background preloader

Bad Science

Facebook Twitter

Processes Explaining The Concealment And Distortion Of Evidence On Gender Symmetry In Intimate Partner Violence by Murray. A. Straus, Ph.D. Originally published in European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, v. 13, pp. 227-232, 2007 Reproduced under the Fair Use exception of 17 USC § 107 for noncommercial, nonprofit, and educational use. | EJF Home | Join the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters | | DV Home | Abstract | Contents | Authors and Site Map | Tables | Index | Bibliography | | Chapter 4 — Domestic Violence Statistics | | Next — Gathering statistics | | Back — Advocacy research | Commentary on Graham-Kevan "Domestic Violence: Research and Implications for Batterer Programmes in Europe" Methods used to conceal and distort evidence on symmetry in partner violence Method 1. Method 2. Method 3. Method 4. Method 5. Method 6. Method 7. Concluding comments About the author Distorting intimate partner violence findings — playing with numbers Response by Nicola Graham-Kevan, Department of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, England Method 8.

References Method 1. Top Method 2. Method 3. Method 4. Method 5. Strauss Concealing and distorting female DV. The Inevitable Evolution of Bad Science. Bacteria, animals, languages, cancers: all of these things can evolve, which we know from the work of legions of scientists. You could argue that science itself also evolves.

Researchers vary in their methods and attitudes, in ways that affect their success, and they pass those traits to the students they train. Over time, the very culture of science is sculpted by natural selection—and according to Paul Smaldino and Richard McElreath, it is headed in an unenviable direction. The problem, as others have noted, is that what is good for individual scientists is not necessarily what is good for science as a whole. A scientist’s career currently depends on publishing as many papers as possible in the most prestigious possible journals. More than any other metric, that’s what gets them prestige, grants, and jobs.

Now, imagine you’re a researcher who wants to game this system. This is not a new idea. Low statistical power is an obvious symptom of weak research. There are other solutions. Why People ‘Fly from Facts’ “There was a scientific study that showed vaccines cause autism.” “Actually, the researcher in that study lost his medical license, and overwhelming research since then has shown no link between vaccines and autism.” “Well, regardless, it’s still my personal right as a parent to make decisions for my child.” Does that exchange sound familiar: a debate that starts with testable factual statements, but then, when the truth becomes inconvenient, the person takes a flight from facts. As public debate rages about issues like immunization, Obamacare, and same-sex marriage, many people try to use science to bolster their arguments. And since it’s becoming easier to test and establish facts—whether in physics, psychology, or policy—many have wondered why bias and polarization have not been defeated.

When people are confronted with facts, such as the well-established safety of immunization, why do these facts seem to have so little effect? Misandry in psychology: reproductive coercion. This is the third part of a four-part series of articles about the bias against men and boys in psychological research. There is a video companion to this series that summarizes the contents of these articles.

A link to this video will appear at the end of this article. I was browsing on the web and happened to read an article about a study on “Reproductive Coercion.” As I read it, I was amazed at the statistics. One article said that 53% of women surveyed had experienced violence in relationships. “Wow” I thought, that’s over half of the respondents. My interest stimulated, I started searching for articles on this particular study.

Suddenly, the results started to make sense. Then, I started to wonder. I needed a copy of the study. I decided to ask the lead researcher, Dr. At that point, I contacted Gabrielle Grow, who had written the Aggie article and congratulated her on a job well done. But precisely why had the big-time journalists not asked the same question? 1. LA Times Physorg 3. Book Review - Proofiness - By Charles Seife. And that’s precisely why they can be so powerfully, persuasively misleading, as Seife argues in his passionate new book, “Proofiness.” Seife, a veteran science writer who teaches journalism at , examines the many ways that people fudge with numbers, sometimes just to sell more moisturizer but also to ruin our economy, rig our elections, convict the innocent and undercount the needy.

Many of his stories would be darkly funny if they weren’t so infuriating. Although Seife never says so explicitly, the book’s title alludes to “truthiness” — the Word of the Year in 2005, according to the American Dialect Society, which defined it as “the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true.” The term was popularized by in the first episode of “The Colbert Report.” Seife emphasizes that numbers impress us. They carry authority. Falsifying numbers is the crudest form of proofiness. He calls to task for “cherry-picking” data about .