What is "Bad" Science?

[dybmh]

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.

Thank you. I think that's an excellent example.

 

[sayak83]

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.

Usually bad science is about predatory publication, poor or fake data published in low ranked "paper mills", data falsification in reputed publications or poor statistical analysis causing repeatability problems.
Replication crisis - Wikipedia
Predatory publishing - Wikipedia
How many scientists fabricate and falsify research?
Research paper mill - Wikipedia

These are mostly what concerns scientists as, if undetected, they marr research atmosphere.

What typically happens in anti science crowds like creationism or global warming denials are not even bad science. They are pseudosciences like astrology etc.

 

[PureX]

Please see the OP?



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?

I'm not sure why you're confused. One giant indicator of bad science is the habit of drawing conclusions from the data gathered. The scientific process involves generating a testable hypothesis from the data but NOT DRAWING CONCLUSIONS. So whenever you see or hear someone positing conclusions about 'true reality' based on data derived via science, you should understand that you are witnessing bad science (and weak philosophy, as well).

Question: What are the indicators that suggest the miscomprehension?

Well, you seemed not to be comprehending it, here, for one. But hopefully this has been clarified.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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."

And the trick (which you will never see) is --- he's telling the truth! Yeah, let's all go and have some nice, scientific bleach.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

This post is an example of very very bad science.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure why you're confused. One giant indicator of bad science is the habit of drawing conclusions from the data gathered. The scientific process involves generating a testable hypothesis from the data but NOT DRAWING CONCLUSIONS. So whenever you see or hear someone positing conclusions about 'true reality' based on data derived via science, you should understand that you are witnessing bad science (and weak philosophy, as well).

Well, you seemed not to be comprehending it, here, for one. But hopefully this has been clarified.

Careful the accusation of science "drawing conclusions" is a misleading fundamentally false statement. It is pretty much universally accepted in academic science that falsifying hypothesis is always conditional and subject to change when new information becomes available.

Can you give an example where scientists are drawing conclusions without consideration that new information may influence or change results of their research?

 

[blü 2]

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."

Fauci, an immunologist, was making the point that the criticisms of his Covid performance had no foundation in science, whereas what he did was based on science.

He wasn't just making it up. Since 1988 he'd been head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases under the Department of Health.

 

[shunyadragon]

Probably the worse misuse of science by Creationists is the unethical use of statistics and probability to justify a fundamentalist agenda against evolution

 

[Heyo]

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?

People should not have faith in the publications, they should have faith in the scientific process - of which the journals are an integral part. They are the best we have regarding science communication, but they are not infallible. Remember that articles published there have been peer-reviewed, but the experiments haven't necessarily been replicated.
As for bias, they usually don't suffer from confirmation bias, that would have been filtered out by peer-review. They have a publication bias.

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?

There is no "peer review board". The "same" institutions are universities from all over the world, different cultures, different political and economic system, the only communality is a reputation as an expert in the field.

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?

"Progress is made one funeral at a time." - Max Planck
Scientists are human, some have difficulties to detach from their preferred theory. That's why one expert's opinion doesn't count as much, it's the scientific consensus.
Some scientists are great scientists, like Stephen Hawking. He could work out a brilliant hypothesis and everyone would discuss it. A few years later he'd say "I've recalculated, I was wrong, and here is why." There were not many people in the world who could prove him wrong, so he had to do it himself.

 

[Pogo]

I'm not sure why you're confused. One giant indicator of bad science is the habit of drawing conclusions from the data gathered. The scientific process involves generating a testable hypothesis from the data but NOT DRAWING CONCLUSIONS. So whenever you see or hear someone positing conclusions about 'true reality' based on data derived via science, you should understand that you are witnessing bad science (and weak philosophy, as well).

Well, you seemed not to be comprehending it, here, for one. But hopefully this has been clarified.

Science does not claim "truth". it's conclusions are always tentative but aimed at the best understanding we have with the information we have.
The philosophy you are claiming is the example of why philosophy is not terribly well respected especially when it insists on unevidenced ideas like gods and universal consciousness and any number of other non-physical ideas. Leave science to the limited philosophy of methodological naturalism if you have to give it a philosophy and realize everything else is a subjective add on.

 

[F1fan]

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?

Just like in science we need evidence of this. If you have one example in 10,000 then it is not a very significant problem even though you can point to it as a stand alone data point and not assess it to the 9999 contrary data points.

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?

Well there have to be evidence. The scientific method is very clear about its ethics, and if there are researchers or facilities foing bad science then it tells us something about them, not the method. But there has to be evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

Correct journals are not immune to confirmation bias. This is a bit misleading, scientists continue to challenge and question research even after it is published.

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?

Best worded that peer review takes place within the same scientific specialty.

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?

The rule over time is that as in all sciences, the conclusion are questioned and challenged continually by other archeologists. Archeology is one of the most contenscious and controversial of scientific specialties. An example is the claim of a lead curse tablet with Hebrew text.

 

[wellwisher]

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.

I think statistical centric science is bad science since this approach to science starts with a black box and not even a hypothesis. You run the tests and let the data and model tell you what to think. Using this method, coffee can be bad for you today, but not as bad tomorrow. It does not get to the heart of the matter, since this approach is not fully rational. Margin of error adds subjectivity to the data; fuzzy dice data. It is like a theory of grass based on collecting grass and weeds and averaging the two and calling that grass within a margin of error.

Fauci of the CDC had a connection to black box science; life science, which shares the same methodology used by pollsters, marketeers and gaming parlors. Fauci took advantage by blending these common subjective applications together; mixed science with politics.

Risk analysis, which uses this same math, is a strange form of bad science, that bets on the long short; theory of the exception instead of the rule. This niche of bad science makes use of fear to help make the long shot feel like the sure thing. The COVID bogeyman risk factor had half the country; Liberalism, hiding away when this was not even necessary. A little fuzz dice science, and then add splash of fear and risk and you can get the herd to turn on a dime.

Bad science is science that can be promoted by shady politicians since they use the same math foundation. Man made climate change uses this methodology and is divided down political lines. That is a tell. Climate science is just like weatherman science, which is never held fully accountable if wrong.

In the early days of global warming science, the black box science conclusions were always over shooting, helping to add fear to the theory, but also adding doubt in the theory. There were even cases of data fudging to get the proper political fear ambiance back. People caught on and it became necessary to rebrand the black box conclusion as climate change, since that term is very nebulous, and the line between natural and manmade, routine, unique and old songs sold as new is blurred by the black box risk and fear. Who gets blamed for over preparing? Doesn't that mean you care a lot; Caring Science?

Black box science can do a blind taste test of a new soft drink. It is also the science of subjectivity and manipulation based on personal preferences. It can be subjective. When you have a rational theory such as Relativity, if one exception could be found, the entire theory would need to be retool. But with black box science, bad data and wrong conclusions is given a pass, if risk is involved.

I think this was supposed to be a rag fest against religion and conspiracy theory trying to use science. But in reality, if marketing, politics and much of science gets to use black box science, why does religion and conspiracy theory have to stay rational, and avoid using black box science? There is risk you may go to hell is you do not eat your peas.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

I have a good academic background in meteorology and find the above unbelievable false. In reality weather prediction has become increasingly accurate with computer modeling using chaos theory. Weather prediction will never be absolute, and it is often presented as range of possible outcomes, The fractal nature of weather will make long range predictions will have a wider range of possible outcomes.

An interesting recent example of good weather prediction by modern methods is the hurricane Beryl.

 

[I Am Hugh]

I have a good academic background in meteorology and find the above unbelievable false. In reality weather prediction has become increasingly accurate with computer modeling using chaos theory. Weather prediction will never be absolute, and it is often presented as range of possible outcomes, The fractal nature of weather will make long range predictions will have a wider range of possible outcomes.

An interesting recent example of good weather prediction by modern methods is the hurricane Beryl.

How was hurricane Beryl predicted?

 

[shunyadragon]

I think statistical centric science is bad science since this approach to science starts with a black box and not even a hypothesis. You run the tests and let the data and model tell you what to think. Using this method, coffee can be bad for you today, but not as bad tomorrow. It does not get to the heart of the matter, since this approach is not fully rational. Margin of error adds subjectivity to the data; fuzzy dice data. It is like a theory of grass based on collecting grass and weeds and averaging the two and calling that grass within a margin of error.

Fauci of the CDC had a connection to black box science; life science, which shares the same methodology used by pollsters, marketeers and gaming parlors. Fauci took advantage by blending these common subjective applications together; mixed science with politics.

Risk analysis, which uses this same math, is a strange form of bad science, that bets on the long short; theory of the exception instead of the rule. This niche of bad science makes use of fear to help make the long shot feel like the sure thing. The COVID bogeyman risk factor had half the country; Liberalism, hiding away when this was not even necessary. A little fuzz dice science, and then add splash of fear and risk and you can get the herd to turn on a dime.

Bad science is science that can be promoted by shady politicians since they use the same math foundation. Man made climate change uses this methodology and is divided down political lines. That is a tell. Climate science is just like weatherman science, which is never held fully accountable if wrong.

In the early days of global warming science, the black box science conclusions were always over shooting, helping to add fear to the theory, but also adding doubt in the theory. There were even cases of data fudging to get the proper political fear ambiance back. People caught on and it became necessary to rebrand the black box conclusion as climate change, since that term is very nebulous, and the line between natural and manmade, routine, unique and old songs sold as new is blurred by the black box risk and fear. Who gets blamed for over preparing? Doesn't that mean you care a lot; Caring Science?

Black box science can do a blind taste test of a new soft drink. It is also the science of subjectivity and manipulation based on personal preferences. It can be subjective. When you have a rational theory such as Relativity, if one exception could be found, the entire theory would need to be retool. But with black box science, bad data and wrong conclusions is given a pass, if risk is involved.

I think this was supposed to be a rag fest against religion and conspiracy theory trying to use science. But in reality, if marketing, politics and much of science gets to use black box science, why does religion and conspiracy theory have to stay rational, and avoid using black box science? There is risk you may go to hell is you do not eat your peas.

I had rated a previous post by @PureX as very very bad science, but the above takes the cake as the worst possible science based on an intentional ignorance of science and an ancient religious agenda. A toxic combination.

 

[PureX]

This post is an example of very very bad science.

And this response is a classic example of scientism.

 

[shunyadragon]

How was hurricane Beryl predicted?

The hurricane Beryl was predicted very accurately over time given the range of possible paths and strength using computer modeling I have used in my work in the past.

 

[shunyadragon]

And this response is a classic example of scientism.

Intentional emotional ignorance of science is your modus operandi,

 

[PureX]

Careful the accusation of science "drawing conclusions" is a misleading fundamentally false statement. It is pretty much universally accepted in academic science that falsifying hypothesis is always conditional and subject to change when new information becomes available.

Can you give an example where scientists are drawing conclusions without consideration that new information may influence or change results of their research?

As usual, you cannot differentiate between science and scientism. So there is no point to my bothering to answer. Science is just science. Scientism is bad science pretending to be (bad) philosophy.