John Oliver Blasts Junk Science, Gives Climate Change a Pass
In their most recent episode, Last Week took on the credibility of scientific studies in a masterful exposé of just how frequently findings presented as scientific prove to be utter nonsense. Brian Nosek, a doctor working for the Center for Open Science, explained the motivations which lead scientists to forward misleading claims:
Oliver expounded:
Oliver went on to provide examples of studies which were unreliable for a variety of reasons. His expressed purpose in this exposé was to defend real science by raising awareness of fraudulent or dubious methods. Oliver bemoaned an imagined point of exasperation past which people write off science altogether due to contradictory and nonsensical claims. Such exasperation proves problematic, in Oliver's view, because it leads to a rejection of proper scientific claims. Among claims which Oliver regards as proper science are those warning of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.
In their most recent episode, Last Week took on the credibility of scientific studies in a masterful exposé of just how frequently findings presented as scientific prove to be utter nonsense. Brian Nosek, a doctor working for the Center for Open Science, explained the motivations which lead scientists to forward misleading claims:
My success as a scientist depends on me publishing my findings. And I need to publish as frequently as possible in the most prestigious outlets that I can.
Oliver expounded:
Now that's true. Scientists are under constant pressure to publish, with tenure and funding on the line. And, to get published, it helps to have results that seem new and striking, because scientists know [that] nobody is publishing a study that says "nothing up with aca# berries."
And, to get those results, there are all sorts of ways that, consciously or not, you can tweak your study. You could alter how long it lasts, or make your random sample too small to be reliable, or engage in something that scientists call p-hacking... [which] basically means collecting lots of variables and then playing with your data until you find something that counts as statistically significant but [which] is probably meaningless.
And, to get those results, there are all sorts of ways that, consciously or not, you can tweak your study. You could alter how long it lasts, or make your random sample too small to be reliable, or engage in something that scientists call p-hacking... [which] basically means collecting lots of variables and then playing with your data until you find something that counts as statistically significant but [which] is probably meaningless.
Oliver went on to provide examples of studies which were unreliable for a variety of reasons. His expressed purpose in this exposé was to defend real science by raising awareness of fraudulent or dubious methods. Oliver bemoaned an imagined point of exasperation past which people write off science altogether due to contradictory and nonsensical claims. Such exasperation proves problematic, in Oliver's view, because it leads to a rejection of proper scientific claims. Among claims which Oliver regards as proper science are those warning of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.