Not all scientific articles are equal in science

In evaluating a scientific claim made by anyone, the only thing that matters is the quality and quantity of evidence. It does matter who is making the claim, it does not matter if you believe their claim, and it does not matter if they make a powerful emotional argument–absent real evidence, it is nothing but words.

When discussing the validity of a scientific or medical claim, some people accept that there is a hierarchy of scientific sources, from nearly worthless (that would be anything from Mercola or Natural News) to scientifically significant systematic reviews. But a lot of people think that if it is published, without any regards to where or how it was peer-reviewed, it signifies the scientific consensus, period, end of discussion. Some will abuse PubMed, the US National Library of Medicine’s powerful search engine, searching for the one article that supports their “beliefs,” while ignoring the 1000 other articles that don’t.

Or how some individuals will use the obscure cell culture study to support their claim that XYZ prevents cancer, while completely ignoring all other evidence that cell culture studies are just an early phase of research, and until it’s confirmed in a large clinical trial with human subjects, the cell culture study barely ranks above conjecture or speculation.

more at link.

I disagree with “it doesn’t matter who is making the claim”. People are more likely to trust what Hawking, Cox or Kruszelnicki says rather than what some no-name person says.

i think that was directed more at people involved in that field, or researchers, than the common folk.

There is bad science, just as there is bad art.

Divine Angel said:

I disagree with “it doesn’t matter who is making the claim”. People are more likely to trust what Hawking, Cox or Kruszelnicki says rather than what some no-name person says.

But the original post doesn’t actually say that.

Do you remember we had a “conversation” with BC about how Hawking is no more qualified to hypothesise about the forms of alien life than any other person on the planet. BC said he’s a scientist and therefore has more validity even though no one has any clue about what aliens would look like.

Skeptic Pete said:

Divine Angel said:

I disagree with “it doesn’t matter who is making the claim”. People are more likely to trust what Hawking, Cox or Kruszelnicki says rather than what some no-name person says.

But the original post doesn’t actually say that.

No, but it certainly reads as though that is what they meant to say.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Skeptic Pete said:

Divine Angel said:

I disagree with “it doesn’t matter who is making the claim”. People are more likely to trust what Hawking, Cox or Kruszelnicki says rather than what some no-name person says.

But the original post doesn’t actually say that.

No, but it certainly reads as though that is what they meant to say.

yeah an obvious typo

Cymek said:

Do you remember we had a “conversation” with BC about how Hawking is no more qualified to hypothesise about the forms of alien life than any other person on the planet. BC said he’s a scientist and therefore has more validity even though no one has any clue about what aliens would look like.

There exists, science fiction.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Skeptic Pete said:

Divine Angel said:

I disagree with “it doesn’t matter who is making the claim”. People are more likely to trust what Hawking, Cox or Kruszelnicki says rather than what some no-name person says.

But the original post doesn’t actually say that.

No, but it certainly reads as though that is what they meant to say.

Perception is always relevant at all levels.

Divine Angel said:

I disagree with “it doesn’t matter who is making the claim”. People are more likely to trust what Hawking, Cox or Kruszelnicki says rather than what some no-name person says.

Well, who is “people”? Within the science community you’re only as good as what you can prove.

Albert Einstein was the most famous scientist of the 20th century among the genpop, and considered by the scientific community as one of the most notable physicists. But he was not at all about to turn that into “credibility”. He disagreed with quantum electrodynamics: but the evidence pointed towards quantum electrodynamics being a good model, so nobody “trusted” him on that. He remained a revered figure but it didn’t matter a darn when it comes to getting other scientists to “trust” you: you need to get your evidence and arguments together.

dv said:

Divine Angel said:

I disagree with “it doesn’t matter who is making the claim”. People are more likely to trust what Hawking, Cox or Kruszelnicki says rather than what some no-name person says.

Well, who is “people”? Within the science community you’re only as good as what you can prove.

Albert Einstein was the most famous scientist of the 20th century among the genpop, and considered by the scientific community as one of the most notable physicists. But he was not at all about to turn that into “credibility”. He disagreed with quantum electrodynamics: but the evidence pointed towards quantum electrodynamics being a good model, so nobody “trusted” him on that. He remained a revered figure but it didn’t matter a darn when it comes to getting other scientists to “trust” you: you need to get your evidence and arguments together.

best description of the scientific method I’ve seen…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

dv said:

Divine Angel said:

I disagree with “it doesn’t matter who is making the claim”. People are more likely to trust what Hawking, Cox or Kruszelnicki says rather than what some no-name person says.

Well, who is “people”? Within the science community you’re only as good as what you can prove.

Albert Einstein was the most famous scientist of the 20th century among the genpop, and considered by the scientific community as one of the most notable physicists. But he was not at all about to turn that into “credibility”. He disagreed with quantum electrodynamics: but the evidence pointed towards quantum electrodynamics being a good model, so nobody “trusted” him on that. He remained a revered figure but it didn’t matter a darn when it comes to getting other scientists to “trust” you: you need to get your evidence and arguments together.

And he hung onto the cosmological constant even when the evidence seemed to suggest it was unhelpful, then he dumped it claiming it was “the biggest mistake of my life”, but now it’s back again because later evidence suggests it’s helpful after all.

The only thing that keeps me going is my unshakeable conviction that I am right

wookiemeister said:

The only thing that keeps me going is my unshakeable conviction that I am right

“I’m not always right but I’m never wrong.”

> But a lot of people think that if it is published, without any regards to where or how it was peer-reviewed, it signifies the scientific consensus

Peer-review can be a good thing, or it can be a bad thing. It can enormously improve the quality of a scientific publication (it did for my last publication) if the reviewer is altruistic and conscientious, or it can be worse than a complete waste of time if the reviewer is stupid and/or selfish.

Mendel’s publications on genetics weren’t peer reviewed.