The British writer Martin Robbins has a long and important battle against what he terms “data-free celebrity science”. This is “science” as touted by those who have established themselves as good scientists or thinkers – among their colleagues – and proceeded to use that goodwill to build a soapbox to spread their ideas.
In his new post on the latest offender, Oliver James, Robbins writes:
[This approach to science] has some distinct advantages for the academic, as Oliver James admitted in response to an impertinent audience member who challenged him at the Hay Festival. “I myself am a busy man,” The Telegraph reported him as saying, “I don’t have time to muck about doing intervention studies.”
Interesting that he describes doing science – gathering data, evidence, testing and verifying claims – as “mucking about”.
Assuming you’re not sucking thumbs, these ideas are worth examining via peer-review and proper journals. In 2011, this was reiterated by the excellent Ben Goldacre, author of Bad Science (the book and blog), when he called out the most prominent offender of data-free, celebrity science: Baroness Susan Greenfield.
Greenfield, who is a renowned and certified scientist, has for some time been making wild claims regarding the relationship between things like technology, the impact on the brain, attention and knowledge-retention, etc. Computer games cause dementia! Internet something, something, autism!
Why, in over 5 years of appearing in the media raising these grave worries, has Professor Greenfield of Oxford University never simply published the claims in an academic paper?
A scientist with enduring concerns about a serious widespread risk would normally set out their concerns clearly, to other scientists, in a scientific paper, and for one simple reason. Science has authority, not because of white coats, or titles, but because of precision and transparency: you explain your theory, set out your evidence, and reference the studies that support your case. Other scientists can then read it, see if you’ve fairly represented the evidence; and decide whether the methods of the papers you’ve cited really do produce results that meaningfully support your hypothesis.
Perhaps there are gaps in our knowledge? Great…a scientific paper is the place to clearly describe the gaps in our knowledge, and specify new experiments that might resolve these uncertainties.
After all, these are clearly public health issues. Either they exist and require proper identification, via peer-review and evidence gathering, or they’re not and thus we are wasting time on nonsense.
Greenfield offered a strange reply to a reporter who asked what her hypothesis really was regarding computers and the brain. Bizarrely using Richard Dawkins and his atheism writing, Greenfield said:
“How can I publish just one paper?…Does Professor Richard Dawkins have one paper which sets out why God doesn’t exist? Tell me one experiment I should do that proves once and for all whether computers are evil for the brain.”
One experiment? “Once and for all”? Unless we’re talking deductive reasoning – “All swans are white” – then one experiment probably won’t do much and no scientist should think otherwise. Science frustrates people because it is tentative, because it is often counter-intuitive, because it requires others picking your hypotheses and theories apart.
Science, as far as I can conclude, is merely good reasoning writ large. If it’s true, experiments and evidence will demonstrate; if not, then they will do the same. This allows us to spend resources – like time, money and attention – appropriately. Do we spend it on vaccines that have proven to save children’s lives or on ceasing such operations because vaccines cause autism?
I see little difference between someone claiming they dance with unicorns on a chocolate moon and someone claiming Mario gives you dementia. Neither has evidence. Recently, when I asked friends where their evidence was to support their website’s claim that they were the Number 1 group in their field, they got defensive; others laughed and began playfully mocking me, calling me names like “Sherlock” and claiming my catchphrase is “WHERE’S THE EVIDENCE!”. Well, good. Let that be a catchphrase for us all. We should try to have evidence for our (empirical) views – otherwise on what basis are we believing them? It makes no sense to believe things which have no rational, (and if possible) evidence-based justification. Otherwise, we could simply “choose to believe” whatever we want. Of course, we can’t have evidence for “everything”, but there’s no reason why can’t strive to, encourage others to do the same and welcome rational criticisms to those beliefs.
Of course, all this only matters to those who care about believing what’s real rather than what’s comforting or adheres to your agenda. James, Greenfield, etc., know how science works but appear unconcerned with actually responding to the most fundamental aspect of science and what anchors such a worldview – answering: “Why should I believe what you say?”