krait: a sea snake (krait) swimming (Default)
From: [personal profile] krait
I notice there's a whole lot of confusion in the mainstream media when scientific results are published; people don't seem to know how to interpret findings, or what a lot of the terms mean (standard deviation, causation versus correlation) or how a GOOD study should be set up (placebos, double-blinds, possibility of influence by other factors such as corporate sponsorship, how many subjects should be used to get a reasonably accurate result, how data is collected) or what to look for when something is probably sketchy (sample size, lacks citations from other research, data comes from surveys, ...?) and common flaws found in many studies (same as "sketchiness indicators"?).


As you can tell, I know some of these things, or at least have vague memories of them from school, but not enough to really write the entry!

This prompt might benefit from multiple answers, in fact -- I'm pretty sure that a reasonable number of subjects could be "10,000" when studying mice or corn plants, but "50" when studying people with heart murmurs... likewise it's probably silly to give a placebo to a cat, but sensible to a human. (At least if it's a drug study. If it's a study of, say, allele frequencies in population X, it's not going to be at issue at all.)
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

science: DNA molecule (Default)
Scientists on DW

August 2019

S M T W T F S
     123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 21st, 2025 12:02 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios