Ezra Opens a Second Front in the War on Science

Ezra’s latest post complains that the media doesn’t pay enough attention to partisan thinktanks. The idea is that it doesn’t matter that a study is hopelessly biased, as long as it has 500 pages of pretty graphs. Now, I know it’s attractive to project the diametric opposite of your own view onto the mainstream media. However, that’s not a very good methodology for discussing politics.

Social sciences have an outrageously low signal to noise ratio. How couldn’t they? They a) attract people who’re on average less smart than those who do natural sciences, b) give people a lot more incentive to stick to indefensible conclusions, and c) has a proliferation of methodological minutiae that can get you any result you want. For instance, multiple regression analysis depends on the variables you enter so much that the same data can be shown to lead to wildly different conclusions.

With so much chaff and so little wheat, people have to develop mechanisms of throwing out the junk. One good mechanism is the rule of thumb that if a thinktank disagrees with an academic study, the thinktank is always wrong; to take a slight refinement, academics whose chairs are funded by ideologically motivated thinktanks, like John Lott, are barely more reliable than thinktanks.

Right now, the media gives equal credence to peer-reviewed studies and to thinktank hatchet jobs. Even if it does what you imply it should, it won’t improve matters much. Laypersons won’t be any more informed, and experts won’t learn anything new.

A single news article can only offer a cursory analysis of scientific debates, and is hardly more informative than, say, direct-to-consumer drug advertising. It’s impossible to write a 1,000-word New York Times article doing justice to, say, debates within biological community about evolutionary developmental biology. And that’s an issue where it’s relatively easy to produce rigorous research; when you venture into economics, things get exponentially harder.

It’s possible for a newspaper to publish a debate between Lewontin and Dawkins, or even to commission both to write regular features about evolution. But what’s the point? Professional biologists, who know all the relevant facts and have been familiar with those debates for decades have already decided. There’s no point in a rematch in a far less professionally competent arena.

The same principle applies to social sciences. When a thinktank publishes a research, the ideal media’s reaction should be to ignore it. There’s nothing that privileges thinktank fellows over real economists enough to exempt them from peer review. Likewise, there’s nothing that privileges ordinary people’s views. Serious scholars may not be able to describe poverty or unemployment in lurid detail, but frankly the media could use fewer heartwrenching stories and more facts.

The layperson doesn’t need to know anything more than what mainstream expert opinion is, and to what extent expert opinion can be trusted (more so on climatology and evolutionary biology than on welfare economics and political science). If he cares enough to delve into the subject, that’s what books and professional reviews are for. The mainstream media can never be a substitute for scholarly books and articles; even semi-popular magazines like Scientific American are inferior to actually reading what current research is.

Check out my post on religion and welfare. The post has 1,500 words; counting graphs and tables as a number of words taking equal space, the study it critiques has 15,000. And the post doesn’t do anything that I’d expect of similar coverage in the mainstream media: literature review, quoting other experts, actually checking the data, fleshing out alternative theories. In its most cursory form, therefore, a satisfactory critique needs to be about a tenth its object study’s size. When the study in question has the 500 pages the hack Ezra quotes brags about, it takes 50 to take it apart.

About these ads

8 Responses to Ezra Opens a Second Front in the War on Science

  1. With so much chaff and so little wheat, people have to develop
    mechanisms of throwing out the junk. One good mechanism is the rule of
    thumb that if a thinktank disagrees with an academic study, the
    thinktank is always right
    ; to take a slight refinement, academics
    whose chairs are funded by ideologically motivated thinktanks, like
    John Lott, are barely more reliable than thinktanks.

    Is this really what you want to be saying? I’d have expected that if a
    thinktank and an academic study disagree, the study is the one to be
    trusted – and this interpretation gets backed up by the rest of this
    paragraph. Typo?

  2. SLC says:

    Chris Mooney, who lMr. Levy considers somewhat wimpish, has documented the setting up of think tanks by the right wing to provide a veneer of scientific support for the contrarian versions of reality, such as global warming is unproven, the relationship of HIV and AIDs is unproven, evolution is unproven, etc. The main failing of the MSM is the he said she said mentality which believes that their are two or more sides to every question and its failure to uncover and reveal the source of funding for these think tanks. The effort by the tobacco companies to deny the health risks of smoking is a poster child for the effectiveness of the right wing strategy, which is to pretend there is a controversy when there is none.

  3. [...] Controversy Tool: Created by the Left, Employed by the Right Alon Levy castigates Erza Klein for what are in my opinion some pretty vapid comments about how the media [...]

  4. muppt says:

    don’t forget what Bertrand Russell said, education makes people stupid.

  5. muppt says:

    “The layperson doesn’t need to know anything more than what mainstream expert opinion is, and to what extent expert opinion can be trusted (more so on climatology and evolutionary biology than on welfare economics and political science). If he cares enough to delve into the subject, that’s what books and professional reviews are for. The mainstream media can never be a substitute for scholarly books and articles; even semi-popular magazines like Scientific American are inferior to actually reading what current research is.”

    more reason why Wikipedia is evil!

  6. Alon Levy says:

    Yes, Mikael, that was in fact a typo. What I lack in typos like “teh” or “creatnig” I make up for in typos that reverse the meaning of my sentences.

  7. SLC says:

    Re muppt

    Obviously, Wikipedia is an invention of the international Zionist conspiracy.

  8. mongose says:

    have you read this book by psychology professor Kevin MacDonald? funnniest book ever.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: