The Do’s and Don’ts of Trusting Science | Pocketmags.com

Shopping Cart -

Your cart is currently empty.
Upgrade to today
for only an extra Cxx.xx

You get:

plus This issue of xxxxxxxxxxx.
plus Instant access to the latest issue of 300+ of our top selling titles.
plus Unlimited access to 26000+ back issues
plus No contract or commitment. If you decide that PocketmagsPlus is not for you, you can cancel your monthly subscription online at any time. Auto-renews at €1099 per month, unless cancelled.
Upgrade Now for €1099 Learn more
This website use cookies and similar technologies to improve the site and to provide customised content and advertising. By using this site, you agree to this use. To learn more, including how to change your cookie settings, please view our Cookie Policy
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
IT
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
   You are currently viewing the Italy version of the site.
Would you like to switch to your local site?
Leggi ovunque Read anywhere
Modalità di pagamento Pocketmags Payment Types
Trusted site
A Pocketmags si ottiene
Fatturazione sicura
Ultime offerte
Web & App Reader
Regali
Loyalty Points

The Do’s and Don’ts of Trusting Science

It’s been a tough year for science. The American Statistical Association issued a statement scolding1 scientists for misusing statistical analysis. Scientists continued to fight over an evaluation of 100 psychological studies,2 most of which could not be reproduced. Critics have cast doubt3 on a widely believed psychological theory of human willpower.

So yes, science is fallible. Scientists are only human and science is not a synonym for truth. It’s a bumpy, meandering road that heads in that general direction.

That makes skepticism good, up to a point. Beyond that point lie nonsense and superstition. The earth really is round.4

So how do you tell what to believe?

It’s a very old question. But there’s no need to go back to Plato. Let’s just start in the early 1950s, when the Nobel prizewinning chemist Irving Langmuir laid out a set of warning signs about identifying scientific ideas that might not conform to reality. He gave a handful of examples of what he called pathological science,5 including N-rays and mitogenic rays, neither of which exist despite being observed and measured in dozens of peer-reviewed experiments.

READ MORE
Purchase options below
Find the complete article and many more in this issue of Skeptical Inquirer - July August 2016
If you own the issue, Login to read the full article now.
Single Issue - July August 2016
€3,49
Or 349 points
READ NOW
Getting free sample issues is easy, but we need to add it to an account to read, so please follow the instructions to read your free issue today.
Email Address
Annual Digital Subscription
Only € 2,16 per issue
SAVE
38%
Was €18,99
Now €12,99

View Issues

About Skeptical Inquirer

Does Astrology Need to Be True? A Thirty-Year Update Does E = mc2 Imply Mysticism? Does the Universe Revolve around Me? A Skeptical Response to Science Denial Skeptical Inquirer’s 2016 Reader Survey Results