The 10 stuff-ups we all make when interpreting researchPosted in Articles on 2014-10-05 01:03Z by Steven |
The 10 stuff-ups we all make when interpreting research
The Conversation: Academic rigour, journalistic flair
2014-10-02
Will J. Grant, Researcher/Lecturer, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science
Australian National University
Rod Lamberts, Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science
Australian National University
UNDERSTANDING RESEARCH: What do we actually mean by research and how does it help inform our understanding of things? Understanding what’s being said in any new research can be challenging and there are some common mistakes that people make.
Have you ever tried to interpret some new research to work out what the study means in the grand scheme of things?
Well maybe you’re smart and didn’t make any mistakes – but more likely you’re like most humans and accidentally made one of these 10 stuff ups.
1. Wait! That’s just one study!
You wouldn’t judge all old men based on just Rolf Harris or Nelson Mandela. And so neither should you judge any topic based on just one study.
If you do it deliberately, it’s cherry-picking. If you do it by accident, it’s an example of the exception fallacy.
The well-worn and thoroughly discredited case of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine causing autism serves as a great example of both of these.
People who blindly accepted Andrew Wakefield’s (now retracted) study – when all the other evidence was to the contrary – fell afoul of the exception fallacy. People who selectively used it to oppose vaccination were cherry-picking…
…6. Were you tricked by sciencey snake oil?
Turbo Encabulator
Rockwell Turbo Encabulator Version 2
You won’t be surprised to hear that sciencey-sounding stuff is seductive. Hey, even the advertisers like to use our words!
But this is a real effect that clouds our ability to interpret research.
In one study, non-experts found even bad psychological explanations of behaviour more convincing when they were associated with irrelevant neuroscience information. And if you add in a nice-and-shiny fMRI scan, look out!…
Read the entire article here.