally, wants to confirm their dogma, so, they (unintentionally?) engineer their method to force their favored outcome?

here are some (older) archaeologists who still insist that there were no female warriors,

Ah-hah. I see. I wonder how they support their point of view. Are they omitting data? "Improper or limited sampling of data"?

 

[Ebionite]

I heard: "They're not attacking me; They're attacking what I represent, science."

Selective hearing eh? The transcript is for the grabien video montage that I linked to, and it's Fauci talking.

 

[PureX]

Gathering data via experimentation is called science.

Developing conclusions about 'true reality' based on that data is called philosophy.

Not understanding the difference is both bad science and bad philosophy. A condition that is rampant among the 'scientism' crowd.

 

[Heyo]

Yes. I had included this in the first example in the OP: "Improper or limited sampling of data". Everyone's a sharp-shooter if you only count the data which hits the bullseye.

Question is the there a corresponding yet inverse fallacy? Something like: "Everyone's a loser if you only count the failures."? It's a form of confirmation bias, right? But, something closer to the sharp-shooter fallacy where the scientist omits data from a very large sample for the purpose of forcing criticism?

Yes, it is a form of confirmation bias. It can be used to confirm or deny a hypothesis, but it is most often used to get any positive result at all. It connects to my third point, positivity bias. "We looked at the data and found nothing conclusive." is not a paper that is likely to be published in a renowned journal.
And it requires a bit more creativity than just picking and choosing the data. That would be simply lying and probably caught in peer review. P-value hacking is a sophisticated method to lie with statistics.

Yes. I had hoped to include this in the last example in the OP: "Hiding results which are uncomfortable for the researcher and their community." Is that what you meant? The results are not conforming the the scientist's dogma? So they hide the results? Maybe it could also come in the form of the second example in the OP: "Poor method engineering which does not accurately test the hypothesis"? The scientist, perhaps unintentionally, wants to confirm their dogma, so, they (unintentionally?) engineer their method to force their favored outcome?



Ah-hah. I see. I wonder how they support their point of view. Are they omitting data? "Improper or limited sampling of data"?

It's a mix. For a long time it has been methodological. E.g. the gender of bodies in graves have been determined by the grave goods, which cemented the bias. Today, that doesn't work any more, as DNA analysis tells us exactly what we see - if a DNA analysis is made. And, yes, it is often unintentionally as dogma often is an unconscious thinking block.
A famous example of dogma would be the assumption of a steady state universe. It was so prevalent in the astronomic field that even Einstein didn't question it.

 

[dybmh]

Selective hearing eh?

I'm just being honest, bro. Yes, right or wrong, That was how I interpreted the comments in the video.

The transcript is for the grabien video montage that I linked to, and it's Fauci talking.

It's a sliced and diced snippet. It's easily manipulated. Propagandists do this. They slice and dice, then they put a headline under it which is not what the the speaker said or meant.

That's why I asked for the full transcript. So we can read what was *actually* said in context. If you're seeing a red-flag called "selective-hearing", I'm seeing a red-flag called "cherry-picking". But that red-flag vanishes if, BIG IF, there is no reluctance to bring the full transcript, or at least an unedited version of the video.

I'm trying to be fair. I hope you notice that.

FAUCI: "It's easy to criticize, but they are really criticizing science. (...) You are really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you are attacking science. (...) I’m the bad guy to an entire subset of people because I represent something that is uncomfortable for them. It’s called the truth."

Do you have access to the full transcript or at least an unedited version of the video?

 

[dybmh]

Gathering data via experimentation is called science.

Developing conclusions about 'true reality' based on that data is called philosophy.

Not understanding the difference is both bad science and bad philosophy. A condition that is rampant among the 'scientism' crowd.

Please see the OP?

I'd like to compile a list of indicators of "bad" science...

Purex, I greatly value your insight, but, I'm trying to compile a list of indicators. If you are inclined? Would you please elaborate in a way which is closer to an indicator for a list?

Not understanding the difference ...

Question: What are the indicators that suggest the miscomprehension?

 

[dybmh]

likely to be published in a renowned journal.

Forgive me, please, but this is something that has always confused me. People have a lot of faith in these journals. But the journals are not immune from the same confirmation bias you are describing in your most recent reply, correct?

That would be simply lying and probably caught in peer review.

Why probably? The peer review board are all coming from the same institutions? They would all have the same bias? At the very least they are all loyal to their previously reviewed and published journal articles?

Today, that doesn't work any more, as DNA analysis tells us exactly what we see

Non-biased DNA analysis from a computer? It's much better than a subjective evaluation of relative hip-orientation and size, or whatever other metrics were used to determine the gender of the remains.

Question: So, these archaeologists who are still holding firm to their dogma? What's up with them? Why aren't they assimilating the new findings? Why are they resisting? They don't trust computers? They have too many emotions invested in their prior research?