How to stay true to our science: Three principles to guide our behavior.

Abstract

The ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) was last known to exist in 1944. Unexpectedly, in 2004, it was purportedly seen near Brinkley, Arkansas. This claim resulted in a scientific expedition that produced inconclusive video that was used to confirm the bird's reemergence from extinction, article in Science magazine extolling the excitement that the bird was indeed back, and a worldwide fascination towards a species supposedly extinct but now here again. Yet, despite over 5 years of searching at a cost of over $10 million, there remains no physical proof that the woodpecker is in fact alive (Radford, 2009). At a 2004 Florida conference about treatment for Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), a medical doctor spoke to a group of parents about electromagnetic fields and their impact on autism. The doctor asked one parent if she used cell phones, to which the parent replied in the affirmative. With a grand wave of the hand, the doctor pronounced, throw them out! advocating for the unproven belief that the electrical energy emanating from cellular phones was somehow either responsible for or negatively impacting the symptoms of this neurological disorder. When confronted with claims that are presented as true, how can we make a reasonable evaluation to ascertain, as confidently as possible, whether the claim has merit? This fundamental question impacts virtually all areas of our society. Claims abound--of alien abductions, the existence of the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot, and the eating of wild boar meat to cure autism. How can we separate the wheat from the chaff in a way that both prevents the acceptance of wildly suspicious claims that have no support, and permits adoption, with some level of certainty and comfort, claims that are likely to in fact be true? The best way known to evaluate claims is to adopt the intellectual discipline of science and the scientific method of investigation. This methodology involves (1) adopting philosophic or skepticism (e.g., Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007) and (2) conducting controlled experiments that (3) minimize threats to internal validity. Practicing skepticism is crucial to protecting oneself from believing unsubstantiated claims. Though the American public views science's effect on society as positive (in a recent survey, 84% of respondents said that the effect of science was mostly positive and that the scientists were ranked as the third-most contributing profession to society, after the military and teachers; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2009), the continued adoption of unproven beliefs, claims, and bizarre treatments (particularly in the field of autism) remains strong, suggesting that although science is lauded, skepticism--and scientific thinking in general--is not widely practiced. The use of experimentation is the most rigorous of the levels of science (Cooper, et al., 2007), because of the use of systematic manipulation of variables to test the existence of causal relationships. Skepticism is not a view that promotes the disbelief of every truth or claim (Normand, 2008). Skepticism is more refined. Merriam-Webster Online (2010) defines it as, an attitude or doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or towards a particular object. The word is from the Greek skeptikos, meaning inquirer or investigator (DiCarlo, 2009). Pigliucci (2009) defines skepticism closer to the original Greek meaning as the suspension of judgment (either to adopt or reject) until sufficient evidence is examined. Kurtz (2010) stresses this perspective with his discussion of skeptical inquiry, approach that promotes the examiner to .. .seek, when feasible, adequate evidence and reasonable grounds for any claim to truth in any context. (p. 21, as quoted in Normand, 2008). Claims of all kinds should be, before adoption or rejection, examined for the amount and quality of evidence that supports them. …