A letter from TED (TED Talks) on how to distinguish science from pseudoscience

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Trakar, Dec 29, 2012.

  1. Trakar
    Offline

    Trakar VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,699
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +73
    A letter from TED (TED Talks) on how to distinguish science from pseudoscience
    Below is an email sent to the TEDx community regarding our view on bad science/pseudoscience talks at TEDx events.
    http://blog.tedx.com/post/37405280671/a-letter-to-the-tedx-community-on-tedx-and-bad-science
    ————————————————————————————————————
    Hello TEDx Community,

    In light of a few suspect talks that have come out of the TEDx movement — some of which we at TED have taken action to remove, some being examined now — and this recent thread on Reddit [http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1444lm/the_ted_name_is_being_dragged_through_the_mud_in/], we feel it is important to reach out to all TEDx organizers on the topic of bad science and pseudoscience.

    Please know this above all:
    It is your job, before any speaker is booked, to check them out, and to reject bad science, pseudoscience and health hoaxes.

    Vetting your speakers is hard work, and can lead to uncomfortable moments. But as TEDx organizers, your audience’s trust is your top priority, over and above any other personal or business relationship that may have brought this speaker to your attention. It is not your audience’s job to figure out if a speaker is offering legitimate science or not. It is your job.

    The consequence of bad science and health hoaxes are not trivial. As an example, Andrew Wakefield’s attempt to link autism and vaccines was exposed as a hoax last year. But while his work was being investigated, millions of children went without vaccines, and many contracted deadly illnesses as a result.

    We take this seriously. Presenting bad science on the TEDx stage is grounds for revoking your license.

    The letter below has three sections, and is designed to spark conversation. It focuses on 3 areas:

    1. A short definition of bad science / pseudoscience.

    2. Common warning signs of bad science and health hoaxes — above and beyond the science itself — how can you spot trouble?

    3. Topics to watch out for, because in the past they have attracted bad science to TEDx events

    Please take the time to read this letter carefully and discuss it with your curation team. Feedback is welcome.

    1. What is bad science/pseudoscience?
    There is no bright and shining line between pseudoscience and real science, and purveyors of false wisdom typically share their theories with as much sincerity and earnestness as legitimate researchers. (Michael Gordin’s recent book, The Pseudoscience Wars, is a great overview.) Needless to say, this makes it all terribly hard to detect and define.


    But here are some basic guidelines.

    Marks of good science:

    • It makes claims that can be tested and verified
    • It has been published in a peer reviewed journal (but beware… there are some dodgy journals out there that seem credible, but aren’t.)
    • It is based on theories that are discussed and argued for by many experts in the field
    • It is backed up by experiments that have generated enough data to convince other experts of its legitimacy
    • Its proponents are secure enough to accept areas of doubt and need for further investigation
    • It does not fly in the face of the broad existing body of scientific knowledge
    • The proposed speaker works for a university and/or has a phD or other bona fide high level scientific qualification
    Marks of bad science:
    • Has failed to convince many mainstream scientists of its truth
    • Is not based on experiments that can be reproduced by others
    • Contains experimental flaws or is based on data that does not convincingly corroborate the experimenter’s theoretical claims
    • Comes from overconfident fringe experts
    • Uses over-simplified interpretations of legitimate studies and may combine with imprecise, spiritual or new age vocabulary, to form new, completely untested theories.
    • Speaks dismissively of mainstream science
    • Includes some of the red flags listed in the two sections below
    2. Red flag topics
    These are not “banned” topics by any means — but they are topics that tend to attract pseudo-scientists. If your speaker proposes a topic like this, use extra scrutiny. An expanding, depressing list follows:
    Food science, including:
    • GMO food and anti-GMO foodists
    • Food as medicine, especially to treat a specific condition: Autism and ADHD, especially causes of and cures for autism
    Because of the sad history of hoaxes with deadly consequences in the field of autism research, really look into the background of any autism-related talk. If you hear anything that sounds remotely like, “Vaccines are related to autism,” — RUN AWAY. Another non-legitimate argument: “We don’t know what works, so we have to try everything.” Pretty much all the time, this argument is designed to cause guilt in suffering parents so they’ll spend money on unproven treatments.

    More:

    • “Healing,” including reiki, energy fields, alternative health and placebos, crystals, pyramid power
    • “Free energy” and perpetual motion machines, alchemy, time travel
    • The neuroscience of [fill in the blank] — not saying this will all be non-legitimate, but that it’s a field where a lot of goofballs are right now
    • The fusion of science and spirituality. Be especially careful of anyone trying to prove the validity of their religious beliefs and practices by using science
    Look carefully at talks on these topics: ask to see published data, and find a second source, unrelated to the speaker and a recognized expert in the field, who can validate the research.

    3. Red flag behavior
    You may not be an expert on the science your speaker presents — yet — but you can easily identify and counter some common tactics that science hoaxers will use to try to get on your stage. This list is inspired by and builds off Emily Willingham’s post on Forbes: “10 questions to distinguish real from fake science.”: http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2012/11/08/10-questions-to-distinguish-real-from-fake-science/

    Be alert if a potential speaker (or the speaker’s advocate on your planning team) does any of the following things:

    • Barrages you with piles of unrelated, over-general backup material, attempting to bury you in data they think you won’t have time to read
    • Holds a nonstandard degree. For instance, if the physics-related speaker has a degree in engineering, not physics; if the medical researcher does not have an M.D. or Ph.D.; if the affiliated university does not have a solid reputation. This is not snobbery; if a scientist truly wishes to make an advance in their chosen field, they’ll make an effort to engage with other scholars
    • Claims to have knowledge no one else has
    • Sends information only from websites they created themselves; there is little or no comment on them in mainstream science publications or even on Wikipedia
    • Provides data that takes the form of anecdotes, testimonials and/or studies of only one person
    • Sells a product, supplement, plan or service related to their proposed talk — this is a BIG RED FLAG
    • Acts oddly persistent about getting to your stage. A normal person who is rejected for the TEDx stage will be sad and usually withdraw from you. A hoaxer, especially one who sees a financial upside to being associated with TEDx, will persist, sometimes working to influence members of your team one by one or through alternative channels
    • Accuses you of endangering their freedom of speech. (Shutting down a bogus speaker is in no way endangering their freedom of speech. They’re still free to speak wherever they can find a platform. You are equally free not to lend them the TEDx platform.)
    • Demands that TEDx present “both sides of an issue” when one side is not backed by science or data. This comes up around topics such as creationism, anti-vaccination and alternative health
    • Acts upset or hurt that you are checking them out or doubting them
    • Accuses you of suppressing them because TED and TEDx is biased against them and run by rich liberals ;)
    • Threatens to publicly embarrass TED and TEDx for suppressing them. (The exact opposite will happen.)
    While you’re not expected to become an overnight expert on all fields of science and health, here is how to start researching a topic you’re not an expert on:
    Start with some basic web research. You should be able to understand at least the big issues in every field you present onstage. Wikipedia is your first stop to gain a basic background. Following primary-source links from Wikipedia, work out from there to university websites, science and health blogs, and databases of papers published in respected journals.

    Ask your local university’s PR office to connect you to a professor you can speak to. Make sure it is someone totally unconnected with the potential speaker. Another place to start is the local university library, if you have access to that; a research librarian can help you find relevant journal articles.

    If you have a team member who is a journalist, ask them to fact-check the speaker’s work to journalistic standards.

    For an example of how to check out a possible health hoax, see this great blog post examining Dr. Oz’s promotion of green coffee beans for weight loss: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/dr-oz-and-green-coffee-beans-more-weight-loss-pseudoscience/

    Finally, you can always email the TEDx team at tedx@ted.com and we can work with you on helping research the credibility of a speaker’s topic before they present at your TEDx event. As a member of the community, if you do come across a talk on the TEDx YouTube channel or at a future event that you feel is presenting bad science or pseudoscience, please let us know. Bad science talks affect the credibility of TED and TEDx: it is important we get this right.

    If you have any other ideas and suggestions on how to stop bad science talks on the TEDx stage please let us know. Your thoughts and suggestions are always welcome.

    Best,
    Lara Stein, TEDx Director
    Emily McManus, TED.com Editor
     
  2. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    41,043
    Thanks Received:
    7,991
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,808
    This is much better....


    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw]Feynman on Scientific Method. - YouTube[/ame]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Trakar
    Offline

    Trakar VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,699
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +73
  4. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    41,043
    Thanks Received:
    7,991
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,808




    Actually, he is demonstrating the continuing failure of the AGW "theory" quite well. Especially that part where he says it doesn't matter who the person is who's theory is wrong. If observations don't match the hypothesised results the theory is wrong.

    You guys, on the other hand, falsify the historical record to make it fit your "theory"..

    Lysenko would be proud of you.
     
  5. RollingThunder
    Offline

    RollingThunder VIP Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    4,398
    Thanks Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +886
    Once again foolishly spewing the deranged myths and insane conspiracy theories of your little cult of reality denial, eh walleyed? It is really too bad that you are so retarded.
     
  6. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,621
    Thanks Received:
    5,429
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,414
    That is what you state. Yet, both the AGU and the GSA state otherwise. And virtually all the geologists that I know that deal in any way with climate change state that it is happening, and we are the primary agents of it.

    So, who to believe, and ananymous poster on the internet claiming to be a geologist, or the real geologists that give the lectures at the AGU and GSA conventions.

    And then there is the little matter of the position of the American Institute of Physics and the American Chemical Society.

    Global Climate Change Position Statement

    “Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and absorbing aerosol particles.” (IPCC, 2007) “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.” (NRC, 2010a) “The potential threats are serious and actions are required to mitigate climate change risks and to adapt to deleterious climate change impacts that probably cannot be avoided.” (NRC, 2010b, c)

    This statement reviews key probable climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to current and anticipated consequences.
     
  7. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,621
    Thanks Received:
    5,429
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,414
    Walleyes, you have been telling us there is going to be significant cooling for a couple of years now. Where is that cooling at? You told us the Arctic Ice would bounce back, that the melting was just a temporary cycle. Looked at how the freezeup is going lately?

    Actually, the scientists you denialists call 'alarmists' have been wrong. They were far too conservative in their estimates of the sensitivity of the climate to even minor temperature changes.

    But you denialists have been dead wrong on everyone of your predicitons. And dead wrong in denying the science that so many good scientists are doing right now.
     
  8. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,934
    Thanks Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,545
    Spot on. Falsification has become the primary tool of climate science in the past decade or so as their predictions have failed to manifest.

    Just recently McKibben/Masters went on record claiming the "great drought" of 2012 as being the greatest since the 1930's. That statement is a flat out lie. All one need do is visit the PMDI at NOAA.

    Contiguous U.S., Palmer Modified Drought Index (PMDI), December-November 1896-2012

    The PMDI for the "great drought" of 2012 is listed as -46.92. A look at the historical data shows that the PMDI for 2000 was -50.03, for 1955 it was -54.23, for 1954 it was -52.16, in 1940, it was -57.32, and finally, way back in 1934, it was listed as -76.55, a number that dwarfs the 46.92 of the "great drought" of 2012. In 1931, it was -49.87.

    Far from being the "worst drought" since the 1930's it is the seventh worst drought since the 1930's with five of those droughts being prior to 1960. If the science were so strong in favor of AGW, then why has fabrication and lying become the modus operendi for so much of climate science.

    The outright fabrication of temperature data has become commonplace. Here are some examples of the data manipulation going on at NASA/GISS.

    [​IMG] [​IMG]


    [​IMG] [​IMG]



    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    And these are just a few of the plethora of examples of blatant data tampering and fabrication. I will ask again, if the science is so strong, why has this sort of behavior become the standard in climate science? They treat the output of computer models as if it is more valid than direct observation and in doing so have violated the first marker for good science being "It makes claims that can be tested and verified". Models, the primary source of data for climate science have proven so inaccurate that their failure is not even arguable any more.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  9. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,621
    Thanks Received:
    5,429
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,414
    So you claim. But every scientific society in the world disputes your claim of fraud on the part of the climate scientists. And then there is the little problem of how you get all these scientists from all the differant countries in the world working together on the nefarious conspiracy.
     
  10. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,934
    Thanks Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,545
    So tell me rocks, when presented with factual evidence that warmists claims are exagerated, and temperature records have been tampered with, what sort of scientific orginazation or organizations, continue to deny that fraud is taking place?

    As to how the fraud might be so widespread, follow the very widly spread money.
     

Share This Page