Sad State Of Science

I refer you to recent work by John P.A. Ioannidis:

"...Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies [1–3] to the most modern molecular research [4,5]. There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims [6–8]. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false. Here I will examine the key factors that influence this problem and some corollaries thereof...."

This is my problem with the Intelligent Design debate. I am a firm believer in the scientific method and logic and reason. Furthermore, I think creation myths have no place in the science classroom. What bothers me, however, is that the term "science" is bandied about without any further explanation of what is meant. What, exactly, is science? Information that is a hundred years old? Peer reviewed studies? The prevailing wisdom?

We owe it to our children to explain to them that "science" is very imperfect and full of humans who do the most illogical things. Money is given to pet causes, research findings match pre-existing opinions, and controversial ideas are shunned without consideration of their merit. In short, science is full of scientists, which are not Mr. Spocks, and not computers. Just like over time any democracy will evolve in it's views and opinions, so will the science community.

Does that mean there is no truth? Far from it. We have scientific models for most of the observed behavior we see in the world today. And for the average man, that's good enough. But to teach children blindly that science has all the answers, and that scientists somehow are graced with unique insight -- it's not fair to the kids. Better to teach them that we have a system that stumbles along, making up stuff as we go and striving to prove or disprove it. Some ideas may last the test of time. Most will change in a few short decades. That's the way it is supposed to work as our models get more accurate.

The interface of religion and science is very interesting. Religion claims there is something, someone responsible for all that we do not know and cannot prove. I understand it is uncomfortable for many to acknowledge that there is much we do not know and current cannot prove, but that is the truth. We owe it to the kids to tell them from the start, instead of indoctrinating little mini-scientist youth program in a rationalistic religion. It's not good for the kids, and even more to the point, it's not good for scientific progress. The scientific method is the only thing rational people have -- the light in the darkness. Applied scientific research is a messy human endeavor. Religion tells us that the darkness is okay. We need them all.