Post by Amtram on Mar 12, 2014 14:58:31 GMT -5
I'm going to come right out and say it - I'm skeptical of everything, even the stuff that gets me excited. When I read about "new findings" of any kind, I try to backtrack to the original source as much as possible (not a professional, so no journal access) and see what there is about the methodology of the study. Was it in vitro or in vivo? Was it tested on rodents or primates? How large was the sample size? Was it blinded, and if so, how? What were the controls? Is it specific to what was being studied (usually) or does it have broader implications (only sometimes, unless you're a scientist working in that field. . .)
This includes stories I see in my science newsfeeds and legitimate science aggregator sites. The titles often reflect Search Engine Optimization more than they express relevance or validity of findings, and the story's "hook" isn't always the most important thing to take away. But before you waste a lot of time backtracking things that may not be worth your attention, explore some sites that tell you what Science looks like and how to distinguish Pseudoscience right from the get-go.
Science or Not? is a helpful place to start. It's divided into sections. Hallmarks of Science tells you how to recognize Science that is done well. Science Red Flags lists and explains the tactics used by pseudoscience to convince people it's real. The next section is Let's Check the Science, which is mostly links to more specific information on how to ferret out the truth. If you want to get regular updates, the site also has a blog.
Emily Willingham has a classic blog post called 10 Questions To Distinguish Real From Fake Science that sums things up pretty nicely.
The University of Texas has a more extensive piece on the same subject here.
The blog Violent Metaphors takes it a step further and applies the idea to some of the advertising and journalistic techniques that promote pseudoscience and misrepresent real science here.
There are a lot of places that focus on debunking pseudoscience in much more depth and specificity, but I think that it's good to get an understanding of the general concept of the differences that tell you what's good science, what's bad science, and what's fake science. These links give you more tools for recognizing it across the board.
This includes stories I see in my science newsfeeds and legitimate science aggregator sites. The titles often reflect Search Engine Optimization more than they express relevance or validity of findings, and the story's "hook" isn't always the most important thing to take away. But before you waste a lot of time backtracking things that may not be worth your attention, explore some sites that tell you what Science looks like and how to distinguish Pseudoscience right from the get-go.
Science or Not? is a helpful place to start. It's divided into sections. Hallmarks of Science tells you how to recognize Science that is done well. Science Red Flags lists and explains the tactics used by pseudoscience to convince people it's real. The next section is Let's Check the Science, which is mostly links to more specific information on how to ferret out the truth. If you want to get regular updates, the site also has a blog.
Emily Willingham has a classic blog post called 10 Questions To Distinguish Real From Fake Science that sums things up pretty nicely.
The University of Texas has a more extensive piece on the same subject here.
The blog Violent Metaphors takes it a step further and applies the idea to some of the advertising and journalistic techniques that promote pseudoscience and misrepresent real science here.
There are a lot of places that focus on debunking pseudoscience in much more depth and specificity, but I think that it's good to get an understanding of the general concept of the differences that tell you what's good science, what's bad science, and what's fake science. These links give you more tools for recognizing it across the board.