How Science Works

Everyone thinks he understands science:  scientists do experiments and prove or disprove their hypothesis, that is, their guess about how the world works.  Then we see it on the news or in advertisements and follow their advice.  That is how we live healthier and smarter.  But if that is the case, why do we see so much contradictory information?  Unfortunately, science is not nearly that simple.

Let’s talk strictly about health issues.  Scientists do experiments to find out how we can be healthier and how we can avoid things that make us less healthy.  The problem is that everyone’s body is different and may react differently to different substances or remedies.  Scientists must take this into account when designing experiments.  They do so by selecting a large and diverse sample of test subjects, a sample that best represents all of us, so that individual differences cancel out as much as possible.  Still those differences could lead to erroneous results, and they should ask others to try to duplicate and confirm the original findings.

Unfortunately, scientists are human too.  They know that to get recognition and to ensure the continued flow of grant money or corporate support (so they can keep working), they need to hurry findings to press to beat the competition.  The journals that publish scientific results that we hear of on the news should thoroughly review them before publishing, but this doesn’t always happen either.  The publishers also feel the competitive pressure and may cut corners.  What we are left with is preliminary or unconfirmed findings as headlines.

This review process was the subject of a recent PBS interview with a cofounder of Retraction Watch.  (It’s 6 minutes and worth watching.)  They found that in scientific journals there have been “10 times as many retractions…in 2010 as in 2001.”  One reason for the increase may be that retractions are easier to detect with the greater use of computers.  On the other hand, misinformation also spreads so much faster for the same reason.

One reporter took this to the extreme as part of a documentary film meant to point out the flaws in the system.  He did a real study on the effects of chocolate on health.  It was set up properly with a control group and two test groups, but the sample size was very small, only 15, and not representative.  Another flaw was the he tested not for a single benefit but for about a dozen.  With that small of a sample and so many variables, the possibility of meaningful, statistically significant results in at least one area is almost assured.

When he found that those participants who ate dark chocolate as part of their diet had significantly better weight loss (one of the many factors tested for), he looked for someone to publish it.  Needless to say this kind of headline-grabbing news was just what a journal hopes for.  He found a journal that, with minimal due diligence, scheduled it for publication.  (Note that he made no effort to cover up or conceal the shoddy design or lack of review or even that he used a fake name on his report.)  Soon reporters and journalists called, but few asked the right questions or knew the right questions to ask.  News organizations worldwide reacted to a press release and the news appeared in print and on television from Germany to Australia, including in the US.

He followed up with this paper titled, “I Fooled Millions into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight-loss.”  This is a great read which explains how science should work, but how easy it is to fool publishers and journalists who are under constant pressure to fill print pages and airtime.

This is a good warning for everyone.  Too many news stories are broken prematurely.  Some have the courtesy and true understanding of science to label a study as preliminary, but even when they do so, it’s often presented only as an afterthought.  Scientists are under such pressure to produce results that cutting corners is always a temptation.  And the speed and volume of communications in 2015 is so incredible that misinformation is rampant.  Critical thinking is a must!

Chicago Principle

I’m glad I heard about the Chicago Principle.  What a relief that part of the world is trying to act civilly and rationally at the same time!  What is the Chicago Principle?  I’ll get to that in a bit.

Baseball used to be called the national pastime.  Sportswriters can debate whether it is still as popular as it was in the past or has been surpassed by basketball or football, but there is no doubt that the new national pastime is not a sport at all.  It’s being offended!

You can hardly pick up a newspaper or magazine without seeing at least one story about someone being offended or someone having to apologize for “misspoken remarks” or a blog or tweet that rubbed someone the wrong way. 

Of course the reaction to being offended is rarely to calmly and rationally point out to the other person the error of his ways, to develop a counter argument or even to assume the other person was innocent, meant no harm, was hurried and didn’t carefully pick out his words or was misinformed.  No, the typical reaction to being offended is to lash out angrily, demand an apology, or post the offending action to social media in hopes of it going viral and publicly shaming the offender, possibly ruining his career or life.  (Some comedians now avoid college campuses for fear that an edgy joke tested on an audience and bombing will be videoed and posted before the performer has a chance to polish or even drop it from the act.)  Often this outrage relates to a topic or action that in the past most would have let pass, not noticed or considered quite innocuous.

To gather a few examples I went to Google and searched on “news” and “offended.” I struck gold!  Some high school seniors in Pennsylvania were offended by a letter sent reminding them to dress appropriately for graduation.  It was blunt and the administration apologized, but explained that it had been written by someone who had retired a couple of years ago.  They probably just had been sending out the same letter annually without reviewing it to account for the new level of sensitivity.  Next was a story about a rent-a-bike company in Washington that introduced bicycles painted glittery in honor of Gay Pride Month.  The story questioned whether this was a tribute or rather played into an offensive stereotype.  To reinforce how careful we must be these days that same story referred to another incident:  “Dani Marrero in USA Today went as far as to say referring to guacamole as "guac" should be avoided. She wrote, in part, “...the word itself also has significance as it comes from indigenous Nahuatl language, so please make the effort to pronounce it in its entirety.”  (Well, everyone knows you can’t shorten, abbreviate, misspell or otherwise play fast-and-loose with a word unless it is in your native language!  If somebody from Pakistan, for example, referred to a hotdog as a “dog” wouldn’t we demand an apology?)

Then there was a man who was offended by a message on a lottery ticket, forcing the New York Lottery to apologize for the “unfortunate arrangement of [random] words on this individual ticket.”  He didn’t even win anything after such a traumatic experience.  (Imagine being insulted by a ticket!)  Finally Drake Bell was chastised for a tweet about Caitlyn Jenner that could have been interpreted as unfavorable.  (Do you not wonder why anyone would care at all about a tweet from a “former Nickelodeon star”?)

This only got me half way down the first page.  Apparently a bishop in Columbia made an offensive statement, Apple was “deeply offended” by a BBC investigation, Jim Harbaugh is meeting with offended University of Michigan students, and, not to be outdone by those American infidels, ISIS issued a statement banning pigeon breeding as offensive.

Remember, this was just one page of one Google search on one day.  Tomorrow there will be another long list of victims who must have gone public enough with their offended feelings for it to be picked up by the media.

This brings me to the Chicago Principle.  “The University of Chicago is an institution fully committed to the creation of knowledge across the spectrum of disciplines and professions, firm in its belief that a culture of intense inquiry and informed argument generates lasting ideas, and that the members of its community have a responsibility both to challenge and to listen.”  This means that if the speech or written statement is legal and not threatening, harassing, defamatory, or a substantial invasion of privacy, it must be considered, discussed and debated regardless of whether it may be thought by some to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.

This could be a wonderful victory for critical thinking.  Instead of playing the offended victim and spreading animosity, students are required to come up with persuasive arguments or counterexamples for any offensive statements.  It allows for open debate on even sensitive subjects or those where public pressure makes the defender of some ideas seem uncool, uncaring or a pariah.

Fortunately, other universities including Princeton and Purdue are adopting this principle to ensure that free speech and free expression are not suppressed by the overly sensitive or self-appointed censors, and to ensure that the ideas of any group or individual, including invited guests, reach the campus and are not withheld as opponents of those ideas organize to bully the administration into submission.  When all ideas are discussed, not some swept under the carpet or withheld for fear of retaliation, learning replaces indoctrination.  Maybe the rest of American can learn something from that.

Judging Worthy Causes

It was only last week that I warned about how unscientific thinking, especially about health issues, and other unwise spending on frivolous items leads to a waste of money that, if invested conservatively, could mean the difference between a relatively comfortable and a relatively stressful retirement.  Those decisions are usually matters of discipline, the ability to delay gratification, or perspective, the ability to distinguish the important from the trivial – necessities from luxuries.

Now comes the case of a few crooked cancer charities that prey on our critical thinking and a tendency to let emotional responses override or derail our better judgment.

“The Federal Trade Commission and attorneys general in all 50 states and the District of Columbia announced Tuesday they have filed a lawsuit against the Cancer Fund of America, Children's Cancer Fund of America, Cancer Support Services and the Breast Cancer Society alleging they violated federal and state regulations. All four charities are run by members of the same family or their close business associates, as detailed in the 2013 "America's Worst Charities" joint report from the Tampa Bay Times and the Center for Investigative Reporting.”  These four are accused of cheating contributors to the tune of $187 million.

They paid 85% of the money raised to professional fundraisers, spent much of the rest on salaries and entertainment for the executives and employees, leaving only 3% to the causes they claimed to support.  There are also allegations of questionable, even deceptive, accounting practices.  As a result, they collected and frittered away almost $200 million that could have been used by other honest charities to fight for these important causes.

See how easily people can be swayed by the appeals that use breast cancer and children’s cancer to get us giving without investigating.  On one hand it shows how caring and generous many Americans are, on the other hand it reinforces the need to be so careful, to investigate, to use our critical thinking, before committing time and money to worthy-sounding causes designed to tug at our heartstrings as a path to our wallets.

Note:  Here is one or two charity evaluation websites.

Notice How Opinions are Molded

About 14 years ago police and firefighters were the unsung heroes.  After 9-11 everyone wanted to give them the recognition they deserved.  The ones in NYC who risked their lives in the aftermath of the attack were thought to be typical of all police and firefighters throughout the country.  Now the police are being portrayed as vicious psychopaths who will shoot you in the back at the least provocation, especially if you are a minority.  Armed with a few debatable examples some people want to generalize this to include all cops everywhere.  Judging from some of the following stories, it may be that the police just don’t have a good PR department to counter some of these broad accusations.

The armed forces and National Guard seem to have it figured out.  Many remember in the sixties and early seventies how poorly people in the military were treated.  They were characterized as warmongers and killers by protesters of the Vietnam War.  Even those who never served in Vietnam or who were in the military involuntarily (i.e., drafted) were disdained.  The theoretical solution proposed was that eligible young men should become conscientious objectors or career college students or they should flee to Canada to dodge the draft.  Without fighting men the politicians would be unable to wage war.

Today things are much different.  Although we have an all-volunteer force with no one drafted, people in uniform are celebrated.  Veterans are thanked for their service and given shopping discounts or free meals on Veterans’ Day in November.  Part of this reflects a change in the popular culture; part reflects an intentional political move several years back to paint those with the opposite attitude as unpatriotic – hate the war, not the soldier – but some of this new patriotic fervor may be attributed to the kind of behind-the-scenes PR work carried out by Washington (with our tax dollars).  It seems the tributes to our heroes at NFL games seen on TV and live at the stadium are not spontaneous displays of patriotism, but paid advertising.

This report tells about the various programs, prizes and presentations at NY Jets games in support of the New Jersey National Guard over the last four years.  It was more business than patriotism, as the Jets were paid for many of these events.  But they were not alone.  “The Department of Defense and the Jersey Guard paid the Jets a total of $377,000 from 2011 to 2014 for the salutes and other advertising, according to federal contracts. Overall, the Defense Department has paid 14 NFL teams $5.4 million during that time, of which $5.3 million was paid by the National Guard to 11 teams under similar contracts.”

The Indianapolis Star tells a similar story.  Although the Colts can list many ways they honor the military without compensation, they were the fourth highest paid for some of the activities; and it would be hard for a fan to tell the difference.  What’s real and what’s solicited?  If they (and every other business) couldn't build or enhance "brand loyalty" and future sales with these efforts, both the voluntary and paid support would quickly disappear. 

So while the military continues to be honored both spontaneously and contractually, and the firefighters are still considered heroes by many, the poor police whether good or bad continue to share a tarnished reputation thanks to the few problems driven to the front page by demonstrations and a sensation-hungry press.  As this report shows, police are even blamed for some of their own deaths because of inadequate use of seatbelts and bulletproof vests.  They may need better training and better behavior in some cases, but they definitely need some better PR.

A close look shows that the news and advertising try to shape our opinions and then build on those opinions by promoting whatever is popular at the time and being against whatever is currently out of favor.