This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← A lot of science is just plain wrong

A lot of science is just plain wrong - Comments

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 1 by AtheistEgbert

This article is very worrying. How does a non-scientist like myself tell what is 'good' and 'what is 'bad'? If I can't rely on the journals to help me decide, how will I know?

You use your own 'reason' to judge for yourself.

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:03:57 UTC | #933300

MattGBush's Avatar Comment 2 by MattGBush

A better title would be: "A lot of our assumptions are just plain wrong."

I'd say science is about discovering how to be less wrong.

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:07:32 UTC | #933304

Peter Grant's Avatar Comment 3 by Peter Grant

Blame Big Pharma. Been reading Ben Goldacre's book BAD SCIENCE and it's really scary.

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:43:09 UTC | #933317

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 4 by Alan4discussion

A lot of science is just plain wrong

  • Especially the stuff that is inaccurately described as "science" by tabloid newspapers and Foxist TV, to be sold for the amusement of punters who are unable to understand peer-reviewed science.
  • Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:51:53 UTC | #933323

    Jay G's Avatar Comment 5 by Jay G

    If a lot of science is just plain wrong, then why did I do so poorly in high school chemistry? My "wrong" answers were just as valid as the accept "wrong" answers of science.

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:59:29 UTC | #933328

    Saganic Rites's Avatar Comment 6 by Saganic Rites

    Of course a lot of science is wrong, or at least not as right as it could be. If all science were right then we'd know everything there is to know, so there'd be no need for any more science. I suppose that in effect, all scientists are working towards putting themselves out of a job.

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:37:17 UTC | #933343

    Zeuglodon's Avatar Comment 7 by Zeuglodon

    Firstly, the title is misleading. A lot of scientists are just plain wrong, and in every instance it is traceable to a deviation from scientific procedure. Failing to check data sets and test protocol, irreproducible results going unchecked for so long, and worst of all doctoring a study "to make a good story" is shockingly unscientific. On the other hand, the fact that the problem has been detected and can now be corrected means that scientific studies can be tightened up.

    To be honest, your question bothered me a lot in the last few months, though I'm glad you asked it. How can I tell a good study from a poor one when I'm reading an article online? I don't have formal scientific training, and a lot of what I read has been filtered for a mainstream audience.

    However, look at what the actual article is saying. The burden of responsibility seems to be part-government/journal, part-science-institute:

    Suddenly, everybody’s saying it: the scientific and medical literature is riddled with poor studies, irreproducible results, concealed data and sloppy mistakes.

    Let’s start with Stan Young, Assistant Director of Bioinformatics at the US National Institute of Statistical Sciences. He recently gave evidence to the US Congress Committee on Science, Space and Technology about the quality of science used by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

    Despite the open data claims made by the UK Government, many sets of data in the social sciences gathered at government expense are not routinely available to scholars, a point made at a conference last month at the British Academy under the auspices of its Languages and Quantitative Skills programme.

    Often this is data that is too detailed, sensitive and confidential for general release but that can be made available to researchers through organisations such as the Secure Data Service, which is funded by the Economic and Social Science Research Council. But complaints were made at the conference that SDS data is three years late in being released.

    Intense academic pressure to publish, ideally in prestige journals, and the failure of those journals to make proper checks, has both contributed to the problem. Journal editors – even those at Nature, where Begley’s study was published – seem reluctant to acknowledge the problem. Nature published an editorial that seemed to place the blame on sloppy mistakes and carelessness, but I read Begley’s warning as much more fundamental than that, as did many of those who commented on the editorial. This website has identified a few examples of implausible results published in distinguished journals, but the editors of those journals don’t seem very bothered. In an era where online publishing with instant feedback and an essentially limitless ability to publish data is available, the journals are too eager to sustain their mystique, and too reluctant to admit to error. That said, retractions have gone up by ten-fold over the past decade, while the literature itself has grown by only 44 per cent, according to evidence given to a US National Academy of Sciences committee last month.

    This is a worrying development, especially in cancer research and social science, but it doesn't invalidate huge swathes of science, nor does it tarnish those scientific studies that have been rigorously checked and where the data sets are available.

    Call me an ignoramus, but perhaps some scientific posters could tell me: how often are original data sets and protocols published in a non-academic setting (i.e. publicly)? Could I, for instance, look up online the original data sets for tree ring or coral reef analyses relevant to the global warming debate?

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:13:00 UTC | #933351

    Red Dog's Avatar Comment 8 by Red Dog

    First of all, I personally wouldn't worry about what every (or even any) crank on the Internet thinks or says. Life's too short and cranks will think cranky thoughts no matter what you say.

    As for this study it doesn't surprise me at all and I don't think it would surprise anyone who has worked in a scientific or engineering field. As in most things there is an 80/20 rule with published papers. Many of them aren't even worth reading in the first place and of those that are many of them will have serious errors one way or another. That's the whole point of science: humans are flawed and we seldom get it right the first time. Science is the only process we've found for dealing with all our built in biases and ability to make errors.

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:16:42 UTC | #933352

    ganggan's Avatar Comment 9 by ganggan

    This article is actually evidence that science is the pathway to truth. There are bad apples among scientists and trush in publications, but science has the mechanism to weed out the gabage.

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:26:51 UTC | #933354

    Red Dog's Avatar Comment 10 by Red Dog

    One last thought, people sometimes talk about peer review as if its supposed to be some infallible guarantee of goodness. That's not the way I view it at all. Peer review is the first step in the process. It says that a paper shouldn't have any obvious glaring errors and most importantly is worth reading -- may have some new bit of data or a new idea. But that's just the first step, once something has been peer reviewed and published the real work starts of having the community rigorously examine it, subject it to repetition, etc.

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:56:11 UTC | #933378

    paulmcuk's Avatar Comment 11 by paulmcuk

    Comment 3 by Peter Grant :

    Blame Big Pharma. Been reading Ben Goldacre's book BAD SCIENCE and it's really scary.

    Agreed. Since reading it I am very critical of scientific studies, especially medical ones and especially as reported in the media. Hate to join in with the "coprorations are evil" mantra but wherever there are big bucks to be made there is pressure to, lets say, present results in the best possible light.

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:04:19 UTC | #933382

    paulmarkj's Avatar Comment 12 by paulmarkj

    Comment 1 by AtheistEgbert :

    This article is very worrying. How does a non-scientist like myself tell what is 'good' and 'what is 'bad'? If I can't rely on the journals to help me decide, how will I know?

    You use your own 'reason' to judge for yourself.

    A lot of science is very complicated and frankly too difficult for most people. But we are all voters and all have a say in how the country is run, so our opinions on global warming do matter but have to be informed properly.

    At a different level, the New Scientist article pointed out that companies had complained that they had invested money based on scientific studies, but the studies turned out to have major errors in them. Now, you could say that the companies should have carried out their own studies, but what is the point of having expert studies if we can't rely on them?

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:10:14 UTC | #933384

    DavidMcC's Avatar Comment 13 by DavidMcC

    Comment 10 by Red Dog :

    One last thought, people sometimes talk about peer review as if its supposed to be some infallible guarantee of goodness. That's not the way I view it at all. Peer review is the first step in the process. It says that a paper shouldn't have any obvious glaring errors and most importantly is worth reading -- may have some new bit of data or a new idea. But that's just the first step, once something has been peer reviewed and published the real work starts of having the community rigorously examine it, subject it to repetition, etc.

    True. That's why journals with the title, "Letters" are important to progress in science, because they publish detailed criticism of previously published papers, and the responses of the original authors.

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:40:21 UTC | #933387

    cartesy's Avatar Comment 14 by cartesy

    A single study should never be trusted, that's how science works. When an aboundance of evidences all point toward the same result, then we can assume that this result is true, until further evidences are discovered.

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:41:13 UTC | #933388

    Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 15 by Alan4discussion

    Comment 13 by DavidMcC

    Comment 10 by Red Dog : - Peer review is the first step in the process. It says that a paper shouldn't have any obvious glaring errors and most importantly is worth reading -- may have some new bit of data or a new idea. But that's just the first step, once something has been peer reviewed and published the real work starts of having the community rigorously examine it, subject it to repetition, etc.

    True. That's why journals with the title, "Letters" are important to progress in science, because they publish detailed criticism of previously published papers, and the responses of the original authors.

    Seconded!

    But with the warning to non-scientists, that the "letters" commenting, should be from peers in relevant subjects, and published in specialist scientific journals related to the subject matter.

    Letters or comments from media-muppets in magazines and newspapers are usually of no value to science or the verification process.

    The nature of the peer-review process is putting new ideas, with the scientist's reputation on the line, and out for critical examination and challenge by well informed people.
    Something which scares religions with their "faith based beliefs" stiff, so motivates attacks on "heretics"!

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 18:10:15 UTC | #933398

    Peter Grant's Avatar Comment 16 by Peter Grant

    http://badscience.net

    Here's the bit where Ben Goldacre suggests a great solution:

    The single cheap solution that will solve all of the problems in the entire world

    What’s truly extraordinary is that almost all of these problems—the suppression of negative results, data dredging, hiding unhelpful data, and more—could largely be solved with one very simple intervention that would cost almost nothing: a clinical trials register, public, open, and properly enforced. This is how it would work. You’re a drug company. Before you even start your study, you publish the ‘protocol’ for it, the methods section of the paper, somewhere public. This means that everyone can see what you’re going to do in your trial, what you’re going to measure, how, in how many people, and so on, before you start.

    The problems of publication bias, duplicate publication and hidden data on side-effects—which all cause unnecessary death and suffering—would be eradicated overnight, in one fell swoop. If you registered a trial, and conducted it, but it didn’t appear in the literature, it would stick out like a sore thumb. Everyone, basically, would assume you had something to hide, because you probably would. There are trials registers at present, but they are a mess.

    How much of a mess is illustrated by this last drug company ruse: ‘moving the goalposts’. In 2002 Merck and Schering Plough began a trial to look at Ezetimibe, a drug to reduce cholesterol. They started out saying they were going to measure one thing as their test of whether the drug worked, but then announced, after the results were in, that they were going to count something else as the real test instead. This was spotted, and they were publicly rapped. Why? Because if you measure lots of things (as they did), some might be positive simply by chance. You cannot find your starting hypothesis in your final results. It makes the stats go all wonky.

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 18:21:13 UTC | #933400

    ccw95005's Avatar Comment 17 by ccw95005

    What is true is that in almost every instance eventually a consensus emerges among scientists that is accurate and stands the test of time. Our problem is in deciding when that consensus is solid. A good rule is to doubt initial reports until the great majority of scientists gets on board.

    The climate change debate is an interesting one. Scientists, being human beings like the rest of us, are susceptible to letting emotion creep into their conclusions. So while I'm pretty sure that the data on global warming are accurate in general, assigning a cause to it isn't as clear-cut, since there were, of course, spells of global warming and ice ages long before the industrial age. So I'd advise scientists to follow the evidence and not jump to conclusions out of concern for our planet and fear of seeming a luddite; in other words, be dispassionate and fiercely logical.

    Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that greenhouse gases are at least part of the problem. So I'm in favor of doing stuff that makes sense. What I'm not for is spending ungodly amounts of money, out of a desperate attempt to do something to save the environment, without thinking very clearly about whether it's cost-effective and likely to make a significant difference. We need to consider each proposal logically and put cost to implement on the one hand, and how much difference it's likely to make in terms of temperature lowering, and decide if it's worth it. In other words, if a massive project would theoretically lower the temp in ten years by 0.1 degree, by the best scientific estimate, but cost so much that it might result in a possible recession, that would be a bad bet. So don't reject every solution, but don't be stupid out of a desire to do something, anything.

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 18:36:39 UTC | #933403

    Peter Grant's Avatar Comment 18 by Peter Grant

    As far as I can tell there is no "debate" amongst climatologists about global warming, it's pretty clear cut. You should keep your "advise" to yourself. If you're seeking the source of controversy, look to the oil companies.

    Comment 17 by ccw95005

    The climate change debate is an interesting one. Scientists, being human beings like the rest of us, are susceptible to letting emotion creep into their conclusions. So while I'm pretty sure that the data on global warming are accurate in general, assigning a cause to it isn't as clear-cut, since there were, of course, spells of global warming and ice ages long before the industrial age. So I'd advise scientists to follow the evidence and not jump to conclusions out of concern for our planet and fear of seeming a luddite; in other words, be dispassionate and fiercely logical.

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 19:19:06 UTC | #933413

    crucialfictionofjesus's Avatar Comment 19 by crucialfictionofjesus

    http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/nasa-video-shows-global-warming-is-real/10021

    I'm equally sick of both the 'controversies' - global warming AND evolution; there is NO controversy if you look at the science and ignore those with vested interests. Honestly, how can anyone claim that 200 yrs of human industrial development would have no effect on this Earth's climate?

    People love a conspiracy theory and GW fits the bill, for some. As Frank Zappa said "Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be"

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:10:25 UTC | #933425

    ccw95005's Avatar Comment 20 by ccw95005

    Comment 18 by Peter Grant

    As far as I can tell there is no "debate" amongst climatologists about global warming, it's pretty clear cut. You should keep your "advise" to yourself. If you're seeking the source of controversy, look to the oil companies.

    Ah, now there's an excellent scientific attitude! The experts have decided, so don't question them. Don't keep an open mind, just accept the conventional wisdom. That's the spirit that allowed humans to advance technologically.

    I think that there are some serious scientists who are likewise unsure as to exactly how much of global warming is due to manmade greenhouse gases. And of course yours is a straw man argument, since I did say that I believe global warming is occurring. Regardless of the cause, I'd be in favor of common sense projects to reverse it, if there are any that make economic sense. What I'm saying is let's not run around like chickens with our heads cut off and throw money down at rat hole without thinking the whole thing through from a cost-benefit standpoint.

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:14:01 UTC | #933427

    ccw95005's Avatar Comment 21 by ccw95005

    Peter Grant, that's a great solution, and I'd like to see it required by law, at least for large studies. I believe that in medicine, at least, the rules of evidence and logic tell you that if you do a study to prove or disprove a proposition, and once the data is in, you discover a correlation that was unexpected, you don't disregard the new association, because it may be true, but you don't draw any hard conclusions at that time. You then set up a new study to decide whether the unexpected finding is consistent.

    Remember that the level of confidence in medical studies ordinarily is set at 95%, meaning that the results are statistically significant if there is only a 5% likelihood that the results occurred because of chance. What that means is that one time out of twenty, such a result would be expected to occur even if the medication or other treatment was ineffective. So you always hope for a higher degree of confidence in your results. For a treatment that is only mildly effective, you may need a larger study to prove statistical significance.

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:27:24 UTC | #933431

    Nordic11's Avatar Comment 22 by Nordic11

    Blockquote

    To ccw comment 17

    So I'd advise scientists to follow the evidence and not jump to conclusions out of concern for our planet and fear of seeming a luddite; in other words, be dispassionate and fiercely logical.

    I see the problem with climate change as not whether or not global temperature rises are being caused by human activities (I think we're past that), but what will be the effects decades down the line. This is what long term thinking people really want to know, and our science is woefully inadequate to make accurate predictions. Logic is of little use here because a scientist's inferences depend upon a reliable plethora of data and an understanding of earth's complex climate, and we just don't have either right now. We only have crude data and understanding that tells us we're mucking things up, but not enough of either to tell us what will happen.

    This relates back to the topic of this thread because climatologists should be getting more serious about gathering data to form predictive models and then use a thorough system of peer review to evaluate them. The rest of us can have all the opinions we want, but without this rigorous process going on throughout the scientific community of climatologists, we’re just rolling the dice.

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:44:19 UTC | #933446

    AgriculturalAtheist's Avatar Comment 23 by AgriculturalAtheist

    Comment 1 by AtheistEgbert :

    This article is very worrying. How does a non-scientist like myself tell what is 'good' and 'what is 'bad'? If I can't rely on the journals to help me decide, how will I know?

    You use your own 'reason' to judge for yourself.

    Or go with the consensus.

    Then again, not having read the article, I wonder how it untangles any consensus with regard to the "lot" of wrong science (percentage-wise) supporting that consensus. Ultimately I find the final arbiter of what is true or not for people, whether religious or scientific, depends on their own bias. In other words, one might admit that there are a lot of these worrying errors in science, but not MY science, or the myriad of studies that point to my cherished conclusion X.

    Science is supposed to be self correcting. One would assume that the MOST recent tend to be the most often "wrong" as time, observation, experiment, refinement and rethinking would weed out the bad apples. So I wonder if the article breaks down this wrong science based on how recent it is. I would only begin to worry if a significant number of bad assumptions drive what we do and thing for decades at a time without being checked, challenged or replaced with better models.

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:50:17 UTC | #933448

    Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 24 by Alan4discussion

    Comment 20 by ccw95005

    Comment 18 by Peter Grant

    As far as I can tell there is no "debate" amongst climatologists about global warming, it's pretty clear cut. You should keep your "advise" to yourself. If you're seeking the source of controversy, look to the oil companies.

    Ah, now there's an excellent scientific attitude! The experts have decided, so don't question them.

    Actually it is an excellent scientific attitude when the subject matter has been tested and confirmed by a consensus of thousands of experts in that subject, to the point when all the key questions have been answered numerous times and available to those who seek them.

    Don't keep an open mind,

    There are open minds that are like buckets with no lids, where any disinformation can be poured in, and then there are scientific minds which check out the evidence.

    just accept the conventional wisdom. That's the spirit that allowed humans to advance technologically.

    It certainly is! Applying knowledge from well confirmed science rather than guessing in ignorance certainly is how we have progressed technologically.

    I think that there are some serious scientists who are likewise unsure as to exactly how much of global warming is due to manmade greenhouse gases.

    Not to any significant extent. Only in fine details of local effects and the size of error bars.
    The scientific debate is settled. It is vested interests and their political and media stooges who are still shouting.

    I do not want to derail this discussion, but if you are unclear on the level of confirmation, there are earlier discussions on the links below, which extensively covered this subject.

    http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/642733-why-the-laws-of-physics-make-anthropogenic-climate-change-undeniable

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm - In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).

    Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

    We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

    In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.

    Comment 20 by ccw95005 - I'd be in favor of common sense projects to reverse it, if there are any that make economic sense. What I'm saying is let's not run around like chickens with our heads cut off and throw money down at rat hole without thinking the whole thing through from a cost-benefit standpoint.

    For alternative low carbon power production, I suggest reading this discussion. - http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/643310-water-cooled-nuclear-power-plants-aren-t-the-only-option

    ... and this one. - http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/632627-harness-the-sea-national-geographic-june-2011-tidal-wave-power-generation

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:35:54 UTC | #933468

    raytoman's Avatar Comment 25 by raytoman

    Seriously.

    Read a book titled "Who Invented What When".

    It's no prize winner but gives a flavour of how science developed and how the later "scientists" were able to stand on the shoulders of others to progress knowledge and it's application.

    There are mistakes, steps forward and back and any progress was in spite of religion, even though many of the scientists were religious (better than being dead!).

    I'm sure most readers would be moved by the struggle and the dedication of the individuals to finding out for themselves how the world was made and how it worked.

    Incredibly, most people on our planet are religious (about 6 billion) and most of these have no idea about science and are quite happy to believe it is the devils work. Anyway, wizards, vampires, werewolves and hobbits are more fun and you've always got to watch out for evil spirits and scientists who lie and cheat to gain funding for their devils work.

    Seriously, read the book.

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:39:12 UTC | #933471

    raytoman's Avatar Comment 26 by raytoman

    Most of our planets brightest become church leaders, hedge fund managers or politicians since that is the road to power and riches. Few nowadays bother with science. The few who do have to join the Oil, Drug and Tobacco companies and their like to earn a crust. A few are in the pay of wealthy individuals or organisations who determine their work.

    Tobacco is cool and is good for you. Carbon Dioxide is good for the planet, plants neeed it to grow. Coke (and refined sugar) is so good for you that it is in most everything. There is no global warming and anyway, it is good - warmer winters, more time at the beach, etc.

    Oh! I forgot, many of our brightest become advertisers and marketers.

    The few scientists left (the most dedicated if not the brightest) make mistakes and yes, try to cover them up.

    A couple of emails and the Global Warming debate is over, there is none.

    Tobacco is still legal.

    School tuck shops, charged with selling healthy snacks, have won their battle and the 3 main food groups, sugar, fat and salt are back on the menu.

    If you really want to be rich, invent a snack made out of sugar, saturated fat and salt (actually, I suspect many already exist).

    In fact I'm coming to the conclusion that our brightest and best went into advertising and marketing with religion, politics and hedge funds as second choices - science has practically lost.

    Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:55:26 UTC | #933480

    Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 27 by Alan4discussion

    Comment 22 by Nordic11

    This relates back to the topic of this thread because climatologists should be getting more serious about gathering data to form predictive models and then use a thorough system of peer review to evaluate them. The rest of us can have all the opinions we want, but without this rigorous process going on throughout the scientific community of climatologists, we’re just rolling the dice.

    There are various quite good models, but the MAIN error factor in predicting detailed models for the coming decades, is the lack of predictable emissions information, because governments and carbonaceous luddites will not agree a binding policy on CO2 limits.
    The best science in the world cannot predict 100 or 200 years ahead, if those in charge will not produce a coherent plan for the next twenty years.

    Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:07:54 UTC | #933485

    mmurray's Avatar Comment 28 by mmurray

    Comment 26 by raytoman :

    Tobacco is still legal.

    But not for much longer. In Australia we are just about to win the fight to put them all in plain brown wrappers. Next I would guess is having to carry a registered nicotine addict card before you can buy. Then prescription only from chemists. Then it's all over.

    Michael

    Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:33:52 UTC | #933492

    mmurray's Avatar Comment 29 by mmurray

    Interesting article. But cases like this

    He suggests that researchers should, as in clinical research, be blinded to the control and treatment arms, and that they should be obliged to report all data, negative as well as positive. He recounted to Reuters a shocking story of a meeting with the lead author of one of these irreproducible studies at a conference. He took him through the paper line by line, explaining that his team had repeated the experiment 50 times without getting the result reported. “He said they’d done it six times and got this result once, but put it in the paper because it made the best story. It’s very disillusioning.”

    are just plain wrong and the person deserves a firm boot placed in the nether regions.

    Michael

    Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:45:06 UTC | #933495

    mmurray's Avatar Comment 30 by mmurray

    Comment 1 by AtheistEgbert :

    This article is very worrying. How does a non-scientist like myself tell what is 'good' and 'what is 'bad'? If I can't rely on the journals to help me decide, how will I know?

    You use your own 'reason' to judge for yourself.

    Reason doesn't make up for a lack of knowledge of the subject area or a lack of knowledge of the statistics needed to analyse the data.

    Michael

    Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:46:30 UTC | #933496