Sometimes I feel like this is taken to the extreme for non-scientists that say that lack of evidence is in itself evidence. Depending on the circumstance and the tests, that could be true but its often a default mode.

But of course, the lack of evidence is itself evidence, if you have a sufficiently large data sample and haven't seen the thing you're looking for. Keep pursuing the increasingly unlikely outcome, and you're just engaged in science-flavored religious catechism.

I see the fallacy routinely misapplied by all sides of most hot-button science-meets-politics issues. A great many scientists will regularly substitute their own pet theories for conclusions, and strenuously ignore the lack of supporting evidence, citing the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" saw. Then they turn around and mock "non-scientists" for doing the same thing. Neither side is right, of course, but dressing in a lab coat doesn't make it better.

Just to circle it back to the topic of science education, I'd love to see a science curriculum at the middle- and high-school level that equipped people to reason through this kind of thing by focusing on tearing apart pop research. A "science fair" is actually hard to do well just because most science fails, but a "scientific bullshit fair" would have almost infinite fertile ground from nutrition studies alone.

As any other field, the science is as good as the scientist that produced it. For example, there is a serious reproducibility crisis in multiple fields, like psychology, and social sciences. In the latter it is hard to say of its due to systemic educational failure of the PhD students in those fields, or that the field and personal politics are merging too tightly.

Unfortunately, all it takes is one bad scientist to discredit the rest, e.g., Wakefield.

As for reproducibility, its my opinion that it has more to do with incentives and constraints than the ethics or intellectual capacity of the researcher (although those are real components too)

I don’t think we have a contradiction here. What I am saying is that science is made by people, and we as scientists have to be extremely vigilant today not to let “ends justify the means” crowd to use the name of science for their own agenda.

Yes. I have sociologists in my extended friends group, and we had a couple of heated discussions on why interviewing 20 subjects is not sufficient for the conclusions they have. But, turns out, it’s the norm in their specific field. Go figure

It should be designed for the 95% of students who are not going to be scientists so that they become better citizens and we aren't just flooded by piles of misguided people when it comes to funding public policy. Instead we want people to have the basic literacy to know that say, MMS (Miracle Mineral Solution) is wildly unsound.

It should be seen as a society-wide improvement project like the declination of smoking or how people are exercising more and eating healthier then half a century ago.

This is the same kind of project.

People should know "What is science? What do people who do it do? If someone claims to do science, how can I know if their claims are legitimate? What are the red flags? If I'm presented with a scientific looking document, what questions should I ask?"

They should know it's a self-correcting system and not a belief tribe.

Example: My friend sent me this anti-vax report a few years ago showing how children who didn't get vaccinated had a lower reported occurrence of a number of diseases. I mean obviously - the parents who distrust clinicians aren't going to get their child diagnosed. Of course the reported occurrence is lower. Measurement bias.

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. A graph that was so convincing to my friend shouldn't have been. They should have been inculcated from an early age to ask such questions and shouldn't have fallen for such bad science.

There's a bunch of subjects we can probably slack on with the general public without dire consequences. Adults can be ignorant on say american literature, chemistry, or ancient history without much affect. Core scientific literacy, however, is proving to be one of the important ones.

Okay, but we still want you to admit that GP was subsumed by the article.

However the problem lies in the lesson of new math - which was an effort to teach actual mathematician mathematics starting in elementary school as opposed to the number manipulating arithmetic that most people need.

As a result only future mathematicians really understood it and most people were baffled by it.

I like the sentiment but we have to acknowledge that our favorite thing in the world, whatever it is, is simply unapproachable to others

I run into this problem constantly with my software efforts. I think my stuff is obvious but everybody else thinks it's too arcane and obscure.

To reference a deep cut from 1945, Norman Corwin, Variety magazine, article "Radio not in a class by itself"

"[Radio] rises no higher and sinks no lower than the society which produces it." A few paragraphs later, "I believe people get the kind of radio, or pictures, or theater, or press they deserve... The gist of what I am saying is that the radio of this country cannot be considered apart from the general culture... If the American people support soap operas and tolerate singing commercials; if they pay higher honor to Gildersleeve than to Beethoven, then it is not primarily the job of radio to elevate their tastes."

And so with education - we can only build from the legos in the bucket.

The same could be said of theoretical work: here, we tightened up an inequality.

This is also research, not all of it is experimental!

I note MIT (like many universities) has a department of Electrical Engineering and Computer "Science".

Allowing engineering opens up the workable space by quite a bit.

My brother and I, for example, did an experiment where we tested pH of various water bodies around us. The hypothesis was based off of local drainage patterns.

Not a new question... Still scientific.

Freshman year: effect of light wavelength on basil plant growth. I shined a black light, a regular light bulb, and a very bright IR light at some basil plants. I probably could have made it better by doing colored lights with controlled lux levels. Didn't win anything and the judges were unimpressed.

Sophomore year: effect of water pH on electrolysis gas production. Varied the pH on some water and put it in an electrolysis apparatus. I actually got 3rd place in the highschool chemistry group surprisingly. It wasn't a very rigorous project but I guess no one else did anything terribly interesting. Not enough to go onto regional or state level (not sure what came next). Even my parents were surprised.

Science means applying the scientific method.

"I hypothesize that method X is the best way to construct a robot that does Y and I've tested methods A, B, and C to validate that claim"

That's science.

Just building something can actually be a pursuit of non science..this is why many engineers have not invented here syndrome. They think they're thinking scientifically, but they don't. Thus, instead of checking their assumptions, they run with them.