NeuroDojo

Evidence

Back to teaching, preparing for teaching, and pretty much nothing else.

Like most others, my mind has been very much on the conflict in Iraq. I was thinking about what lessons a biological researcher's training might be able to bring to bear on such an event. The one question that I've learned to ask as a scientist that seems appropriate in this instance is this.

What is the evidence?

In such situations, assertions and claims are made back and forth in furious successions. "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction." "Saddam Hussein poses an immediate threat to the security of [insert name of country here]." "Weapons inspections are working." (Ooops. Suppose that should be "...were working.) And so on.

What is the evidence?

When my brain is working well (which it doesn't always), few things trigger my radar like such flat statements. Unfortunately, politics and much current news reporting does not always do a good job of presenting evidence, nor do many people take the time to look deeply at available evidence (and I'm sure not excluding myself here). Instead, factors like fear and trust come into play in a big way.

What is the evidence?

Who gathered it? How did they get it? What tools did they use? Are there numbers specifying quantity? How about confidence intervals, or the possibility of measurement error? Can it be confirmed by other independent sources? (This is a big one in science, where it gets the technical name of "replication.")

What is the evidence?

Of course, many people outside research seem to have little patience for scientists' insistance on looking at evidence all the time. This may have been what led Cecil Marice Bowra (1898-1971) to comment, "Scientists are treacherous allies on committees, for they are apt to change their minds in response to arguments."