Why Isn't Science-Backed Advice Always Best?

There is a lot of "science-backed advice" published in books, articles, newspapers, and other places where we get advice. But frankly, I always refer to scientific studies.

Note: This article is based on the work of Darius Foroux, in which he tells us about the validity of scientific advice.

This is because my goal in writing articles is to combine my personal experience with evidence, and I often share my own experience, while other times I post stories about other people's experiences and research. But I always think, "How can we trust these sources?"

But, fortunately, I'm not the only one who thinks so. Even scientists say we have to remain skeptical about the results of scientific experiments. David Chester, Ph.D., Virginia Commonwealth University Professor of Psychology, has long researched the studies, writing with colleague Emily Lasko, "It is very likely that the results of experimental psychology rest on untested grounds."

They conducted a study of scientific experiments in the field of psychology, Chester and Lasko researched 348 psychological experiments, and their studies showed that approximately 42% of the experiments lacked validity and evidence of health. Validity is an important concept in scientific research because it is an indication of the validity of the research. In other words, Chester and Lasko said that we cannot know the strength of the scientists' claims.

How to interpret psychology research?

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of Fooled by Randomness, is one of the biggest critics of scientific experimentation. “Any psychological ‘bias’ is an error by researchers who are missing some uncertainty in the study model,” he says. Taleb argues that scientists make mistakes in reasoning too, so we should not treat their findings as the truth and remain critical at all times. But how do we know which experiences lack validity?

Chester and Lascaux did not disclose that information, which I understand. They didn't want to point fingers at their colleagues, but we have to realize that there are a lot of such experiences. You may have heard of "learned helplessness," an experience that I have referred to in the past and also included in my productivity cycle, but does that mean that we can never trust science? Of course not.

Just because a study is not valid does not automatically mean that it is not valid. David Chester explains this well by saying, "Almost all the studies we examined failed to provide the necessary evidence that they were valid. This does not mean that it is not valid; its validity is not known." The absence of evidence is not evidence, but pseudo-intellectuals like to use the absence of evidence as evidence.

Perhaps the 17th-century philosopher John Locke was the first to write about this fallacy of thinking, and the old saying goes like this: “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” It is ignorance to reject science, and yet we have noticed this rejection throughout time. This is why we can all benefit from basic knowledge of how to interpret scientific studies.

Here are some things to keep in mind when reading about scientific studies

1. Scientists are humans, and humans make mistakes.
2. We don't know everything.
3. Avoid claims that come from a single source.
4. Non-Aligned.
5. If possible, test the ideas in your own life.
6. Evidence does not imply the validity of the claim.
7. Absence of evidence does not mean error.
8. There is no one size that fits all.

Always criticize theories

Both Warren Buffett and American entrepreneur Charlie Munger have done careful research on economists who believe in the efficient market hypothesis, which states that stock prices always reflect all available information and are priced efficiently. According to this theory, it is impossible for investors to buy stocks for less than they are worth.

This means that it is probably impossible to outperform the market as a whole, but not for Buffett and Munger, who have been consistently outperforming the market for decades. $1,000 invested with Warren Buffett since 1965 was worth more than $27 million last year, and the equivalent amount for a stock index was about $200,000.

Realizing that theories are not true is important for everyone, Especially when it comes to psychology experiments. So let me give you an example in the realm of personal development. Most writers like to point out the Zeigarnik effect.

The idea is that people will remember incomplete tasks better than completed tasks. Some experts claim that some tasks stay in your mind because you haven't completed them, but most other studies have failed to replicate Zeigarnik's experience (Van Bergen, 1968). This does not necessarily mean that the theory is wrong; Rather, it means that the concept may be true for some people, but not all people.

We must realize that experiments show results from a small group of participants. If a group of students continues to think about their unfinished assignments, This does not mean that we all think this way; each person is different from the other, and most of the experiences of psychology are circumstantial.

Perhaps the idea is true for a particular group of people or in a particular situation. For example, I myself have no problem with unfinished tasks. These things don't stay in my mind because I'm doing mindfulness exercises.

In his book Range, author David Epstein refutes most common beliefs that claim scientific evidence exists and shows that we must remain critical. These studies refer only to a very specific group of people, and we cannot extrapolate these ideas to everything in life.

The comprehensive facts are a few

The problem with information is the way it is presented. When we have an idea or learn something new, we tend to believe that it is 100% true. We like to present ideas as facts. The pandemic is a perfect example of this. I have read and watched interviews with dozens of virologists and epidemiologists, and almost all of them speak with complete confidence. They seem to describe science as hard facts, but very few things in life are as direct and obvious as basic mathematics.

Ask 100 teachers to show a child how to do basic math and you will see a uniform approach. Basic math is an established fact, and we can't argue with the fact that 5 x 5 equals 25, but ask 100 virologists if we should close schools during a pandemic and you get a war of thoughts, and no one knows who has the right idea.

In conclusion

There are very few hard facts in life, things we can say with absolute certainty, and I personally live my life according to those facts, Most of them are common sense, things that have been passed down from generation to generation.

One of these facts is something I learned from my mother, who in turn learned it from her father, and so forth. My grandfather firmly believes in the power of waking up at the same time every day; he is a very organized person; this strategy works perfectly for him; and he is still independent and lives on his own.

I also follow his advice, I tried this advice and found it useful. Most of the time, I am most consistent in life when I get up at the same time every day, so you can always do your own experiments to see what works for you. We don't have to be scientists to try things, but I am glad that people like Chester and Lasko continue to conduct scientific research with an open mind because results like this show us that we never stop learning.