There are situations that have begun to appear where the results taken as gospel for a period of time turn out to have been "wrong." One can think of assorted reasons for this, and there may in fact not be any one reason. But these "mistakes" leave a legacy of mischief, and the outcome of actions on inadequate (or missing, or wrong) data are hard to correct.

In many cases a correction seems to be just ignored -- post-modernist arguments seem to be designed as an excuse to do whatever one pleases in spite of any evidence. Solipsism and Nihilism abound. It's amusing to watch the frustration settle in when these arguments prove to be such a hard sell off-campus, in the everyday world, with everyday people who have no choice but to grapple with everyday risks. It is hard to tell whether it is this inexperience with data or out-right willful distortion that underlies phenomena such as the Dubious Data Awards 2000 (no doubt assisted by the absence of a statistics course, among other things, in Journalism School).

In other cases, there is a seemingly deliberate confusion: "absence of evidence" is not "evidence of absence". First, ensure there are no data testing Hypothesis A, assert that absence, and then in later discussion they argue against A because the literature does not support it. In other words, the lack of data is twisted to mean that the hypothesis is false -- say what!? To defend yourself against this and other logical fallacies, try the Fallacy Tutorial.

It's a bad time to be a crass empiricist. It is disquieting to see the growing number of "voices" that don't want to be confused by actually counting the horse's teeth. I grew up knowing I had to take politicians (and then software developers) with more than a grain of salt, but that list has grown to include a number of other constituencies. Passion, activism, and advocacy are admirable, up to the point where minds close and distortion begins. That's why reality-contact figures so prominently in psychopathology diagnoses.

"Hearing what you want to hear" is just the Plugger's description of "confirmatory bias," but repeating a big lie loud and often is a very different problem. As long as research is not proscribed by unidimensional agendas, eventually the truth will come out, though in the meantime we figure to continue wasting a lot of time and money sorting out truth and convenient fictions. That is an unfortunate outome of a zeitgeist of data fog, namely, if you are not active in a given area, how do you know who to trust? And if certain orientations are more favorably reviewed by IRBs, when will the situation be straightened out?

Political intrusions into research have been discussed before (e.g., Hunt's Know-Nothings), in efforts toward Silencing Science. Some on-going topics are discussed here and at the Junk Science website. Is there any reason to think IRBs are immune from such machinations? NO, quite the contrary. The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. -- H.L. Mencken

Obviously the list below could go on for a long time, but it should be clear that not all vested interests derive from a profit-loss statement. To paraphrase Andy Warhol, maybe we live in a time when everyone can be an expert on something for 15 minutes. But apparently that isn't long enough to satisfy some parties, they know how we should all live all the time. Intolerance under the banner of tolerance is something Winston Smith could easily understand.

The potential for poltical distortion is bad enough without giving IRBs license to further proscribe "good" research. Keep asking "Who profits?" And if a party piously proclaims independence from filthy profit, just ask "Who gains power?" "Power is the great aphrodisiac" -- Henry Kissinger, and other thoughts on power.

War Against Boys

Who is at risk in the schools? Is the educational system rigged against girls? Boys? Personally, I would say a good case can be made that both boys and girls are ill-served by the education industry. It seems hard to get decent data, and even harder to get anyone to pay attention to it, unless it serves preconceived agendas.
As I finished the Sommers book, I could only wonder, "If they were lying about this, what else are they lying about?"

"The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" -- an idea whose time has come and gone perhaps?

Post-Divorce Wealth Gap

The original -73% vs. +42% differential for women vs. men found a lot of willing, true believers. Will the corrected version ever be heard and accepted, or will the original dataset continue to be dogmatically cited when it serves some agenda?

False Memory Syndrome

Do "recovered" memories of childhood sexual abuse represent a real phenomenon -- specifically, are ALL such "recovered" valid? The vitriolic "discussion" surrounding this question makes it clear that a lot of people have decided they are. Minds are made up, and they do not wish to be confused by ANY data. Science is not served by this, nor are the troubled people.

Race Research

Some questions just can't be asked. On the one hand you will be damned if you don't "appreciate diversity," but if you do find differences you will also be damned. Young academics knowingly avoid this quagmire in order to achieve tenure in a timely fashion. (Unless this is your idea of race research.)

Gender Research

Doing gender research in any context is like holding dynamite in one hand and nerve gas in another, you're dead either way. The school issue above is just one example. This is another topic that only senior academics may be able to survive, but it still can present a (ahem) glass ceiling to career advancement if you don't find the "right" answers.

Day Care

At least since the initiation of Head Start, an industry has developed to provide services to children outside the context of the formal K-12 system and home. Do these help at all? Are they as good as a child reared at home? Are they harmful? Why don't we have better answers after several decades of this?

TV Violence

Does watching violent television programs produce criminals?

Violence Against Men/Women

Somehow a Saints vs. Sinners perspective doesn't seem any more plausible here than elsewhere. Consider workplace bullying

Phonics vs. Whole-Word Reading Instruction

Lots of FEOs (firmly expressed opinions), but what's a poor parent to conclude? or a very poor taxpayer? Not as volatile as race research or gender research, but still hazy in terms of definitive results, as far as I can tell.

Smoking And Lung Cancer

Well, I don't smoke, but I had to decide without good data, as do the jurors making those massive awards. And apparently the data in regard to silicon breast implants and breast cancer leave something to be desired as well.

It's interesting how when a legal judgment is made it becomes as important as peer-reviewed evidence, maybe moreso in the public's mind, thanks to the media frenzy. And we all know how well-trained typical judges, lawyers, and journalists are in terms of science and quantitative analysis.

AIDS

Those working diligently on the inside may feel that they know, but, from the outside looking in, I don't know how to sort out the advocates of this versus the advocates of that. I suppose I can say the same about Alzheimers and a number of other things. Is the solution to be found in more federal support for research, or is that going in the wrong direction, emphasizing public funding of research? Your answer may depend on whether you start thinking of yourself as an investor instead of a taxpayer .... that is, your taxes as an investment ... Maybe we should we privatize research?

Global Warming

Not social science, but clearly a case where there are equal but opposite experts.

More ...

• Do cellphones cause cancer?
• Is it good or bad to use anti-bacterial soaps at home?
• Are Franken Foods harmful?
• Is Fluoride in water good or bad?

A confusion of the real with the ideal never goes unpunished. -- Goethe.