The Conservative Cat

There's an obvious reason for this: scientists who know what they're doing also know how fallible they are.

The whole point of the scientific method is to insure we only believe things that can be verified. The downside is that in a lot of disciplines (such as, for example, economics), you can't do the experiments required to verify your theories. That's particularly heartbreaking when you consider that the science of economics is the foundation behind most of the decisions made by Congress.

In any case, here are two examples of science news that help to prove my point. First, we have a study purporting that lesbians are more likely than heterosexual women to be overweight or obese. Second, we have a story about the Colony Collapse Disorder affecting bees.

The lesbian study was performed using meta-analysis of another study done in 2002. I've been over the pitfalls of meta-analysis countless times. But even if this were a real study, there's a problem. The measurement used to determine obesity is the body mass index, which does not take into account how much weight is fat and how much is muscle. If they were doing a real study instead of a meta-analysis, they would have the option of collecting additional body measurements so they could correct for this problem. With a meta-analysis, however, there is no way to get the additional information needed to determine whether or not the methodology is correct. The scientists deal with this in a manner that proves they are completely beyond any sort of rational thought whatsoever.

We reported greater odds of both overweight and obesity in lesbians and we feel confident in asserting that these differences are a result of increased adiposity,

We are supposed to believe the information is accurate, even though there is no possible way it can be verified, because the researchers are confident!

AAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

Several months ago, The Girl Who Feeds Me left a bag of cat chow on the floor because she was confident I wasn't smart enough to get inside. You can guess how that turned out.

On to the second study. Colony Collapse Disorder occurs when bees can no longer find their way back to their hive. In this study, the scientists actually looked at bees to determine what distinguishes the disordered bees from the normal ones, and found a fungus. In spite of that, they are careful to point out that their study was on a limited number of bees, and the findings must still be confirmed.

This is a night-and-day difference. First, it's clear that the scientists are using actual data rather than second-hand studies done five years ago. Second, they mention the limitations of their study (only commercial colonies in a specific region), so it's clear they're not trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes.

Still, we see a lot more articles about meta-analyzed surveys than about real scientific experiments.

So remember this: the more confidence a journalist has in a scientific fact, the less likely it is to be based on good science.

Spend some time reading science news and you'll see what I mean.

Respectfully submitted,

Ferdinand T. Cat.