In 2014, astronomers reported a discovery: first waves from the first moments of the big bang. The Results from the South Pole Telescope it validated the long-standing but still shaky hypothesis of cosmic inflation, a scenario in which the very early universe underwent a period of accelerated massive expansion. News reports went wild as did the scientists who participated in the research, in one celebratory press conference.
But it was all just a bunch of dust. Literally, dust. The team did not properly account for the effect of interstellar dust in their analysis. With the right calibration, a paradigm shift the result is gone.
Or remember Tabby Star? In 2015, astronomers speculated that its strange light pattern could be the product of megastructures. Media circus, high level lectures, works. Further analysis revealed that it was…the dust.
About supporting science journalism
If you like this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism subscribe. By purchasing a subscription, you’re helping to ensure a future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas that shape our world.
Recently, a team of astronomers reported finding large amounts of phosphine in the Venusian atmosphere, and suggested that some type might exist. floating exotic life in the tops of the clouds. After the media boom died down, other researchers found significant errors in the original analysis (at least this time there was no dust).
It’s not just astronomy. Neutrinos can travel faster than light. Mozart makes your children smarter. Dyeing your hair gives you cancer. Smartphones make us stupid.
Very very amazing. But very, very wrong.
There comes a high correlation between brilliance and wrongness from various factors. First, many, if not most, scientific studies it’s wrong. That’s why the research is; if we knew the answers beforehand, we wouldn’t need to do science. Many scientific papers are speculative, dependent on hyperspecific assumptions of controlled parameters, or just crazy ideas shot in the dark. It is through this constant bubble of ideas and results and studies that we engage and push the workings of nature in the hope of extracting a little bit of deeper understanding.
Second, scientists face perverse incentives to publish as much as possible—to “publish or die”– and to receive their results in the highest level magazines as much as possible. Because the largest ones only include the most influential research, there is enormous pressure in academia to inflate results and make big, bold claims, increasing the chances that their weak results will hold up to further scrutiny.
Finally, there is current hype machine. While many journalists want to respect scientists and faithfully represent the results of scientific research, publishers do resist their urges to capture eyeballs and clicks and downloads. The more sensational the story, the better.
Trust in science continues to declinereports the Pew Research Center, it has dropped to 57 percent of survey respondents seeing it as more negative than positive for society. I believe this is partly due to over-inflation of scientific results. The more times people see science contradicting itself, the more likely people are to believe the next result that makes headlines. And the more loudly, publicly, scientists are wrong, the more ammunition they have in their battle against trusted experts.
It does not mean that the results of science cannot be interesting and correct. Discovery of Gravitational Waves merging black holes In 2015 it was absolutely fascinating, and absolutely right. The release of mRNA vaccines to combat the coronavirus pandemic was nothing short of miraculous they did the work.
Most of the time, though, from my experience in the world of science and science communication, if the result is interesting, it’s probably wrong. And let me be clear here. I’m sure you find most, if not all, scientific research absolutely fascinating—as do I. But the more interesting it is to the wider community, with more headlines, chatter, attention and raised eyebrows, the more likely it will be. be worthy of a little healthy skepticism.
Read the latest series of articles from your favorite science journal. Once you get past the technical jargon, you’ll find that many papers are, in some ways, boring. Not boring in the sense that it’s not worth reading or exploring further, but boring in a way that wouldn’t make the pages of an influential magazine, let alone your local newspaper. Most scientific works are small steps, methodological techniques or slightly off-the-wall theoretical paths. Most scientific results come slowly, gradually and with little fanfare.
Only a small fraction of scientific results make it from journals to newspapers, and even fewer make global headlines. The general public only sees science through a highly filtered lens, and anything that passes through that filter is more likely to be wrong.
The best approach to take with science results, news and headlines is the approach used by scientists themselves: healthy skepticism.
First, look at the timeline. Amazing results can be straightforward, but usually years, if not decades, back up consistent and sustained progress in these directions. It took a quarter of a century of effort before gravitational waves were discovered, and mRNA vaccines have their roots in the 1990s. A big, successful result is usually the last step of a slow and steady process.
Second, look at the scope. Larger claims, with broader or broader implications, usually do not stand up. Good individual studies usually have carefully crafted boundaries and clearly stated notes; a comprehensive effort by a community of scientists is needed to reach a general consensus. Climate change proved true over timeblack holes were a fringe possibility that was added repeated observationsand exoplanets were searched for decades before the first they finally saw him in 1992.
Finally, be patient. Science is, to some extent, organized skepticism, and the first group of people to harshly attack a new idea will be other scientists. New research can disprove, confirm or revise an existing result. Only time and many hours of work will tell whether a conclusion holds up to scrutiny and the final judgment of the evidence.
Beware of big headlines; don’t believe everything you see. But as study after study emerges, building an interconnected network of theory and experiment, allow your beliefs to change, because the process of science has probably produced an interesting and useful result. Ironically it is through this process of healthy skepticism that trust in science can be restored. By viewing science results through a scientific lens—skeptical at first but allowing beliefs to change with the weight of evidence—we can develop the intuition we need to reject sensational headlines, but know when a new result is right.
In the meantime, just remember that if it’s interesting, it’s probably wrong.
This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author(s) are not necessarily their own. American scientific
