fact

fact /oss/taxonomy/term/1242/all en Tips for Better Thinking: Anecdotes Are Not Reliable /oss/article/tips-better-thinking-anecdotes-are-not-reliable There is a popular saying in the skeptical community: the plural of anecdote is not data. The clever putdown is meant to remind the person you are speaking to that no matter how many people swear by, let’s say, homeopathy, their testimonials do not prove homeopathy’s worth. Tue, 19 Jan 2021 22:36:29 +0000 Jonathan Jarry M.Sc. 8567 at /oss Aristotle: The First Real Scientist /oss/article/general-science-history/aristotle-man-who-relied-observed-facts What an amazing man Aristotle was! He lived in the third century BC yet he was so influential that his ideas dominated western scientific thought for almost two thousand years. This is especially remarkable in light of the fact that most of his notions about the workings of the world were completely wrong. But in spite of this, Aristotle is widely regarded as the first real scientist. Why? Above all, Aristotle was an incredibly curious man. He wanted to find out everything that could be known about the natural world. "Through wonder, philosophy begins," he wrote and thereby dedicated himself to unravelling the mysteries of life. This quest was by no means a new idea. Others before had certainly been mystified by the workings of the world. But they mostly subscribed to the philosophy of thinkers like Socrates who believed that the fundamental nature of the world could be discerned by mental reflection alone. But this was not good enough for Aristotle. For him, the basis of all knowledge was experience. Explanations were only valid if they were induced by observed phenomena. In other words, theories should be formed starting with facts. And this idea is of course at the core of the scientific method. Aristotle's contribution to science is perhaps best demonstrated by his classic description of the growth of a chick inside an egg. How a chick hatches from an egg was not to be determined by philosophy, but rather by a simple experiment. Eggs were to be placed under hens and opened in sequence, one each day. It quickly became apparent that the embryo appears after three days and that the chick grows in the white of the egg, nourished by the yolk. A theory of what happens inside of an egg could now be formulated based on facts! He even concluded that the earth was round based on his observation that the top of the mast was the first part of a sail boat to be seen from the shore. In many cases, however, Aristotle's theories, though consistent with observed facts, turned out to be quite wrong. He was a strong believer in the theory of the elements as had been put forward by Empedocles, namely that everything in the world was somehow composed of air, water, earth and fire. This certainly seemed to fit Aristotle's observations. When a green twig was burned, it released fire, produced "air" in the form of smoke, water in the form of sap and left an "earth" in the form of ashes behind. A logical theory, based on facts, but very wrong! According to this theory, when arsenic and sulfur, two substances known to the Greeks, combined under the influence of heat, the product was a novel substance in which arsenic or sulfur no longer existed. This made sense because the physical properties of arsenic sulfide are certainly different from its component elements. Aristotle also studied the lungs and concluded that their purpose was to cool the body by circulating air inside, much like bellows. He also believed that insects were spontaneously generated by putrefying vegetable matter and that the earth was the center of the universe. These theories, although wrong, could all be supported by observation. But the great man had some ideas that were truly bizarre. He maintained that the semen of youths below the age of twenty one could not lead to fertility. This hypothesis of course could have been easily tested and shown to be incorrect. Like other Greeks of the times, Aristotle believed that women were mentally and physically inferior to men. So how is it then, that this melange of some correct, some quirky but mostly wrong ideas dominated western thought for so long? Mainly because Aristotle provided logical and common sense explanations for everyday experiences. These he expressed so authoritatively and convincingly that generations of followers found it easier to believe Aristotle than to put his notions to an experimental test. Today, we still see this "Aristotle effect" in the reliance of some people on convincing sounding quackery. Tue, 17 Apr 2018 20:10:51 +0000 Joe Schwarcz PhD 7019 at /oss Meet Science Mom, Alison Bernstein /oss/article/general-science/meet-science-mom-alison-bernstein Rewind to July 2013: Picture your typical elementary school cafeteria with rows of uncomfortable plastic chairs filled with nervous parents of soon-to-be kindergartners. Nervous parent: What kind of snacks do you offer in the afterschool program? Principal: Typically, juice and a snack. Often these are CapriSun and Cheez-Itz. Pregnant me (AUDIBLE GASP, whispers to neighbor): Those have artificial colorings, I can’t believe they are serving that to our kids. Thu, 01 Mar 2018 18:01:46 +0000 Alison Bernstein, PhD 6943 at /oss Science and Skepticism: Critiquing Bad Research in an Anti-Science Era /oss/channels/event/science-and-skepticism-critiquing-bad-research-anti-science-era-285300 Speakers Thu, 22 Feb 2018 17:58:33 +0000 emily.shore@mcgill.ca 6930 at /oss Not all facts are created equal /oss/article/controversial-science-health-news/joe-schwarcz-not-all-facts-are-created-equal <div> I often ask myself questions. “Is that a fact?” is perhaps the one that crops up most frequently. That’s because no day goes by without someone soliciting my opinion about an item they have come across on the web, read in some publication, seen on TV or heard from a friend. Here’s a sampling: “The Pentagon is developing a virus that can be spread in the Middle East to prevent people from developing extreme religious views.” “Aspartame causes multiple sclerosis.” “Surgical dilation of veins that drain blood from the brain cures multiple sclerosis.” “Radiation from the Fukushima accident in Japan is killing North Americans.” “A Himalayan salt bath removes toxins from the body.” “Colon cleansing removes toxins from the body.” “Titanium dioxide in cheese causes cancer.” “Drinking alkaline water cures cancer.” “Our Creator made a perfect food in the super-grain, Salvia Hispanica.” “Eating any grain destroys your brain.” “Gluten causes autism.” “Vaccines cause autism.” “Global warming is based on erroneous data.” “Evolution is just a theory.” “Genetically modified crops kill bees.” “Cellphones kill bees.” “Neonicotinoid insecticides kill bees.” “The peer-reviewed literature is often faulty.” So, are these facts? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, maybe, yes. The next question of course is, “How do I know?” Indeed, how do we know anything when it comes to science? There’s no simple answer, because we rely on a combination of experience, plausibility based on established principles and, of course, peer-review. The latter is widely regarded as the cornerstone for building scientific knowledge, but the reliability of the system is increasingly being called into question. In the peer-review process, an editor sends a submitted paper to usually two or three “peers” who are experts in the field. They come back with criticisms, requests for revision and sometimes even ask for parts of the work to be repeated. The identity of the reviewers is not revealed to the authors of the paper. After some back and forth, often some rewriting, the paper is published if the editorial staff is convinced the reviewers’ comments have been properly addressed. While top notch journals such as Science, Nature, The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine can in general be trusted for publishing papers that have been extensively reviewed by highly competent experts, faulty or fraudulent research can still slip through. That was the case with Andrew Wakefield’s notorious 1998 paper in The Lancet alleging a cause and effect relationship between vaccines and autism. In contrast to these top tier publications, the world is now flooded with less rigorous “open access” journals that are available to all without a subscription. All expenses are paid up front by the researchers who would like to see their work in print. Many of these journals have questionable peer-review processes, as has now been exquisitely pointed out by a purposely flaw-ridden paper submitted to 255 open access journals to gauge how many would publish it uncritically. A frightening 157 accepted it for publication! It seems if you don’t pay for a subscription, you can’t get the same quality. Of course it would have been interesting to submit the spoof paper to top notch journals to see how many of those would reject it. Dr. John Ioannidis, a study design expert at Stanford University, believes that many lower tier traditional journals would also have been taken in by the hoax and that a large percentage of all published studies are at least somewhat unreliable. Nevertheless they get referenced and get woven into the fabric of science. That’s why many pet theories can be backed up by cherry-picking peer-reviewed references. </div> <div>In science we don’t cherry pick. We shake the tree, collect all the cherries, mash them together and then taste. And that’s just what we have asked our speakers at this year’s Lorne Trottier Science Symposium to do. They are all experts at shaking. The above mentioned Ioannidis is a professor of medicine at Stanford whose paper on Why Most Published Research Findings are False has been the most-accessed article in the history of the Public Library of Science. He has been dubbed by the prestigious Atlantic magazine as “one of the most influential scientists alive.” Timothy Caulfield is a Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy at the University of Alberta whose book, The Cure for Everything: Untangling the Twisted Messages about Health, Fitness and Happiness, is an entertaining and highly informative romp through the battlefield where good and bad science are engaged in fierce combat. Dr. Eugenie Scott is an anthropologist who has forged a remarkable career as executive director of the National Center for Science Education in the U.S. with a particular specialty in explaining evolution to the public. She contends that proponents of antievolutionism and climate change denial use remarkably similar approaches to promote their views. And speaking of denial, we come to Michael Specter, famed staff writer for the New Yorker and author of the bestseller Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives. Specter is also well-known for his detailed profiles of such celebrities as Lance Armstrong and Dr. Mehmet Oz. He is troubled by the fact that rapid technological advances have been met not just with skepticism but with denialism. No matter how powerful the data, people refuse to accept facts they don’t happen to like while accepting myths they like as facts.</div> <a href="http://blogs.mcgill.ca/oss/2013/10/31/joe-schwarcz-not-all-facts-are-created-equal">Read more</a> Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:27:54 +0000 Joe Schwarcz PhD 2023 at /oss