Prompt:
In W. P. Hanage’s article, he discusses the importance of five key questions when interpreting scientific literature:
- Can experiments detect differences that matter?
- Does the study show causation or correlation?
- What is the mechanism?
- How much do experiments reflect reality?
- Could anything else explain the results?
Explain the significance that each of these questions have on interpreting scientific literature. Which is most helpful when discussing controversy, and why?
The question “can experiments detect differences that matter” is important when interpreting scientific literature because if we find differences in results that are not relevant, they can lead us away from crucial findings. The question “does the study show causation or correlation” is important when interpreting scientific literature because while two things may show a trend of correlation, they may not necessarily be caused by one another, hence we must be careful of confounding variables. The question “what is the mechanism” is important when interpreting scientific literature because understanding how the experiment functions is pivotal when trying to gain knowledge from the results. The question “how much do experiments reflect reality” is important when interpreting scientific literature because if the experimental design is not relevant to current issues, then the findings may not be applicable or helpful. Lastly, the question “could anything else explain the results” is important when interpreting scientific literature because again, we must consider confounding factors that would lead us astray from the focal points of the study. When discussing controversy, I think the most helpful question to ask would be how the experiments reflect reality, because we want our results to be applicable and useful.
