Use your noodle (and your rolodex)

Tom Siegfried tells us that much of what is reported in scientific journals may be wrong.  He cited a story that appeared in PLOS a while back, showing that many reported studies are based on faulty statistics.  Another story, in American Scientist recently explored the misuse of averages in clinical studies.

“The corollary to this,” said Siegfried, “because we write about these studies, is that much of what we write is wrong.”

Siegfried argued that we’re even more likely to report on false findings because they type of stories that are newsworthy are liable to be wrong.  A finding that is reported for the first time, new research from a hot field, or a study that contradicts previous studies are all likely to be refuted later.

Joe Palca of NPR took issue with Siegfried’s cynicism, giving the simple advice to “use your noodle.” Take your common sense with you, ask questions, and talk to people. 

Charles Petit returned to the idea of science as a process.  He noted that if a study turns out to be wrong, this can give an insight into how science works.

“It’s a meritocracy of error,” he said, “That which is not wrong, rises to the top.”