I’ve been in that situation countless times, I can tell you people want to believe the scientific method works but there’s always a reason they don’t. Here’s a few reasons I’ve encountered:
Eroding trust in institutions: they don’t trust the organisations or the people doing the studies. IMO news cycles play a big role in this; a study with a catchy result “A glass of wine a day is actually good for you” - by itself already a misrepresentation of the results - gets all the headlines. The countless of studies that prove no amount is good for you doesn’t get any.
They believe science is a book of solid answers, while it’s merely a methodology to find better answers. People have a hard time accepting this.
Post-information age: every bit of human knowledge at our fingertips is a true monkey’s paw. A real overload of information has people exhausted, they rather listen to someone like them than have big words thrown at them by scientists.
Misrepresentation of data: I cannot stress enough how easy it is to misrepresent data. Without proper context any piece of data can be framed to fit a narrative. Studying statistics was so counter intuitive, you’ll never be able to convince people going on instinct.
Honing in on where people get stuck can help you get through to them. I know this will sound corny, but if you talk to people from person to person, not being judgemental, and really try to listen, there’s always room for change.
Things like wine is healthy, chocolate is healthy, berries are healthy, meat is unhealthy, eggs are unhealthy* all come from the weakest studies, 5 yearly food frequency questionnaires - where they all people to fill out how many serves of each food category the study cares about (the berry one listed about 12 direct berries out of the thirty or so that are popular; one meat one included “hamburger” in their meat category despite a burger meal usually having most its energy from the coke and fries).
The biggest problems include that the study can be warped several ways, the food list can change how people respond, the categorisation of foods changes everything, people can’t remember how many serves of whatever they had 5 years ago, so they pick the “most virtuous”, and after all that the most they can say is there might be an association between <food> and <health effect>
They report hazard ratios (how much the “wrong” food choice increases your risk of <health effect>) and usually get ~10%, everything outside nutrition needs 200% to say there’s an effect, cigarette smoking has a hazard ratio for lung cancer of 300% for a pack a day smoker**
*But “eggs are healthy” came from a study, feeding people eggs and testing their cholesterol, so if much more reliable
**The hazard ratios are usually reported as a fraction of 1 — 0.10 for many diet studies, or 3 for the smoker
It feels like stat shouldn’t be a senior level elective in HS but should be a freshman/sophomore level requirement, with a heavy focus on how statistics are wildly abused in what amounts to propaganda.
I feel like a lot of topics could be covered in a 1 semester course that explained the scientific method, why it’s important, difference between a theory and idea, statistics, misrepresentation of data, narrative tuning in media and reporting, proven study and information retention methods. Just like a ‘this class is going to teach you to study, research, retain, and grow with the knowledge you learn throughout life better’ course. Right now these foundational things kind of exist in some capacity, if you’re lucky, but it’s easy to blow over it and just get a grade without realizing what’s actually going on while your teachers are attempting to teach. I don’t know, it’s probably dumb but I think a lot of people don’t have the tools to accept and grow with a knowledge base that is constantly evolving and maturing. So instead of maturing and growing they dig into their preconceived and learned emotional safe space deeper and deeper until they die.
I’ve been in that situation countless times, I can tell you people want to believe the scientific method works but there’s always a reason they don’t. Here’s a few reasons I’ve encountered:
Eroding trust in institutions: they don’t trust the organisations or the people doing the studies. IMO news cycles play a big role in this; a study with a catchy result “A glass of wine a day is actually good for you” - by itself already a misrepresentation of the results - gets all the headlines. The countless of studies that prove no amount is good for you doesn’t get any.
They believe science is a book of solid answers, while it’s merely a methodology to find better answers. People have a hard time accepting this.
Post-information age: every bit of human knowledge at our fingertips is a true monkey’s paw. A real overload of information has people exhausted, they rather listen to someone like them than have big words thrown at them by scientists.
Misrepresentation of data: I cannot stress enough how easy it is to misrepresent data. Without proper context any piece of data can be framed to fit a narrative. Studying statistics was so counter intuitive, you’ll never be able to convince people going on instinct.
Honing in on where people get stuck can help you get through to them. I know this will sound corny, but if you talk to people from person to person, not being judgemental, and really try to listen, there’s always room for change.
Things like wine is healthy, chocolate is healthy, berries are healthy, meat is unhealthy, eggs are unhealthy* all come from the weakest studies, 5 yearly food frequency questionnaires - where they all people to fill out how many serves of each food category the study cares about (the berry one listed about 12 direct berries out of the thirty or so that are popular; one meat one included “hamburger” in their meat category despite a burger meal usually having most its energy from the coke and fries).
The biggest problems include that the study can be warped several ways, the food list can change how people respond, the categorisation of foods changes everything, people can’t remember how many serves of whatever they had 5 years ago, so they pick the “most virtuous”, and after all that the most they can say is there might be an association between <food> and <health effect>
They report hazard ratios (how much the “wrong” food choice increases your risk of <health effect>) and usually get ~10%, everything outside nutrition needs 200% to say there’s an effect, cigarette smoking has a hazard ratio for lung cancer of 300% for a pack a day smoker**
*But “eggs are healthy” came from a study, feeding people eggs and testing their cholesterol, so if much more reliable
**The hazard ratios are usually reported as a fraction of 1 — 0.10 for many diet studies, or 3 for the smoker
It feels like stat shouldn’t be a senior level elective in HS but should be a freshman/sophomore level requirement, with a heavy focus on how statistics are wildly abused in what amounts to propaganda.
Amen, I’m in the EU and only saw real statistics in college. Tbf propaganda in itself needs to be understood and thought better in general
I feel like a lot of topics could be covered in a 1 semester course that explained the scientific method, why it’s important, difference between a theory and idea, statistics, misrepresentation of data, narrative tuning in media and reporting, proven study and information retention methods. Just like a ‘this class is going to teach you to study, research, retain, and grow with the knowledge you learn throughout life better’ course. Right now these foundational things kind of exist in some capacity, if you’re lucky, but it’s easy to blow over it and just get a grade without realizing what’s actually going on while your teachers are attempting to teach. I don’t know, it’s probably dumb but I think a lot of people don’t have the tools to accept and grow with a knowledge base that is constantly evolving and maturing. So instead of maturing and growing they dig into their preconceived and learned emotional safe space deeper and deeper until they die.
It’s not dumb, it’s right on the money. What I have a hard time with is not letting conspiracy mind tell me it’s deliberate.