The strong correlation between flashiness and wrongness comes from several factors. First, much, if not most, scientific research is wrong. That’s why it’s research; if we knew the answers ahead of time, we wouldn’t need to do science. Many scientific papers are speculative, dependent on hyperspecific assumptions of controlled parameters, or just crazy ideas shot into the dark. It’s through this constant bubbling of ideas and results and studies that we poke and prod at nature’s workings, hoping to tease out some glimmer of deeper understanding. Second, scientists endure perverse incentives to publish as much as possible—to “publish or perish”—and to get their results in top-tier journals as much as possible. Since the biggest ones only take on the most impactful research, there is tremendous pressure in academia to inflate results and make big, bold claims, increasing the chances that their tenuous results will not hold up to further scrutiny.
While many journalists respect scientists and want to faithfully represent the results of scientific research, publishers face their own incentives to capture eyeballs and clicks and downloads. The more sensational the story, the better.
Most scientific results come slowly, incrementally and with little fanfare.
The best approach to take with science results, news, and headlines is the same approach scientists use themselves: healthy skepticism.
It’s ironically through this process of healthy skepticism that trust in science can be regained. By viewing science results through a scientific lens—initially skeptical but allowing beliefs to shift along with the weight of evidence—we can develop the intuition we need to reject sensational headlines but know when a new result is right. In the meantime, just remember that if it’s interesting, it’s probably wrong.
The strong correlation between flashiness and wrongness comes from several factors. First, much, if not most, scientific research is wrong. That’s why it’s research; if we knew the answers ahead of time, we wouldn’t need to do science. Many scientific papers are speculative, dependent on hyperspecific assumptions of controlled parameters, or just crazy ideas shot into the dark. It’s through this constant bubbling of ideas and results and studies that we poke and prod at nature’s workings, hoping to tease out some glimmer of deeper understanding.
Second, scientists endure perverse incentives to publish as much as possible—to “publish or perish”—and to get their results in top-tier journals as much as possible. Since the biggest ones only take on the most impactful research, there is tremendous pressure in academia to inflate results and make big, bold claims, increasing the chances that their tenuous results will not hold up to further scrutiny.