bad science vs. no science

[waider]

I was presented with some bad science at the weekend. Second-hand report, so the details are a little fuzzy but it went something like this:
Product A and Product B both provide vitamin supplement G (I do not know what supplement, or what vitamin). Product A is significantly more expensive. The producer of Product A defends this by saying that product B uses G-Sulphate, while product A uses G-Chlorate. Cue science: he shows product A in a diagram as G-ClO₃, and product B as G-SO₄. And then proceeds to argue that product A, having one less atom attached, is being provided in a more-bang-per-molecule format.

I will pause here to point out that the exact molecules diagrammed have been reconstructed by me from the way this was reported to me. I believe hydrogen atoms may have gotten in on the act, providing a more pointed difference between the numbers of attached atoms.

But, er, as may be obvious to some of you at least, this misses two fairly crucial points on chemical volume alone: how concentrated the actual products are, and how big the mysterious G component is relative to the itty-bitty tail hanging off it. There are further questions in what I will refer to as chemical mechanics in terms of whether it's easier to pry G away from Chlorine or Sulphur in order to get at its benefits, and there's probably a further question, unrelated to cost or efficacy, of what left-overs are produced.

But this got me thinking about bad science in general. It seems, on the face of it, that bad science is worse than no science because bad science can persuade people that they're being given a modern, rational argument for something as opposed to just being handed a statement as if it were fact and told simply to believe it. Still, I can't quite decide if having bad science is better than having no science at all; while no-science can be difficult to counter because you're arguing with a person's beliefs (and by definition, scientific arguments can't easily work on someone who doesn't do science in the first place), bad science seems like it takes up the same mental niche as conspiracy theories in that exposing the inconsistencies or applying remedial good science is more likely to get you cognotive dissonance rather than capitulation as a response.

Maybe I need to do a scientific study of this.

Comments

[mopti.livejournal.com]

The Guardian on a Saturday has a column on Bad Science: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/series/badscience

[mskala.livejournal.com]

Chlorates in general tend to be pretty strong oxidizers. I wonder if one of the other selling points of Product A is that you can use it to refuel your model rockets.

[wisn.livejournal.com]

Yes but which one has the electrolytes plants crave?

[ilanarama.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that bad science is sort of a version of argument from authority: It works 'cause SCIENTISTS say so.

[waider.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I agree; it's more likely to be used to argue that Big Science Lies To Us. I think it's more likely it makes people feel that they are being scientific themselves, or that they understand the science, and therefore are in a better position to judge it objectively.

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

bad science is worse than no science because bad science can persuade people that they're being given a modern, rational argument for something as opposed to just being handed a statement as if it were fact and told simply to believe it.

I'd agree, just like in a court case false evidence is worse than no evidence because it's misleading. Even in the best case, if the bad science (or evidence) is discovered and refuted you just end up back where you started.

The truly bad science isn't that the claim was bad, but that it was that the claim was presented without peer review. This is why we've got the process of peer review; because even scientists make mistakes, and we rely on a community of critics to keep everything on the straight and narrow.

Cool post..

[(Anonymous)]

thank you, dude