Science vs. Opinion

We live in an age of skepticism, and that skepticism is often directed at the scientific community. People don’t always accept the accuracy of certain predictions and observations, especially when they believe that these predictions foretell some level of inconvenience.

Scientists are human beings. They can have all sort of fanciful ideas. The difference is that before they can publish an idea, they have to verify that it’s true. Someone chatting at the water cooler or opining on a cable news talk show is not held to the same standard of accuracy.

A scientist might believe that his Honda Civic can accelerate from 0 to 60 miles per hour in two seconds, but before he can claim that his car has such remarkable acceleration, he has to demonstrate that it’s true.

First, he has to figure out how he will measure the speed of the vehicle and the time that it takes to achieve a particular speed. What methods and devices will he use to measure time and velocity? How will he calibrate those devices? Can he use multiple methods of measurement and check that they agree?

What are the parameters of the test? For instance, it probably won’t be a fair test if the vehicle is going downhill or if there is a significant tail wind. How will the levelness of the test track be determined? How will wind speed and direction be measured? How will these measurements be confirmed?

When all of that is settled, the scientist and his team will take multiple measurements. They’ll run the car along the test track several times. They’ll analyze the results with statistics to make sure that they are consistent. If one measurement is much faster or slower than normal, it will be eliminated, because it might have been a result of a procedural error.

The team will write up their findings along with all of the details that they used to measure the car’s performance. Then another team will perform the same tests in another location at another time. If the second team’s findings do not match the original findings, the results are thrown out, and they have to start over.

For instance, if the scientist finds that his car accelerates from 0 to 60 MPH in 9 seconds, but the second team determines that the fastest time in their measurements was 11 seconds, the scientist cannot publish the 9 second conclusion. He might have wittingly or subconsciously done something to bias the results of the experiment in order to make his car seem faster than it really is. Having an independent team verify the results helps to ensure accuracy.

This scientific method demands this level or rigor. Conclusions are not drawn on a whim, nor are they based on someone’s opinion or the desire for financial rewards. Scientists report what they can measure with confidence, nothing more and nothing less.

The next time a scientific study suggests a conclusion that doesn’t feel right to you, or that some talking head labels a conspiracy, or if your friends suggest is a way for scientists to cash in by selling books and lectures, realize that those scientists went to great lengths to check the accuracy of their work.

Maybe you should write to the talking head and ask him to document how he set up his experiments and calibrated the instruments that he used to determine his conclusions. As him who peer reviewed his findings. Don’t be surprised if he refuses to answer those questions. Opinions are cheap.