The effects of bad science education

Paul Jacob looks at bad science that has been peddled as Gospel over the past year, and in times past.

Obviously, too much of what activists and worrywarts and even scientists publicly claim as science isn't science. It's what's been called "scientism" — the romance of science wrapped up in a good story, involving catastrophe if at all possible. It belongs in the science fiction mags, not in government or the newspapers. But, says JunkScience.com publisher Steven Milloy, "all too often, the media simply repeat such claims verbatim."

Part of the problem, I think, traces back to the way science is taught in school. People learn what science says, but come away with no idea of how science, or scientists, came to believe what science says. They have no idea how scientific tenets are arrived at, how they are tested, and when necessary, how they are discarded in favor of new ones.

The result is a frozen picture of science as it existed when their grade-school textbooks were written, and a vague notion that some of it has changed somehow. Unfamiliar with the ways scientific ideas are tested, they have no way to evaluate the merits of scientific claims. Even a simple question like, "What's the confidence interval on that number?" is beyond their expertise. They don't know what a confidence interval is, or how to use one. In a way, it's like being sold a note that pays 10% interest, but not knowing how many years it takes to earn that 10%. Is it a good investment or not?