Scientific Predictions - being abused?
Discussion
It seems that we see more and more predictions from scientists nowadays on anything from the impact of tax changes to climate change and I can find fault with a lot of their conclusions, normally because the assumptions they use are flawed (IMO).
Of course, it's possible to predict that the Sun will rise in the east tomorrow and will set at a certain time, this I can see as a valid scientific prediction, because we know and understand all of the variables.
However, predicting something like the impact on human behaviour of a law change (e.g. increasing speed limits), to my mind, cannot ever be scientific as we do not understand human behaviour accurately enough to model it.
It's this category of prediction that I have issues with, and it's seemingly a category that is being used more and more by our politicians to justify their actions.
Of course, it's possible to predict that the Sun will rise in the east tomorrow and will set at a certain time, this I can see as a valid scientific prediction, because we know and understand all of the variables.
However, predicting something like the impact on human behaviour of a law change (e.g. increasing speed limits), to my mind, cannot ever be scientific as we do not understand human behaviour accurately enough to model it.
It's this category of prediction that I have issues with, and it's seemingly a category that is being used more and more by our politicians to justify their actions.
I know it's quite easy but most of the time I prefer to let the media take the hit for this. Next time you read one of these stories take the time to find the original paper that the article was sourced from. Chances are one of the following has occured.
The reporter has completely failed to understand the meaning or significance of the paper and has just made up a story (mostly this one I feel).
There is some mention of an outcome, but it's only one of many possible conclusions, and then the reporter has built it up massively and hung cherries on it.
The paper has actually been sponsored by a company that has that particular objective in mind and will keep paying until they get the outcome they want.
It's an excellent piece of journalism but the science is completely wrong - hardly ever but it does happen.
The reporter has completely failed to understand the meaning or significance of the paper and has just made up a story (mostly this one I feel).
There is some mention of an outcome, but it's only one of many possible conclusions, and then the reporter has built it up massively and hung cherries on it.
The paper has actually been sponsored by a company that has that particular objective in mind and will keep paying until they get the outcome they want.
It's an excellent piece of journalism but the science is completely wrong - hardly ever but it does happen.
The issue is that quite often the prediction is a statistic (e.g. 80 more fatalities per year if speed cameras turned off) uttered by a politician with no reference whatsoever, so you can't even check it.
I guess that's still the media's fault for not asking for the source of the politician's claim.
I guess that's still the media's fault for not asking for the source of the politician's claim.
deeen said:
I agree that as reported the mistakes seem to come across as statistics failures, or logic failures, rather than science failures. Although I'm sure there are a few.
yep, it's pulling the wrong conclusions from statistics in most cases, often getting cause and effect mixed up.Simpo Two said:
Science is more than simply knowing scientific facts; it is also about how to think scientifically - logic, analysis, probability, deduction extract as much money as possible from the public purse to research "climate change" and grow fat on the profits.
Fixed that for you...
youngsyr said:
The issue is that quite often the prediction is a statistic (e.g. 80 more fatalities per year if speed cameras turned off) uttered by a politician with no reference whatsoever, so you can't even check it.
I guess that's still the media's fault for not asking for the source of the politician's claim.
The media make up outright enough things to know better than to teach people to ask for reliable sources. I guess that's still the media's fault for not asking for the source of the politician's claim.
But yes, in theory it would work a lot better if people were more sceptical of statistics, particularly ones with no metadata. Saying '80 more/less casualties a year predicted' is fine when done scientifically - that means disclosing methods and giving uncertainties, so that how useful that figure is and any potential errors can be found.
In theory, anyway. I've found a vaguely related debate going on where statistics from a paper that was mostly debunked over 10 years ago are still being trotted around, even by other researchers who really should know better.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff