I think most of the contributors here are on the same side — at least we’re against the same stuff — and we need a combination of skills to fight it. The most important of those skills — spotting bullshit and then communicating an exposé (succinctly and clearly, with evidence) — are found in people with diverse backgrounds. They can also be lacking in individuals with great paper qualifications in arts — or science.

So let’s celebrate the contribution that we can *all* make to the hunt for bad science. Ben’s excellent column in the Guardian (10 Jan) appears to draw on comments made by several contributors here — hurray, let’s have more of that!

(Strictly speaking, I’m neither a scientist nor an arts graduate — I spent most of my first two decades obsessed with physics and most of the rest of my life (so far) studying and researching politics, with occasional forays into philosophy and economics. The latter pursuits have taught me a great deal about reasoning (including the scientific variety) and how to use (and misuse) evidence, including some relatively sophisticated statistical techniques.)

I am just saying that far, far too often, when a team made up exclusively of arts graduates pontificates on science, or offers opinions on it via the mass media, they make major mistakes. This could easily be avoided by actually asking a real scientist of they have it right.

I am arguing not for a monopoly on reporting; just that the media get at least one person involved who understands what they are dealing with.

And to clarify my own position, I am no longer actually a scientist myself. Banking paid too much more, so off I buggered a few years back to pursue a less noble path.

I propose we henceforth dub it; ‘foodoo’.

Are the articles lazy? Hell, yes. Are they novel? Hell, no. In fact, their merit suffers more from an artistic criticism than a scientific one.

Your point seems to suggest that most arts graduates are like Michelle Hanson (ignorant and proud!!!!), and that I am an exceptional freak. Only one of those last two words can be fairly attributed to me.

Michele Hanson in the Grauniad is a case in point:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/25/physics

And

www.guardian.co.uk/education/mortarboard/2008/nov/26/girls-science-minister

It is this which we mean when we refer to ‘arts graduates’ if you do not qualify then well done. Perhaps you could join the scientific types in the comments on pieces like the above.

That’s a rather large brush with which you are tarring a substantial proportion of the graduate population, sir. I’m an English Graduate (and, for what it’s worth, qualified – though non-practising – teacher), who doubtless knows considerably less about the calculation of the propagation of errors that you (heck, I couldn’t even fathom the wikipedia summary), but I’m figuring that it relates to a small error at one stage of a process – potentially insignificant in itself and in a specific context – growing exponentially later in the process or when the context is changed. Am I right (I’m essentially rewording your note above)?

My point is that, as a non-scientist interested in science, I guess I don’t need to understand HOW a random error grows; I mainly need to be aware THAT a random error MIGHT grow; thus to be wary of conclusions given with apparent authority but without clear details of how those conclusions have been reached.

My letter to Today was taking them to task for not understanding, in this example, what the medical facts are. I genuinely do feel that there is a gulf between the average arts and science graduate when it comes to having the basic intellectual tools to handle this sort of thing.

One reason for this is that much of the reasoning tools in science actually have to be learned. It took a degree course in physics for me to become very comfortable with the practice of carrying out scientific experiments, evaluating the results, and applying this experience to understanding the meaning and areas of validity, for theories and data from the wider world of science.

To take one part of this, the propagation of errors matters, whenever any results are quoted. I assume that precious few English graduates will understand how a random error will grow through the processing of a result, and be able to understand exactly what a statistical or clinical significance measure is giving. It is not sufficient that they are intelligent enough to do so, as it is also necessary that they have the learned knowledge.

It is just the same as asking me to fly a plane. I am doubtless clever enough to fly one, but not having had the training, you’d be better off asking a qualified person to do it. With science stories, it is generally going to be better not to hand them over to a team without any scientists in it.

Arts graduates are perhaps not going to pass the headline “Half of pupils achieving scores below the national mean”, but I would be willing to bet that they would be happy to print a story suggesting that the LHC might destroy the earth…

This is the one thing that drove me mad about the book!
For the record I am an arts/humanities graduate and I hate these idiots as much as the rest of you.

The people who think all “opinions” are valid don’t do so because they are arts graduates but because they are wrong.
Even humanity graduates whose job is to discuss whether “Simone de Beauvoir’s subjective narratism is objective enough to be called subjective” can perfectly understand that things like “antibiotics don’t work on viral infections” or “it is your liver that does the detox” are FACTS, and you can’t have a different opinion about it.