New York Times
Will sprinters one day break the sound barrier? Do Olympic athletes win more medals if they wear red? And can a simple formula predict happiness?
While those questions may sound absurd, various studies have found a way to prove them true through statistical manipulation of numbers and data. The tendency of academics, politicians and pundits to generate such numerical falsehoods from data — and the tendency of the public to believe the results — is a phenomenon cleverly explored in the new book “Proofiness: The Dark Arts of Mathematical Deception,” by Charles Seife.
Mr. Seife, a writer and professor of journalism at New York University, makes a compelling case that numbers have a unique hold on the human mind, and that we are routinely bamboozled by phony data, bogus statistics and bad math. I recently spoke with Mr. Seife, whose work has appeared in The New York Times, The Economist and elsewhere, about the role that proofiness plays in health and medical research. Here’s our conversation.[...]
Newsweek
This column is about science education, but teachers and curriculum designers should click away now rather than risk apoplexy. Instead of making the usual boring plea for more resources for K–12 science (or, as it is now trendily called, STEM, for science, technology, engineering, and math), I hereby make the heretical argument that it is time to stop cramming kids’ heads with the Krebs cycle, Ohm’s law, and the myriad other facts that constitute today’s science curricula. Instead, what we need to teach is the ability to detect Bad Science—BS, if you will.
The reason we do science in the first place is so that “our own atomized experiences and prejudices” don’t mislead us, as Ben Goldacre of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine puts it in his new book, Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks. Understanding what counts as evidence should therefore trump memorizing the structural formulas for alkanes.
“People can be wrong in so many ways,” Goldacre told me—and by “people,” he includes scientists. All too many put too much credence in observational studies, in which people who happen to behave one way (eating a lot of olive oil, drinking in moderation) have one health outcome, while people who choose to behave the opposite way have a different health outcome. [...]
Will sprinters one day break the sound barrier? Do Olympic athletes win more medals if they wear red? And can a simple formula predict happiness?
While those questions may sound absurd, various studies have found a way to prove them true through statistical manipulation of numbers and data. The tendency of academics, politicians and pundits to generate such numerical falsehoods from data — and the tendency of the public to believe the results — is a phenomenon cleverly explored in the new book “Proofiness: The Dark Arts of Mathematical Deception,” by Charles Seife.
Mr. Seife, a writer and professor of journalism at New York University, makes a compelling case that numbers have a unique hold on the human mind, and that we are routinely bamboozled by phony data, bogus statistics and bad math. I recently spoke with Mr. Seife, whose work has appeared in The New York Times, The Economist and elsewhere, about the role that proofiness plays in health and medical research. Here’s our conversation.[...]
Newsweek
This column is about science education, but teachers and curriculum designers should click away now rather than risk apoplexy. Instead of making the usual boring plea for more resources for K–12 science (or, as it is now trendily called, STEM, for science, technology, engineering, and math), I hereby make the heretical argument that it is time to stop cramming kids’ heads with the Krebs cycle, Ohm’s law, and the myriad other facts that constitute today’s science curricula. Instead, what we need to teach is the ability to detect Bad Science—BS, if you will.
The reason we do science in the first place is so that “our own atomized experiences and prejudices” don’t mislead us, as Ben Goldacre of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine puts it in his new book, Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks. Understanding what counts as evidence should therefore trump memorizing the structural formulas for alkanes.
“People can be wrong in so many ways,” Goldacre told me—and by “people,” he includes scientists. All too many put too much credence in observational studies, in which people who happen to behave one way (eating a lot of olive oil, drinking in moderation) have one health outcome, while people who choose to behave the opposite way have a different health outcome. [...]
No comments :
Post a Comment
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.