Specificity and precision are crucial to doing good science and to critical thinking.
Exaggerating the results of scientific research goes in the opposite direction. Too often, findings are blown out of proportion. To do this you have to become less precise, less specific; you have to be less scientific.
How do findings get exaggerated? Largely in how those findings are explained and/or advertised. A philosopher friend of mine, Mike Earl (his website: Reasonworks.com) and I often discuss how there is a difference between data/facts and the way we describe and explain and even model them. There is big step between the "hard" facts of science and how these facts are presented. Too often that step gets overlooked.
Consider recent science finding that was presented this way:
What "hard data" was that statement based upon? An experiment that generated this specific result -
The children cooperated more than 78 percent of the time compared to about 58 percent for the chimpanzees.
Study author Daniel Haun said,
"In such a highly controlled situation, children showed a preference to cooperate; chimpanzees did not."
Hmm. A preference for the humans. A strong preference, even. While the chimpanzees showed . . . maybe a weak preference.
While the first blockquote is fully scientific and factual, the second is less so. Between hard facts and the ways we talk of them we find the crucial element of word choice. And words can be used to magnify and exaggerate the findings of science. Or to diminish them. Which somewhat hypocritically runs counter to core scientific values.
Sure, you've got to give researchers some wiggle-room in their choice of words. But fidelity to the facts should be a greater priority. At least to this critical thinker.
Tags: language, primates, rationality
Leave a Reply