You Can’t Ignore Studies

Oct - 25 2018 | By

I don’t watch It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. I find it asinine at best and profane at worst.

 

Yet because I’m a member of Gen Z, I use Youtube almost religiously. I have had this one viral clip from the show called “Science is a liar sometimes” recommended to me so many times that eventually I watched it.

 

It’s a rant from this one character who claims that all of science is full of liars because scientists are wrong. He draws upon Aristotle saying the Earth is the center of the Universe, Galileo saying comets are optical illusions, and Newton thinking that alchemy was feasible.

 

His eventual reasoning is that because science is so frequently wrong you can ignore all results of science.

 

The utter frustration I felt watching that video is the same frustration I felt reading Andy Kessler’s sob story.

 

https://sites.psu.edu/rclbabcock/files/2017/10/ProQuestDocuments-2017-10-24-p0mb33.pdf

 

His paper describes a flaw in many graduate student studies which cannot be repeated by other studies attempting to replicate their results. He goes on to be upset with Malcolm Gladwell and Hillary Clinton for citing vague studies in speeches. Kessler complains about having to attend meetings that are against implicit bias, citing more vague studies that show that these implicit bias meetings don’t work. He ends with the cliche “correlation does not equal causation” the lesson that every self respecting adult learned in sixth grade.

 

In both cases, I acknowledge and understand that the logic behind their conclusions. Scientists are wrong quite frequently. There are many vague studies that people rely on too heavily for points. I was on debate team last year, so I know a thing or two about people misusing studies. I’m not proud, but I misused a few in my own time.

 

Yet the conclusions are inherently illogical, and frankly borderline insane. The whole point of science is not that it is a list of facts. Science is fluid, constantly adapting to new findings. Every individual helps to the end goal of “knowing everything”, but no one is perfect. Einstein introduced the idea of the cosmological constant to explain the universe, then spent the rest of his life trying to tell people it didn’t exist. Now we known that cosmological constant as dark energy.

 

Scientific studies are the same. Oftentimes they’re wrong. Many studies cannot be replicated and they should not be allowed into political debate. Yet his beef seems to be with studies on the whole. He implies that the only studies he’ll trust are ones with massive sample sizes from social media sites. That is frankly terrifying. This anti-science sentiment leads to the same problem that Kessler mentions of scientific bias, having people only believe what they chose to believe regardless of proof.

 

Another good point that Kessler chose not to include is the fact that many political debates demand data at a rate faster than is reasonable for scientists to be able to create quality data. His overall tone is hostile to the very idea of studies, and does not seem conducive to the good points that he makes, buried beneath his rambling.

 

His anti-Clinton and Gladwell sentiments also show him to be a hypocrite. As he bashes these individuals for vaguely citing studies, he says verbatim “newer research has debunked this theory”. How is that any better than your “the most dangerous words in the English language today are ‘studies show’” Mr. Kessler?

 

I understand for our paradigm shift essays it is valuable to get good data. Frequently studies will be proven wrong when they’re repeated multiple times by other individuals. That does not mean that you can ignore studies on the whole. They’re still the best way we have of quantifying the world so that we can better understand it. Kessler’s disregard for this minutia of science, as well as his clearly partisan hypocrisy reveal his lack of ethos on this topic.

2 Comments

  1. cga5102 says:

    I enjoyed hearing your perspective at this article, because when I read it I did not see the numerous flaws in Kessler’s argument. It is unfair to criticize politicians for their use of data, because it takes time to get “quality” data that simply cannot be found during election time. Science truly is a fluid field, and what is “true” today may not be true tomorrow, but this does not mean we should not use science! I want to reread this article with a more critical lens.

  2. jbm6107 says:

    I interpreted this article as a cynical argument to those who misuse and mistrust every study. I do not really see where he says not to trust any science or study ever. Though, that is not to say either of our interpretations are incorrect. I actually like your argument here and I agree with you in that Kessler, at some points, is a tad hypocritical and that science is ever-changing. What is one to do when a study has yet to be replicated, or when one study is debunked falsely? Your argument raises these questions that Kessler fails to comment on.



Write you response




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar