Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- science_says [2023/12/16 13:45] – ultracomfy
+++ science_says [2025/04/09 20:26] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+~~Title:Science Says~~
+<WRAP column right 18%>
+{{page>Templates:Science}}
+</WRAP>
 <fs xx-large>Science Says</fs> (or variations of 'scientists say') is a popular catchphrase amongst news outlets and "educational" content trying to lend credence to particular claims. I know it particularly in connection to rather dubious, questionable "news stories" or content creators and has a kind of reputation for being wholly wrong more often than not.
-A perfect example is this YouTube video about the game [[DEFCON]]: [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6neDk_4XBs|DEFCON scares me and science says it will scare you too]]. A similar repeat offender of this kind of stuff is the ubiquitous pop-science YouTube channel [[Kurzgesagt]].
+A perfect example is this YouTube video about the game [[DEFCON_(Game)|DEFCON]]: [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6neDk_4XBs|DEFCON scares me and science says it will scare you too]]. A similar repeat offender of this kind of stuff is the ubiquitous pop-science YouTube channel [[Kurzgesagt]].
 ===== The problems with Science Says =====
@@ Line 10: / Line 15: @@
 ==== 2. Science doesn't say what you thought it says ====
-More often than not, the "conclusions" drawn from presented studies or general research papers are a little bit more... enthusiastic than what the paper actually suggests. In the case of the DEFCON video "DEFCON scares me an science says it will scare you too" the premise is that "science" found something inherently and uniquely "scary" in DEFCON that affects everyone equally. Depending on how you want to see it, either you accept that the concept of <wrap em>fucking dying</wrap> is perhaps a little bit disconcerting to humans (which is not new or something that needed science to verify) OR you say that there is no one such thing that every human ever will definitely always respond to with fear (ie. getting scared), but either way you will have to agree that this is NOT what the study said. The relevant study here is named "Education from inside the bunker: Examining the effect of Defcon, a nuclear warfare simulation game, on nuclear attitudes and critical reflection."(([[https://journals.sfu.ca/loading/index.php/loading/article/view/130/165|Examining the effect of Defcon,a nuclear warfare simulation game,on nuclear attitudes and critical reflection, retrieved on Dec. 14, 2023.]])) and, as is already apparent, does not actually study //emotional response// to //the video game DEFCON// and instead examined how, in people, the perception of "nuclear attitudes" changed after playing DEFCON. TL;DR: Most people after playing DEFCON took the threat of nuclear war more seriously than before playing DEFCON, in comparison to those who did not play it. This is very far away from the claim in the title of the video.\\
+More often than not, the "conclusions" drawn from presented studies or general research papers are a little bit more... enthusiastic than what the paper actually suggests. In the case of the DEFCON video "DEFCON scares me an science says it will scare you too" the premise is that "science" found something inherently and uniquely "scary" in DEFCON that affects everyone equally. Depending on how you want to see it, either you accept that the concept of <wrap em>fucking dying</wrap> is perhaps a little bit disconcerting to humans (which is not new or something that needed science to verify) OR you say that there is no one such thing that every human ever will definitely always respond to with fear (ie. getting scared), but either way you will have to agree that this is NOT what the study said. The relevant study here is named "Education from inside the bunker: Examining the effect of Defcon, a nuclear warfare simulation game, on nuclear attitudes and critical reflection."(([[https://journals.sfu.ca/loading/index.php/loading/article/view/130/165|Examining the effect of Defcon,a nuclear warfare simulation game,on nuclear attitudes and critical reflection, retrieved on Dec. 14, 2023.]])) and, as is already apparent, does not actually study //emotional response// to //the video game DEFCON// and instead examined how, in people, the perception of "nuclear attitudes" changed after playing DEFCON. TL;DR: Most people after playing DEFCON took the threat of nuclear war more seriously than before playing DEFCON, in comparison to those who did not play it.\\
-The science does not necessarily contradict the claim of the designer of the video, but it's clear that the science, apart from not saying much at all, definitely did not say what the designer wanted it to say.\\
+The science does not necessarily contradict the claim of the video title, but it's clear that the science, apart from not saying much at all, definitely did NOT say what the designer of the video wanted it to say.\\
-In its most fundamental sense, "Science says" is often used fallaciously by taking studies, finding in them data that //points// in some direction, and then going on to claim that study has established "facts" even though the science has, if anything, only ever pointed in that direction. It makes for some good headlines, just like the video.
+In its most fundamental sense, "Science says" is often used fallaciously by taking studies, finding in them data that //points// in some direction, and then going on to claim that study has established "facts" in that direction even though the science has, if anything, only ever //pointed// in that direction. It makes for some good headlines, though.
 ==== 3. It wouldn't even necessarily be wrong ====