This article was taken from the October 2011 issue of Wired magazine. Be the first to read Wired's articles in print before they're posted online, and get your hands on loads of additional content by subscribing online. "The scientific community moves in step," says Professor Brian Cox, particle physicist and Wonders of the Universe presenter. "The consensus is likely to be right, but you have to balance it against the fact that there are paradigm shifts." So how does the truth-seeking wired reader differentiate the pseudo-scientist from the radical thinker? Here are Cox's tips.
1. Check for peer review "The number-one thing to check is if something has been in a peer-reviewed journal," says Cox. "Acceptance in a proper journal does not mean it's 'right' in any sense, but the methodology has not been shown to be wrong." Sometimes, in science, good methods are the best you can hope for.
2. Beware the maverick
Ensure the researcher is embedded in the scientific community; the consensus is rarely changed by those studying in isolation. "If it's some scientist working on their own, and they seem to have revolutionised the whole of physics, then it's probable that they haven't," says Cox.
3. Ignore headline grabbers
Hard science is complicated. "Sensationalism is not a part of writing up scientific papers. If you see a paper that says 'Higgs boson discovered,' it's likely to be bollocks," says Cox. "It's a good rule of thumb that if you understand the title of the paper, it's probably not really very good."
4. The balanced-reporting trap
Consider whether a news breakthrough is about the science, or the politics surrounding it. "Take something like climate change, which is politically but not really scientifically contentious -- what do you mean by reporting a balanced view?" It may be politicians, not scientists, disputing the issue.
5. Think method, not funding
Is publicly or privately funded research more trustworthy? "It's true that scientists in institutions such as universities or research labs tend to be puritanical," says Cox. But regardless of where the funding comes from, it's sound, acceptable methodology that determines reliability.
6. Showmanship can be science "In Wonders of the Universe, our explanation of entropy [using the disintegration of a sandcastle in a windy desert] really worked," says Cox. "It was a genuine point that things are made up of lots of little things, and thermodynamics can be best understood as the behaviour of the little things."
7. Real scientists make mistakes
Taking calculated risks is worth it; playing safe isn't. "You can't avoid mistakes," Cox reckons. "Because if you do, you're playing safe, and you're not going to do anything very well." Even the pros might look back and wish they'd done some things differently, but that's just part of being creative.
This article was originally published by WIRED UK
