5 things backed by science that will increase bullsh*t.
I’m now into the second week of my membership of medium and every day I’ve witnessed proclaimed X-step-guides into ways of becoming a better/more productive/healthier individual polluting my frontpage. And it’s all ‘backed by SCIENCE’!?! It’s time to call BS.
Writers, whether on tabloids & magazines, book authors, or bloggers here at medium, take science hostage in order to attract readers in the pursuit of financial gain. It’s problematic. Here’s why:
Not only are the scientific foundations of the claims that are made on thin ice, only backed by a single paper or two that themselves state their results as inconclusive and in need of further investigation, but the claims made are also often way out of proportion in comparison to what has actually been investigated.
Next, and perhaps more importantly (this is why I couldn't stop myself from this rant of frustration), is that it heavily dilutes the reputation of actual scientific discoveries. (and my medium feed 🤬)
Don’t misunderstand. I am heavily for the notion that science should be communicated to the masses, and it is one of my own reasons for considering to begin writing on medium. But the problems appear when inconclusive studies are purposefully misinterpreted into 5 step programs to solve some universal problem.
It’s clickbait. It’s a facade put by the author. And probably the most crucial aspect: the claims are at best motivating, but at worst potentially harmful lies, which among other things deteriorates the credence of science overall. It’s no surprise that multiple branches of pseudoscience have gained such mainstream recognition, in light of the unscrutinized ways we accept the deliverance of science reporting. Fueled by greed and egoism.
The topics are usually regarding self-improvement, health, or some other topic that will resonate with the common public = gain a lot of attention.
Here’s an example:
To the left, we have a featured post from 2014. The title invites the reader by promising increased productivity. Well, who doesn't want to be more productive? And of course, it’s ‘backed by science’.
Now, I won’t dive into the story itself, but let us focus on the intention of the article and the author behind the title.
Ideally, such an article should either be written by a science writer who is specialized in communicating the development and discoveries in the sciences to the masses, enabling those discoveries to affect everyday lives positively. Or at least, a scientist or some sort of professional within the scientific domain.
Instead, we have a marketer and eCommerce Marketing Agency. People specializing not in the scientific domain or the art which is the communication of science, but an expert professional who is specialized in grabbing your attention and making a profit out of it. With no interest or care regarding what the means or consequences to achieving that goal is. All the while deteriorating the credibility of science.
Try it for yourself: make a search in medium for the phrase “backed by science” and then begin to investigate the authors behind the post. 4/5 times, you won’t encounter someone who has specialized in the field they write about for the sake of sharing and distributing knowledge they are passionate about, but rather someone who is another aspiring “4-hour workweek” make-money-on-the-internet no matter the means blogger.
Also, it dilutes my medium feeds for actual informative content, which pisses me off.
Message of the story: don’t feed the monster, be more critical of what ‘backed by science’-stuff you consume.
Rant over. Hoping you the very best.
