Can Experiments detect differences that matter?
This question is significant in interpreting scientific literature because it asks one of the most important questions. Whether or not an experiment should be done is based on whether the results from the experiment will be useful.
Does the study show causation or correlation?
The difference between causation and correlation is immense when it comes to interpreting scientific literature. The ultimate goal is to come to the conclusion that two variables cause an effect. It is not as useful as stating this it is only a correlation because there is no definite proof if it is merely a correlation. A phrase that I have heard many times before is “correlation does not mean causation.”
What is the mechanism?
The mechanism explains the steps in how things happen. The process is able to pinpoint specifically how things interact. An example of a mechanism could be how H. pylori is contracted and end up inhabiting the stomach.
How much do the experiments reflect reality?
It is always good to learn and discover new things, especially in terms of science when it can be of great use. However, if an experiment does not reflect reality, then it is not as useful to humans because it will not happen outside of a laboratory setting.
Could anything else explain the results?
This is one of the more important questions in regards to scientific literature because it is imperative to identify what exactly causes the results. If by some chance researchers were unable to identify the real cause for something, then that would portray false information to the world.
I think the question “could anything else explain the result” is one of the most important when discussing controversy because you would want the actual explanation. Scientific literature would not be useful if the researchers were unable to identify the exact reason that explains results.
