After Reading Science Isn’t Broken

 The article was filed under “Scientific Method”, this makes me wonder what Scientific Method is. This is a type of method that can be used in all sciences, usually the writer or the scientists were asking different questions for explain a hypothesis, then test different prediction, finally the result is the problem-solving approach which is logical and can be supported by evidence. The article published in 2015, I think this is the year that scientist starting to use the word of “scientific method”. In other words, in this year, they began to explore academic correctness of the scientific community. For the first figure of “Hack Your Way To Scientific Glory”, I can define different terms to see the p-value in different parties. I realized that when the p-value had less than 0.01, the result shows “Publishable”. I think this is a kind of prejudice, I need to give up some data to meet the qualification standard which is “publishable”. In this situation, the result is not real because this set of data has been filtered purposefully. The judgment of “publishable” affect the result. Comparing the figure football field and the graph called “same data, different conclusion.” Both figures represent that the question of giving the red card to different skin color. The first figure is very straight forward to show the problem that darker skin color got more re cards than other, which is very clearly to see the main idea for this topic. I didn’t understand the meaning of “same data, different conclusions” graph talking about, it seem like to make a linear regression model, but I was not quite sure about the gray bar under each value. For me, the first figure is easy to understand than the second one, maybe the writer needs more words to explain the figure 2. Overall, in the whole article, the author revealed some truths in the scientific community. The society has more and more paper published, but there are very few real, serious works. In order to produce more paper, people were thinking the hypothesis first, then given some reasons without tests. The paper produced in this way are wrong and useless. The author wants to mention the reader to think more when they doing their own research work. 

Citation: Aschwanden, C. (2015). Science Isn’t Broken: It’s just a hell of a lot harder than we give it credit for. 

Retrieved from https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken

Any opinion? Write down in the comment