Basic science and statistical understanding

[MrsTerryPratchett]

I'm not a scientist. I do have a BSc. but nothing more impressive. I do wince when I hear some assumptions that people make who don't have basic science (and statistical) knowledge. What basic scientific or statistical principles do you wish the general public (and members thereof) knew about?

I'll start. Causation and correlation. A correlation doesn't prove causation. Particularly when that correlation is a correlation of one. "I had the flu vaccine and got the flu really badly" isn't causation.

The best I can do.

I'd like people to know that just because they were summer born and did really well at school, it doesnt mean that at a population level summer born children dont do as well.

Definitely, and you’ve reminded me of false balance on news reports where a minority view with virtually no evidence to support it is presented as being an equally valid position to take.

And this applies to more than just science.

Also, people who confuse all medical professionals for public health experts.

false balance on news reports

Yes. John Oliver did an excellent bit on this.

Also, thanks for the goat!

It’s a bit overused, but it’s still true.

A long time lurker, I have joined Mumsnet just to say I have been waiting for this thread. I have found my people!

For me, it's risk, risk, risk.

@FifeQuine

A long time lurker, I have joined Mumsnet just to say I have been waiting for this thread. I have found my people!

For me, it's risk, risk, risk.

I feel very honoured. Welcome.

Me too!

Following with interest!

@MillieEpple

I'd like people to know that just because they were summer born and did really well at school, it doesnt mean that at a population level summer born children dont do as well.

I was going to say this one too. 'Well, I was born in August and I was top of my year so I don't think it's true' - apparently you're not clever enough to understand what population level means, though!

The other huge issue is confirmation bias, though I know I can be just as guilty of that. People made up their minds very quickly about how scared they thought they should or shouldn't be of Covid and just gather more and more evidence that 'proves' what they already think.

apparently you're not clever enough to understand what population level means, though!

Appreciating the limits of your own knowledge/skill set. I like researching things and follow things as closely as I can but I am not a doctor or a scientist therefore I accept that I almost certainly lack the skills to fully understand and/or interpret the data.

As a result if decisions are to be made about, for example, whether a particular population would, on balance, benefit from being vaccinated against Covid I am probably not the best person to make that choice. I'm ok with that.

Which is why a referendum was such a bloody stupid idea for brexit. Not a hope in hell most of us understood a tiny part of what it meant.

See also @Hardbackwriter point about confirmation bias!

I'd like people to find and read studies themselves , rather than quote the bit the journalists who also haven't read the studyquote. The lack of interrogation of data bothers me very much at the moment.

I'd like people to actually look up the likelihood of being knocked over by a bus on their way to school before trotting that one out!

I would also like people to understand that small percentages (eg 1%)can actually be a big thing. This comes up a lot in discussions about school absence,and about mortality rates.

Also, people who confuse all medical professionals for public health experts.

Oh, yes! This is partly created by media reporting.

1. Populations and individuals
2. Correlation and causation
3. Risk

I could tear my hair out about these. Explains 90% covid threads on here

Oh yes, the referendum was beyond stupid. The whole point of elected officials is that they are elected to represent the electorate and make decisions on things that the vast majority of people have neither the skills nor inclination to make. I'm fairly certain the decision to hold the 2016 referendum will go down in history as one of the stupidest decisions ever made by a British government (and that's saying something).

Oh, also: almost no one really gets logarithmic scales, to the extent that I'm not sure they should be used in anything aimed at anyone other than specialists. Maybe not even then - I heard David Spiegelhalter talking about this on More or Less and he said that there was some evidence that even public health professionals often draw incorrect inferences from graphs using logarithmic scales.

I would like people to understand what scientific research is, and that trawling the internet, reading different news articles and opinion pieces is not the same thing. People are always saying ‘I’ve done my own research and reached my own conclusions”, or advising others to “Do your own research and then decide what you think is best”.

@Magpiecomplex

This will sound petty, but the meaning of asymptotic. Lots of posters here are using it interchangeably with asymptomatic, which I'm sure is simply autocorrect or auto-suggest.

It’s definitely autocomplete - I have a PhD in Epidemiology, and I keep spotting that error in my own posts (and work emails).

I absolutely know the difference between an asymptote and having no symptoms, and know those are two different words. Unfortunately my phone does not. It is like “Male” the place for “male” the gender.

What random actually is. It doesn't mean that if you have 100 things laid out in a grid and pick 5 they can never be adjacent.

almost no one really gets logarithmic scales

I think some concepts are just difficult to fit into a brain using language designed to tell other apes where the fruit is. Scales are meant to represent data simply. Then you mess with it so it doesn't. It's bound to trip you up because it's hard to hold, 'wait that's 100 times bigger' in your head.

@murmurgam

What random actually is. It doesn't mean that if you have 100 things laid out in a grid and pick 5 they can never be adjacent.

Random is weird. I use random number generators at work and they never seem 'random' to humans. Which makes them more 'random' actually.

@MrsTerryPratchett

almost no one really gets logarithmic scales

I think some concepts are just difficult to fit into a brain using language designed to tell other apes where the fruit is. Scales are meant to represent data simply. Then you mess with it so it doesn't. It's bound to trip you up because it's hard to hold, 'wait that's 100 times bigger' in your head.

Yes, I agree. I 'know' intellectually that it's 10 or 100 times bigger but I just can't 'feel' it in the way I do with a graph with a normal scale