|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:51 pm
Every day I skim through the extended discussion forum here on Gaia, or other forums on the net discussing topics thoroughly, I find that when discussion calls for sources for information the conversation usually ends after a link to “somewhere†has been provided or a link to “somewhere else†has been offered as rebuttal and the discussion becomes circular. I have been thinking about many controversial scientific studies I’ve read about in the last decade and it has always bothered me that I don’t know why one information source is taken as being something credible while another is ignored. Media literacy is an important issue with so much concern raised over possible media bias and media manipulation of people in the US, but what seems even more important than questioning our information sources is questioning where our experts are basing their opinions. Media like This Movie raises certain doubts in my mind though I don’t believe the reasoning justifies the suggestions that this movie makes, and reinforces the need in my mind to be able to evaluate credibility of media sources for myself. Unfortunately I’m pretty much lost on how best to do this. How do YOU evaluate scientific sources? How could we all better question what we are told?;
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:07 am
I guess everyone just relies on the institutions to tell them what's true?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:12 pm
Typically, I look to the peer reviewed journal articles. If they exist, then it's probably credible. If not (as is the case with all pseudo-sciences) then it's nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:10 pm
The extended discussion is a bunch of crap most of the time.
I don't even go in there anymore, it's just silly.
It's hard nowadays to tell the difference, "TV makes everything credible."
-Man of the year
(If you haven't seen that movie you should, it's funnnny)
Politics is involved behind most science now and politics is never credible, so really you just have to search all sources, read all reviews and ultimatly come up with a decision for yourself.
I'm kinda bias when it comes to imformation from a PH.D speciallist, or a university, I automatically take it as credible, but I dont' doubt that there are pleny of cases where they were not, it's always a good thing to question what is being told to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:59 am
If scientific information is to be considered credible, then one must know the method that was obtained to gain that knoledge, i.e. what kind of experimentation is involved. Just because someone has a Ph.D. does not automaitically make what they say credible. The experimental results of a university graduate student have just as much credibility as the results of an experiment performed by a tenured professor (of course graduate students typically work under a professor - but students have in the past contributed of their own genius to science). Know the science involved; That is the best advice I can give.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:36 am
The best way, honestly, is to read and interpret the research yourself. What makes it difficult, unfortunately, is that the original scientific research is often hard to read for the layman, and hard to obtain unless you can pay for it, or are close to a university.
If you do get a chance to evaluate scientific research, then you should keep the following questions in mind:
Is the research published in a reputable journal?:
The more established the journal is, the more likely its editorial standards are high. I'm not saying that only research from Nature and Cell is accurate, but having knowledge of the source is a good thing - if you read an article about how cigarettes are healthy from a journal called "The Journal of The Tobacco Industry", for example, you would know there's some bias there. (Not a real example).
Is the source even disclosed?
I get leery whenever any promotional material says something like, "In a scientific study.." (like in weight loss supplements) without disclosing the title of the study and where it was published.
Is there a conflict of interest?
Sometimes, researchers get funding from corporations to do their studies. This isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but you have to remember, even if the company does not overtly pressure the researcher to skew the results one way or another, there might be an unconscious bias on the researcher's part to try to get results to please the funding source.
Researchers often have to disclose the role of corporations in the papers, and sometimes, if you read the biographical sketches of the researchers, they turn out to be employees of the companies themselves. Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing - many companies do credible and important research. It's just that there is a potential bias you might have to watch out for, since companies are out to guard their bottom line as much as they're out to contribute to current knowledge.
Do the study and the claim even match up?
Let's say, you've got this packet of this herb that claims to have an "anti-cancer effect as shown by a scientific study". You find the study they cite, which states that an extract of the herb, directly applied to certain tumor cells, will slow their growth.
That's all well and good, but does that mean eating the herb will halt the progression of your cancer? Not necessarily - just because an extract directly applied to cells may have an effect doesn't mean it'll slow down your cancer. Your body may metabolize the active ingredients herbs before it can get to the cancer! There are many other factors that were not taken in consideration in the study that may interfere with the clinical effect.
That's what I mean by the studies and claims made about them not matching up. The person making the claim may say one vaguely-worded thing ("This herb may fight cancer!") and the study in fact may say another ("An extract of this herb may slow down tumor growth!"). These do not match. So, read claims really carefully, and make sure the evidence really does support it!
Is the experimental design sound?
Does the experiment have a control? Does the experiment have blinded samples, randomization and other features to prevent bias? Is the sample size big enough for statisical accuracy? All of these things should be considered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
