It’s a pretty good title. More direct, to the point, captures the heart of what the article is trying to say… but I don’t know if it would have drawn in as many people read it and get the point.

Your comments do a good job of capturing the heart of the article, but I think what you said in your last sentence is the most important issue. Most people aren’t going to read scientific articles and come to sound conclusions. Most people will jump on the bandwagon of a new fad that claims scientific foundations. The industry is filled with these, especially the muscle mags. Read them for a good laugh :)

I am completing a B.sc. in Biochemistry, so I also have a quite a bit of knowledge about science, and specifically the biochemistry behind diet.

This is a good article, but the title is very misleading, and in fact incorrect.

Good, peer reviewed science should always be trusted, not the interpretations but the data obtained.

The media will often find out about some scientific study and completely misrepresent it to the public as if that one study held the truth about a particular topic. This is simply not true, in almost every field of science there are studies that come out with seemingly contradicting results. The data of a good study is true (although no data is ever 100%) but the interpretations can be off.

The article should read “Why you shouldn’t trust the media’s interpretation of science”

Science will always be the closest answer to the right answer of any question. However, science is not truth, science is simply the closest thing to the truth.

Also, there are no “inherent” limitations to science. Anything that affects this universe in any way whatsoever can (theoretically) be studied scientifically. There are many things that we are not yet capable of studying, but this is simply a matter of time.

The reality is, if people knew more about the scientific process and could read scientific articles easier, it would be much easier for people to come to rational consensus on issues.

And I agree, there’s nothing wrong with science per se. But it’s no crystal ball that gives infallible answers, and it does have its inherent limitations just as statistics does. Our conclusions are sometimes only as good as our assumptions.

Which is why I’m glad you brought up statistics. Most statistical studies are very limited by error and confounding variables if we’re not careful (and we’re not always careful). Ironically though, as you get into post-graduate work, I’ve heard that many disciplines (including sciences) rely heavily on statistics to make conclusions.

Statistics apply to medical sciences as well. The classic study you might hear is “We found that “X”% of particapants had “Y” reaction to variable “Z”. Therefore, we conclude “XYZ”. Many such research papers then end with a discussion of it’s own limitations.

Your are correct about the problems with making assumptions based on statistics.

However that is not SCIENCE. There is nothing wrong with Science. There is something wrong with believing in statistics. Statistics should not be trusted, because they are manipulated so easily and rarely give the full picture. So don’t blame science, blame statistics. Stats are just a guide, not a truth.

that’s my sigh of relief that the article passed the biologist test. Fortunately, independent scientists will agree about those inherent limitations as they don’t have a special agenda to push or corporate profits to protect. Thanks for your input.