Distinguishing good science

from bad science

How might we distinguish good science from bad science?
Under what circumstances should we be suspicious of scientific findings?
What criteria could we use to distinguish science from pseudo-science?
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly
anyone knows anything about science & technology.
Carl Sagan

Lots of scientific knowledge you have personalized throughout your

education is in fact second-hand knowledge. You acquired this knowledge
mainly through language, either via a textbook or the words of your
teachers. You arguably trusted your teachers and believed that what they
told you in science class was true. But under which circumstances should
we accept second hand scientific knowledge? The motto of Britain's very
first scientific society (The Royal Society) is "Nullius in Verba", which means
"Take nobody's word for it".
One of the key features of the natural sciences is the necessity of being able
to prove what you claim. Good science does not only require proof. It also
actively invites peer-review and even falsification. For example, if your
teacher claims that starch will turn blue when mixed with iodine, you will
want to test this yourself. Within the natural sciences, you should be able
to repeat experiments to see if a hypothesis is correct. But what should you
conclude when an experiment 'does not work'? If this happens in your
science lesson, you may have made a mistake. Perhaps the conditions were
not exactly the same as what the experiment had in might, which may have
led to different results. However, if you are a practicing scientist and your
experiment shows that a hypothesis from another scientist does not work,
you may be onto something. Maybe the hypothesis of the other scientist
was not correct, or you could have discovered particular conditions in
which the experiment does not work. In that case, knowledge from other
scientists may need to be refined, built upon or even discarded (when
proven wrong). Some scientists do not conduct their studies correctly and
they may dispose of inconvenient data. When scientists are not open to
peer-review, we should approach their knowledge with caution. There are
circumstances in which experts get it wrong. This can be because they
deliberately created erroneous knowledge, to seek fame or financial gain.
Andrew Wakefield, for example, deliberately tweaked the findings of his
research to claim that MMR vaccines cause autism and Crohn's disease. He
published these findings in respectable journals such as The Lancet. The
scientific community, however, soon found that there were ethical and
factual problems with his methodology. Incorrect scientific knowledge can
surface for a while within the scientific community, but over time, these
ideas are (hopefully) phased out through peer review. Wakefield's claims
have now been discarded; The Lancet retracted the original article and
Wakefield is not allowed to practise medicine anymore. Nevertheless, fear
amongst the wider (not scientific) population led to a decline in
vaccinations, with disease and mortality as a negative consequence.
False scientific knowledge can become widely accepted by the larger
community, as this community is often unable to distinguish good science
from bad science. Ben Goldacre points out how 'bad science' permeates
popular culture and belief. Should we perhaps be wary of scientific
knowledge claims (in media) which rely too much on emotive language
(often fear)? When it comes to distinguishing good science and bad
science, it is important to check the funding of research as well as the
possible profitable nature of its findings.
Although the notions of testing, falsification and peer review play a crucial
role in distinguishing good science from less credible scientific knowledge,
it is important to remember that not all scientific hypotheses can be tested
in the same way. Sometimes evidence is not available (yet), because we do
not have the means to observe things that are too small for current
technology to "see", or perhaps simply too far away. In this sense, we should
not automatically discard all scientific knowledge that cannot be tested in
a laboratory. Nevertheless, it is very important to check the sources and
methodology used to produce knowledge that claims to be scientific.

Natural Sciences. (n.d.). TOK 2022: THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE WEBSITE FOR THE IBDP.

Retrieved September 19, 2022, from https://www.tok2022.net/natural-sciences.html

 DISTINGUISHING GOOD
SCIENCE FROM BAD SCIENCE
TOK concept Instructions Cognitive Tool

After reading Distinguishing good

science from bad science, select one
TOK concept and one cognitive tool
associated with this analysis of "good"
science. Explain these connections.

TOK CONCEPTS
certainty, culture, evidence,
explanation, interpretation,
justification, objectivity,
perspective, power,
responsibility, truth, and values.

COGNITIVE TOOLS
reason, emotion, faith,
memory, imagination,
intuition, language, sense
perception.