This is a really common problem, actually, at least among people on the internet with whom I converse about scientific stuff. Example: among the community of people who believe in (or don't actively disbelieve in, or are Devil's Advocates for) the scientific foundation of paramornal phenomenon, and who believe that it's possible to scientifically show such phenomenon. When a skeptic links to a study that concludes that no paranormal phenomenon was observed, but that mentions that further study is necessary (either because the research was limited in some way, or because the researcher was a "believer" who expected a positive result), the opponents of the paper's result will point out that it was not a "successful study" because the researcher called for further research.

Despite the fact that all researchers call for further research. If a research paper conclusively ends the debate, then the lab's source of funding won't pay them to do more research!

For reasons like this, I think most educational curricula should include a mandatory, introductory "philosophy of . . ." class, where you spend some time going over some basic arguments regarding philosophy of science, the philosophy of math, whatever is appropriate. Nothing in depth -- just enough to get everyone to stop and think for a bit about what science/math/law/psychology/medicine/religion/sociology whatever *is*, and how it became the discipline that it is today.

Yep, I agree.

treepour, my college did that in a way, with the required general-knowledge classes all supposed to focus on "Approaches to Subject X." I loved it, because it didn't just focus on the content of the course but also explicitly focused on why historians, for instance, use certain conventions in their writing and approach their subjects a certain way, while literary critics come at things from a different angle and therefore use different conventions. The science classes were very much about scientific approaches to the world, and why science finds certain things interesting or problematic or whatever. They recently switched it over to an "Intro to Subject X" approach, and I think they'll lose something because of it.

And muddgirl, seriously. You'd think these people would read enough papers to realize that it's pretty much a *requirement* to call for further research, not an admission of failure. But at a more basic level, it just seems like they have no understanding that experiments don't just happen one time and then Yay, We've Proved Something! And most of my classmates were Psych majors, so you'd think that the actual truth of these things might have sunk in SOME time during those four years of science-y classes.

What you're describing seems to also be one of the prime drivers when it comes to creationist's arguments against evolution. If you listen to them rattle-off their speaking points, it becomes clear they feel that, since science does not provide definitive, case-closed, explanations of absolutely everything, then science must not be correct about anything.

It's this damned all-or-nothing, black-and-white mindset our society seems to be wallowing in.

it's because [sorry, generalities ahead] the education focus of the last 2 generations has produced a wealth of 'lazy thinkers', whose only goals are regurgitating enough correct information to score high enough grades to achieve their next goal. we cram far, far too much in the way of FACT YOU MUST LEARN THIS bullshit at our students, and never seem to give them the luxury of investigating it on their own.

critical thought and introspection is barely valued. only metrics.

I suspect my classmates don't understand the scientific method . . . For reasons like this, I think most educational curricula should include a mandatory, introductory "philosophy of . . ." class, where you spend some time going over some basic arguments regarding philosophy of science, the philosophy of math, whatever is appropriate . . . the education focus of the last 2 generations has produced a wealth of 'lazy thinkers', whose only goals are regurgitating enough correct information to score high enough grades to achieve their next goal.

Good, good points.

I would summarize what you all are saying by this:

The American educational system doesn't try to inculcate scientific habits of mind in students who are not going to specialize in that field. Science is taught as a body of knowledge, like history. The methods that led to this body of knowledge are not part of most curricula.

"the education focus of the last 2 generations has produced a wealth of 'lazy thinkers'"

Hmm, I suggest that this issue requires further study.

The data indicates that I agree, but further research is necessary.

It's this damned all-or-nothing, black-and-white mindset our society seems to be wallowing in.

The funny thing about cautious skepticism is that people who are decidedly certain about things almost always shout much louder than the actual conversation that's going on. It's like kids and grownups, really.

The American educational system doesn't try to inculcate scientific habits of mind in students who are not going to specialize in that field. Science is taught as a body of knowledge, like history. The methods that led to this body of knowledge are not part of most curricula.

I agree that that is what we are saying, but I'm wondering if it's actually true. I certainly learned about the scientific method as kind of a theoretical orientation, rather than just a technique, though I don't remember when I learned it -- and I went to a public high school in the South, so if we're trading on stereotypes, I should have missed that training -- so I don't understand how others haven't.

I would also say that what you're summarizing shouldn't apply to students who did major in psychology, since psych tries to present itself as a science and this should have come up for my classmates before now. Yet it does, and apparently it hasn't.

The data indicates that I agree, but further research is necessary.

Indicate. Pet Peeve. Sorry. /asshole.

I blame grade inflation

'Indicates' is just as valid. Pet peeve. Sorry. /another asshole.

The OED has citations for data as a singular going back to 1902, one of which (from 1965) says "by general usage data is now accepted as a singular collective noun".

Really? Not by any copy editor that's ever picked up on one of my mis-types.

(scientific journals = different standards? doesn't seem likely)

I agree that this is part of a bigger picture of poor scientific literacy in American society. But it is confusing, since I agree with occhiblu that it gets taught - I managed to absorb a basic understanding of the scientific method during a relatively unremarkable public education. Understanding that findings create limited discrete pieces of knowledge, build upon one another, suggest more research, and can be combined into theories - all of that got taught.

Media handling of SCIENCE! is, I think, largely at fault. That is one reason why I can be predicted to rage madly at the latest "OMG MONKEYS PROVE THAT MEN EVOLVED TO LIKE HOOTERS RESTAURANT!" studies whose small results are broadly interpreted and wildly overgeneralized.

I also think that study bias gets short shrift as a topic in science education. Though I'm not a psychologist, as an undergrad I spent a lot of time on learning theory and play studies with regards to gender bias in education. It was amazing how often gender bias had been built right into studies inadvertently. Then, as they were cited, they snowballed into large bodies of kind of lousy theory.

I'll never forget one study I read about whether boy babies were more fussy at one week old than girl babies. They measured things like how much time babies spent crying and noting physical motions. Boy babies were much more 'active' than girl babies! Until they tried to replicate the study in the UK. The results weren't duplicated.

The UK boy babies weren't circumcised.

Understanding what a study can and can't be understood to say is, I think, pretty important. As is learning how much weight to give a single unreplicated finding. As is how much weight to give a researcher's interpretation. I think our schools might actually not be sucking at this (though I haven't been in a secondary science classroom in, mmmfffty-oomph years), but our giddy thirst for new 'knowledge' in the form of breaking science news stories that explain everything! very well may.

I'm still disappointed to hear that former psych majors are this fuzzy on these matters, though. Heck. They definitely should have a solid perspective on it - else why the stats classes, sample surveys, abstract writing?

Sure, academic copy editors can set their own standards, but in general usage data as a singular is widespread and hence perfectly valid.

[just remembered learning about Planck in 9th grade bio. That's when we got the sci. method as a "theoretical orientation" - learning about how early on, people may have thought that rotting old sacks of wheat gave birth to mice and the like. After we LOL MEDIEVAL PEOPLE!'d that, we were introduced to the idea of sharply focused hypotheses and replicatable findings, control and variable, etc.]

Oh you know matthewr, my NZ education (with focus on British style) may be to blame as well

first google result (don't know how correct this is, but it'll do as my theory)

Strictly speaking, data is the plural of datum, and should be used with a plural verb (like facts). However, there has been a growing tendency to use it as an equivalent to the uncountable noun information, followed by a singular verb. This is now regarded as generally acceptable in American use, and in the context of information technology. The traditional usage is still preferable, at least in Britain, but it may soon become a lost cause.

I learned that about splitting infinitives, for which you could still get eviscerated in my high school and university, and when I moved to the US and railed against one of my students doing it, they looked at me like "what the fuck are you talking about". (I do it all the time anyway, though not in formal writing).

I hadn't thought to tie in poor science journalism, and I would totally believe that that's a major factor.

It does, however, make me even MORE frustrated, because the actual project during which my classmates were reacting with weary disdain against scientists who can't prove things definitively and globally is one in which we're supposed to find mainstream press coverage of scientific studies and analyze how the coverage sensationalizes and distorts the studies. Sigh.

Re: "data"...

Doesn't standard usage (at least in non-scientific/non-academic writing) allow it to be treated as a collective (and therefore singular) noun?

that's what matthewr said upthread. I've never heard it so, but then again, I only really say the word at work.

I don't think the American educational system is at fault here. It's rather the general attitude towards the so-called hard sciences, especially Physics*. Physics is considered to be the gold standard of science, the science that can give definitive and (in some sense) final knowledge about the world. This goes back to at least Thomas Kuhn, who showed that even if scientific (ie physical) theory is superceded by another theory, this does not completely invalidate it: the earlier theory is simply proven to be less accurate (or the new one is proven to be wider in scope). This means that even the most insignificant scientific study will give at least some truly final results.

* Somewhat paradoxically, this sort of attitude is the strongest in fields furthest away from Physics. This is sometimes called Physics envy.

Did this make any sense to you? I seem to be a bit tired and I'm definitely a bit drunk, so I might not be too coherent right now. I also have the nagging feeling that there used to be a third button under this text box besides 'Preview' and 'Post'...

i'd like to add to this but i am unsober. i think the third button should be 'Moment of Sobriety' or 'Sober Edit' instead of the lost spellcheck.

It's rather the general attitude towards the so-called hard sciences, especially Physics*

I would argue that the culture of Physics itself propogates these beliefs. I learned more about the process of science (and by that I mean knowledge-making, not specific laboratory techniques) from hands-on work and from STS classes than from my "Intro to Physics" class. It's understandable that they must cover a lot of practical and theoretical knowledge in a short period of time, but they are, on a whole, very dogmatic and final about it. They present the Michelson–Morley experiment as the first and last word on the existence of luminiferous ether. They teach that Einstein was a mere patent officer who, through unparralleled genius, dreamed up Relativity without any cultural context.

It's not until graduate study, or research labs, where you realize that even geniuses like Einstein built their ideas on bits and pieces from other, not-famous scientists. That every time you ask yourself a question and answer it scientificially, it contributes to the scientific pool that the rest of us can drink from. It's why Proxmire's Golden Fleece award is still so repugnant to me, as it so often targeted sociological and scientific research.

Yeah, I was using data like "data set".

I love this article from Bitch about how bad journalism regularly utterly misrepresents and distorts the actual publication into something totally unlike the actual conclusions.

Casarkos, that's a great article!

That is a terrific article. I wish that article were a book. I've saved the page because, without a doubt, there'll be times to refer to it. Thanks casarkos.