Understanding the Complexities of Science in Leadership Decisions
Written on
Chapter 1: A Premier's Unpopular Decisions
Recently, Daniel Andrews, the contentious Premier of Victoria, stirred frustration among the state's 6.4 million residents with his announcement of an additional two-week extension of lockdown restrictions. This decision extended the stringent Stage 4 measures to a total of ten weeks.
At the outset of his lengthy 90-minute press briefing, Andrews invoked the authority of science, asserting, "You can't dispute this data. You can't dispute science."
Andrews' reliance on the concept of "because science" should not exempt him from scrutiny or debate regarding the validity of his claims.
While I hold science in high regard and have even built a business around innovative tech startups over the past six years, I must emphasize that advocating for scientific inquiry does not mean accepting every assertion made by those in power without question.
Science has undeniably enhanced our lives in numerous ways over the last century and a half—offering advancements in areas such as clean water, sanitation, transportation, and healthcare. In fact, a typical individual today enjoys a quality of life that surpasses that of historical monarchs.
However, it is crucial to champion both truth and rational discourse, especially when politicians wield the influence of scientific data over millions.
Chapter 2: The Argument for Scientific Discourse
Despite Andrews' statements, it is entirely valid to engage in debate over scientific claims. The essence of the scientific method is rooted in testing and challenging assumptions, rather than presenting findings as infallible truths.
As the late Nobel laureate physicist Richard P. Feynman famously articulated, "We can never be sure we're right; we can only be sure we're wrong." This perspective highlights the inherent fallibility of science, which can be influenced by errors, unknown factors, and even manipulation.
In their book Calling Bullshit: The Art of Scepticism in a Data-Driven World, Carl Bergstrom and Jevin D. West remind us that human motivations—such as the pursuit of money and influence—can compromise scientific integrity.
In this video, experts discuss the implications of using science to justify policy decisions and the need for accountability in leadership.
Section 2.1: The Replication Crisis
The scientific community is currently grappling with a replication crisis, where many studies are either difficult or impossible to reproduce. This issue is particularly pronounced in fields like medicine, psychology, and economics.
- Medicine: Research indicates that only 24% of highly cited medical studies from 1990 to 2003 remained largely unchallenged, leading to concerns about the utility of clinical research.
- Psychology: A 2015 investigation revealed that replication rates in psychology varied, with social psychology studies replicating at a mere 23%.
- Economics: A 2016 analysis found that one-third of studies from leading economics journals could not be replicated, raising questions about the reliability of empirical results.
Chapter 3: The Flaws in Data Interpretation
The integrity of scientific data can be compromised through various biases and errors in interpretation.
This video explores how misinformation can stem from misinterpreting scientific data and the importance of critical evaluation.
Section 3.1: Recognizing Bias and Errors
- Garbage In, Garbage Out: The efficacy of data depends on its quality. If flawed data is inputted, the resulting conclusions will be equally flawed.
- Confirmation Bias: Individuals may seek out information that reinforces their beliefs while ignoring contrary evidence.
- Cherry-Picking: Selectively presenting data that supports a specific argument can distort the overall picture.
- Correlation vs. Causation: Just because two events occur simultaneously does not imply that one causes the other.
- P-Hacking: Researchers may manipulate data to achieve statistically significant results, which can lead to misleading conclusions.
- Predatory Journals: Some journals publish research based solely on payment, which can diminish the credibility of the findings.
- Peer Review Limitations: While peer review is essential, it does not guarantee that all errors or biases are caught.
Final Thoughts
These issues reveal that the scientific process is not immune to manipulation. As Bergstrom suggests, "Any scientific paper can be wrong." Thus, when the argument "because science" is invoked, it should serve as a prompt for inquiry rather than a closure to discussion.
To engage meaningfully, consider the credibility of the publication, the number of studies supporting a claim, the motivations behind the research, and the integrity of the data used.
By enhancing our understanding of science, we can improve our decision-making and foster more informed conversations.
Steve Glaveski is the co-founder of Collective Campus, author of Time Rich, Employee to Entrepreneur, and host of the Future Squared podcast. His interests range from 80s metal to entrepreneurship and self-improvement.