Dangerously Lost In Translation
The truth seems to be a distant artifact of today’s reality.
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. As the joke goes, you can pick which one of these three best suits your needs. But the reality is that truth often seems to be less data-driven and much more a function of the pundit that is professing this new reality or urgent observation. The path from “data” to “decision” can be a long and confusing path. And, like an insidious game of telephone, it can be a path of obfuscation, manipulation, and corruption. Aristotle wrote that truth is a fundamental pillar of human achievement—a true north to which we advance forward.
Today, that truth is less an objective reality and much more a subjective presentation of bits and bytes that are carefully constructed to create a narrative that’s hardly driven by Aristotle’s perspective on truth. The result is the barking idiot, spewing empty rhetoric that, on first blush, may be factually correct, but is built on nothing more than a superficially acquired handful of facts that either align with our own bias or just set into motion a maelstrom of confusion. From the how to the why to the who, the contemporary dissemination of facts, and dare I say wisdom, lies far from the truth.
METHODS. One of the main challenges in researching scientific data — and publishing it — is ensuring that it has not been manipulated, altered or crafted with any bias. When conducting research, scientists must be careful to take replicate measurements and use peer review processes to ensure that their findings are accurate. Additionally, they should always include detailed descriptions of how they obtained their results and provide access to the raw data so that other researchers can verify the results. In a word, reproducibility.
Although science is often thought of as a way to collect objective information about the world around us, there are many reasons why published data may not align with reality. One reason for this discrepancy is selective publication, where scientists only publish a subset of their results, even though other similar experiments have resulted in different outcomes. Additionally, interpreting scientific data can be difficult because it is often presented in a highly technical manner and may be difficult for nonscientists to understand. Finally, scientific results can become outdated as technological advances makes it possible to obtain more accurate measurements or even finds to methods for observation and analysis.
MONEY. Yet beyond methodology is another central issue to research results: money. The funding of scientific research is a complex issue that can involve many different organizations, including government agencies, private companies, and nonprofit organizations. One of the main challenges in this area is that there can be a bias towards certain types of research, often depending on the interests of the funding organization. Additionally, the process of peer review can also be biased, as reviewers may be more likely to approve a study if they share the same views as the author.
MADNESS. Beyond the data itself is its dissemination. One way that public pundits can misrepresent data is by selecting only certain data points to support their argument, while ignoring other data that may conflict with their views. They may use highly technical language that is difficult for the average person to understand, in order to make their argument seem more valid. And perhaps most importantly, the influencer has arrived—as an irrefutable source—to shape data in ways that that are validate more by decibels that data.
Despite these challenges, it is important to remain vigilant in holding pundits accountable for the accuracy of their claims. We must demand that they present their data in a clear and accessible manner, and that they are honest about any limitations or uncertainties surrounding their research findings. By doing so, we can help ensure that scientific research remains objective, methodical, and reproducible — and that we don’t fall prey to the madness of false punditry.
Despite these challenges, science remains an essential component of our understanding of the world around us, and researchers must continue to embrace rigorous standards of research practices in order to ensure that their findings are reliable and reproducible, and support an ethical narrative. These truths must be understood, embraced, respected, and allowed to diffuse into a system uncorrupted. True north hasn’t changed, we have. And that danger seems to have been lost in translation.
