Science’s Biggest Fail

FYI: In regard to articles published in the Daily Mail about cancer research results, alcohol is still in the mixed camp, but leaning toward 'causes cancer'.

beer both causes and prevents cancer (1 prevents: 5 causes) - http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/b#term52

wine both causes and prevents cancer (not counting dups - 14 prevents : 17 causes) - http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/w#term234

> So how is a common citizen supposed to know when science is “done” and when it is halfway to done which is the same as being wrong?

Forget about the common citizen, the scientists themselves don't know when science is "done". This is the problem of induction and most scientist are completely ignorant of the issue because they dismiss epistemology and, more generally, philosophy as nonsense. So they implicitly or explicitly substitute "consensus" for truth which is a horrible mistake.

BTW, I don't agree that getting halfway is the same as being "wrong", science is a process after all and unlike Zeno's paradox the state of scientific knowledge is not always half-way to its target, Karl Popper's claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

> I’m on the side that says climate change, for example, is pretty much what science says it is because the scientific consensus is high.

The problem here is complicated by government funding of science and positive feedback that only "consensus" consistent research gets funding. Sure there is window-dressing "opposition research" but its purpose is not the truth but to justify the consensus. Science has become politicized by the use of government money and that's why things such as global warming have become political hot buttons. There is a lot of money and power at stake and people want to fly the flag of "science" to achieve their political goals. When politics and science mix, bad things result. cf. Soviet Union.

> And we all know that studies funded by private industry are suspect.

I think this true today but that it is wrong. The tacit, unspoken assumption behind these suspicions is that government funding is NOT suspect and free from all biases. I think that that is logically and historically false. Certainly revealing ones funding is important because funding can be a source of bias but in the end science should stand on its own merit regardless of the source.

I think Scott Adams has named something that has been going on for decades now which is that the American people rightfully no longer trust science and scientists. Part of this mistrust is a product of the rising anti-technology luddites, religion and the opposition to reason in the culture as he points out. But like Adams I think that the distrust of science has also been earned and I believe it is because of the politicization of science via government funding. The leaked emails in Climategate revealed that maybe the scientists were not being so objective after all. The clearest evidence of dishonesty that I read was that in public the pro global-warming scientists would call for the opposition to publish their results and arguments in peer reviewed journals. In the background they were actively working to block the publication of such research or boycott any journals that did so.

It is now considered "scientific" to dismiss your opponents with ad hom "climate denier" labels, secretly politic to limit dissent and smear the opposition as anti-science morons (the implication that Adams was addressing) and using political marketing tricks like changing the name from "global warming" to "climate change" to make the opposition look like fools. These are the methods of a Karl Rove or James Carville not science nor scientists. This is not science.

Exercise on its own doesn't lead to weight loss (in order to burn the necessary calories, you'd have to be exercising all day long), but it is not uncommon for exercise to suppress appetite, thereby reducing the calories in component of the weight loss equation. Unless of course hunger signals are being ignored, as in the case of unconscious, binge, or comfort eating.

And that is how it works until it gets the public's attention. Then it becomes something else entirely. Once people start looking to "science" for a policy recommendation, the dialogue immediately becomes polarized and extreme.

No one in the public discourse is saying our thinking on vaccinations is being continuously refined. No one is publicly urging caution and moderation in evaluating the risks and benefits, or calling for better longitudinal studies. Instead, on the one had, you have the white house saying "the science is clear," people calling anti-vaxers morons on social media, and on the other side people yelling that its poison pushed by a global conspiracy. Whatever calm, analytic discussions are being held behind closed doors at the NIH, the public discourse has degenerated into a screaming match.

Adam's problem with that is that the pro-science people are screaming just as loudly as their opponents... but they should be the ones that know better! Unfortunately, people of a certain age have seen dogmatic claims from "the scientific community" before, and then seen those claims be overturned and reversed countless times. That's a problem. If you really are "pro-science" you should ALWAYS be couching your recommendations in uncertain terms, but there are lots of demagogues out there doing exactly the opposite.

Beyond that, there's people actively working on ways to correct for publication bias in meta-analysis, to the point that it's a pretty fundamental aspect of any proper analysis.