I think a bigger issue, especially in the softer sciences, is the failure of some researchers to differentiate between observational variables and experimental variables. Usually, this means treating the former as if it was the latter. The difference between them is that an observation can only tell you correlations, whereas an experiment can tell you causes.
A recent example would be studies that correlate pot smoking with depression or schizophrenia. The incidence of mental illness at any given time is merely an observation, not an experiment. An experiment would involve telling one group of people to never smoke pot, and another group to smoke it every day, and watch what happens over a period of several years. This is obviously unethical and can never be done. So the researches pull a fast one, and treat the observation of mental illness as if they did do the experiment. Not surprisingly, they find strong correlation between mental illness and pot smoking, and then say that the marijuana caused the illness. This is an egregious abuse of statistics, and is borderline evil, considering the political consequences of such papers.
|
|
Bookmarks