When I was in Junior High School in the U.S. and 12 years old, our science teacher had us memorize the steps taken in the scientific method. Not being able to recall those steps exactly, since the memorization effort has not performed well over time, I found the updated version above that generally fits all scientific endeavours from lab science (biology, medicine, physics, psychology) and controlled conditions, to earth science and astronomy.  In fact, it has a multiplicity of uses as I will try to establish later.

As noted, this list can be used for just about any type of research from theories about ancient manuscripts to ideal breakfast nutrition Cuckoo4CocoaPuffs.  And it is iterative, meaning that the entire set of steps, or parts thereof, are repeated until the question is correctly answered or modified accordingly. But only after the series has been repeated.

Yet, all too often, the premise of the research effort is “lost in translation”, frequently mired in the competitive drive to have an observed outcome fit a question a researcher wants to answer. Alternatively, take a result and, if it does not fit the initial question, rationalize it so that it does (“post hoc ergo propter hoc”). Without serious controls in place, both “fudges” result in bad research and thus, bad science. But not being cut and dried as we wish (another often untenable question?) most things in life to be, the problematic approach to science and life has no easy solutions.

As long as the legitimate search for truth is kept before us all, trial and error are tolerated, indeed expected if a question is not answered sufficiently.

With the observably journalistic inability to report news in serious question today, where reporting is often confused with editorializing, or trying to make a premise fit a result, it is probably no surprise that scientific research seems to be failing to adhere to, at the very least something akin to a scientific method as noted above.  I picked this article because it is a current event. However, just google “bogus scientific research” and you will find many articles from reliable or venerable sources reporting on the same issue in scientific research identified here:  Publish or Perish!

Yes, there is the threat of an infinite regression in this, since one could question the research on the research, which is itself a serious occupation, as noted in this article from five years ago( Replicate Replicate …..). But the fact that so many in the scientific community are questioning the credibility of research–often in prestigious journals–that is relied upon to approve drugs or establish government policy and the funding that ensues, should be sounding an alarm bell somewhere.

With the dubious exception of “investigative journalism”, science and journalism seem strange bedfellows, and indeed they are. Science uncovers answers to questions, journalism reports on events. Both must have integrity, independence, objectivity, and accountability or they cannot really be considered science or journalism. Above all, they must have a sincere desire to seek the truth in their outcomes.

Now, let us throw into the mix, those paragons of virtue, politicians and their ability to assess a situation and proclaim their “truths”.

Recently, on the issue of immigration in Germany, President Trump indicated that crime in Germany was on the rise. This was immediately met with a counter claim by his 2016 presidential opponent that in fact that wasn’t the case. To find out a bit more about the claim and riposte, I found that in 2016, as reported by the Telegraph, immigrants suspected of crimes increased by 52%.   The Misery of de Maiziere?  This article data was reported by the former Minister of the Interior. Since this is 2018, I went to the German Ministry’s English website for more updated numbers.

On the website, the Federal Ministry has reported the lowest number of criminal offences in 2017 since 1992! Homepage, German Ministry of Interior. The site also provides a summary of statistics for 2017 which I have provided in a link below.  Yes, incidences of reported crime, in the most recent report of 2017, have decreased in Germany year-over-year! Hillary, you are correct.

However, Section 7 of the report lists consolidated suspect and crime trend statistics, open for review and analysis. If you assume a German population of 82 million, in 2017, there were a total number of 1.375 million German criminal suspects representing 1.6% of the population. Assume 2 million “immigrants” as defined by the Interior Ministry in this report. There were 170,000 reported criminal offenses per 2 million immigrants or 8.5% of the immigrant population. While the number of immigrant crimes reported has decreased year over year, an immigrant is 5 times more likely to be a criminal suspect than a German. So, rhetorically speaking, President Trump, you are correct. The Police Crime Statistics 2017 .pdf can be found here:  HeimatStats

The real social “scientific” question to ask about the statistics provided by the German Interior Ministry should go something like this: Why are immigrants living in Germany 5x more likely to be criminal suspects than German citizens in 2017?  Conversely, why are German citizens 5x less likely than immigrants to be criminal suspects in 2017?  Even the way you phrase the question could get you a different and plausible outcome, perhaps even replicated.  However, an answer may not be observable, so it likely will regress into theories and premises related to “nationhood”, etc.

I have long accustomed myself to listening to politicians lie, outright, or by omission. This obvious observation should not be controversial and the evidence presented here would lend support to its global reach. If it is truly global, perhaps both forms of lying are (a theory to test) characteristic of human politics. Assuming this, when I try to understand current events, I only rely on articles “reporting” information to give me the bare necessities of a “reportable event” while I source the details, i.e., try to get as close to the root source of information/event reality as possible.

When scientists become like journalists or politicians, well, Houston does have a problem.

Whether it is the inability to formulate a clear question or premise to begin the scientific method or research, or the failure to replicate the results of the study to demonstrate, objectively, its validity, the results are the same: sloppy thinking and findings.

It is bad enough that drinking coffee or red wine, eating eggs or being vegan, result in extreme, faddish swings in supermarket supply chains. Those swings would only affect a few people, depending on who read what when and where (the journalistic method at work). But when it comes to earth and climate science, medical research, and biology, which are truly a matter of life and death, have we used the scientific method well enough to help us long term?

Science, as a method of observing and measuring the world around us, is a great and necessary tool.   But to make effective use of it in scientific research or research in any other discipline, a researcher must establish their first principles grounded in something resembling the first and subsequent steps depicted in the above chart.  But when science is addled from the very first step and critical premise, like journalism and politics, it may be that only heaven can help us.