How to Tell A Real Expert from a Charlatan
In today’s world we are overwhelmed with experts on this and that demanding that we do what they claim to address some issue of importance. We see this in global warming, the COVID 19 pandemic, energy conservation, abortion, and so much more. The question is who should you trust as being a true expert? It should be obvious that those experts cited by the administration in power and /or the mainstream media are actually scientists who are parroting the story demanded by the politics of the day. As such, certain politically expedient actions are taken under the guise of “following the science”, but, when these actions end up in failure, the politician declares it the fault of the experts so how was he, the politician, to know? The question is not so much why do the experts get it wrong so often, but is instead “How can we tell real experts from political mouthpieces?” Many think you have to be extremely knowledgeable in science to make this determination, but quite frequently this is not the case. Real scientific experts can often easily be found and charlatans exposed simply by observing their behavior, but this requires a basic understanding of some simple scientific tenets. Here are three easy methods to tell the expert from the charlatan.
Tenet #1: Argument
It is no secret that scientists love to argue. If one ever goes to a scientific conference, one will see scientists arguing in just about every hall or room at the conference’s venue and just as they will see them arguing at local bars and restaurants all through the night. Many think scientists like to argue simply because they are proud of their work and are trying to convince others of their brilliance or how they are correct while everyone else is wrong. Sometimes this is indeed the case, but far more often it is not and to understand their real motive one must understand some a basic concept about science and research.
Performing science to gain new knowledge is an iterative process. As I perform experiments I gain new knowledge, but this new knowledge frequently causes me to significantly modify my original question or to discover completely new questions that I should be asking. As such, it is a fundamental truth that scientific research build upon what has been discovered. In other words, today’s research results become the foundation for tomorrow’s work. Now ask yourself a simple question. What happens if today’s work is flawed? If today’s work is flawed, then the information obtained from today’s work will be incorrect which means tomorrow’s work, based on the flawed results of today, will be guaranteed to fail by either not working or by providing further false information. Science is filled with examples of researchers making a simple mistake in thinking, logic, calculations, etc., only to result in disaster for the program as well as wasted time and money. Cold fusion was one example.
When scientists get together and “talk shop” they appear as if they are arguing. In reality they are looking for flaws in their own work, better ways to prove their point or confirm critical information, seeking better explanations for their observations, looking for improvements in their theoretical model, etc. They are doing all of this because they want to be right for being wrong leads to lost time and money, fewer publications, and their career stagnating.
So now ask yourself another simple question. Why would a credible scientist refuse to hear criticisms of their work or try to censor what other scientists with differing opinions or ideas had to say? While there is occasionally a good reason to behave this way, most often the reason why a scientist does not want to hear criticisms or demands that others be censored is due to a questionable motive by the scientist. This is behavior that sends a signal to be cautious where this individual and their opinion is involved.
Tenet #2: Openness
A basic truth in that science is an empirical study of the natural world. This means that observation is the fundamental basis of science because it is through observation and measurements that we seek to better understand the world around us. To accomplish this we make an observation, develop a theory as to why what we have observed happens, and then devise experiments that will either prove or disprove our theory. This means that science is not only empirical, but it is predictable and repeatable. So, for example, if I understand gravity correctly and modelled it well from my observations, I should be able to shoot a cannon ball at a given velocity and at a given angle and predict exactly where it will land time after time.
A difficulty that frequently comes up is that one cannot always directly measure what one is studying. If I am studying something having to do with temperature, then I can potentially make direct measurements simply by using a thermometer, but if I am studying, for example, the temperature of the environment from thousand or millions of years ago, then I cannot use a direct measuring device such as a thermometer. In this case I must use what are called proxy data. An example of proxy data in this temperature measurement example might be measuring isotopic ratios of oxygen in trapped microbubbles in an arctic ice sheet or the distribution of pollens in sediment samples from the ocean floor. These proxy data measure one item such as isotope or pollen information because extensive research has shown a well characterized and direct relationship between the proxy data being measured and the temperature in the environment at the time these measures were created in nature. But not only must these proxy data measure what is claimed, there must be absolute proof that the samples being measured were created in nature at the time being claimed. Needless to say, the use of proxy data can quickly become quite complex requiring the use of complex computer programs for their proper analysis and, once again, these data analysis computer programs must accurately calculate what is being claimed.
So what happens when a scientist, claiming secrecy issues, refuses to divulge how their proxy data correlates to the measure being claimed or if they withhold the computer code used to analyze the the proxy data? When this happens the first question that arises is how can the work be peer-reviewed since there is nothing that can be reviewed. A peer-review process can not work when the reviewers are given little more than “Trust me”. Additionally, how can other scientists attempt to repeat the work when essential elements involved in the original work are held as a secret? Without the ability to review or repeat the work, one must question if the work can even be classified as legitimate science. While it should sound rather obvious that many basic elements of scientific inquiry collapse when there is no openness, many would be surprised as how often this happens especially in those areas of study that are contentious. If a scientist is making measurements leading to contentious claims and that scientist refuses to share their computer code or any other information related to how he data was collected or analyzed or even how the proxy data relates to the information claimed, then one should have some very serious concerns about the credibility and politics of that scientist. The normal response to these situations is “What does the author have to hide and why?”
Tenet #3: Sharing
Perhaps I was an oddball scientist, but I always believed in sharing. I would meet other scientists at conferences, they would ask where I had obtained certain samples, and, because of our shared interests, I would send them some of those sample when available. Likewise, I was always up into the wee hours of the morning sharing ideas with other scientists at a local bar whenever I went to a conference. The initial result of this sharing was the occasional collaborative publication, but over the years this increased to several collaborative publications annually. Sharing ideas, samples, data, etc., was and remains a great way to broaden one’s horizons and does wonders for one’s reputation in the scientific world. It also opens up new ideas and such when people of different disciplines get together to solve problems. I have long ago lost count of the number of times some scientist lamented over a problem for which no solution could be found only to discover that speaking to another scientist from a distant, but related, discipline yielded a simple and obvious solution that resulted in a collaborative breakthrough paper.
Regrettably, in today’s world, sharing is not quite so easy. With so many looking for patents and research to monetize, many scientists are discouraged from sharing ideas, samples, and more. Perhaps the most egregious example of not sharing concerns the raw data that was the basis for a publication. The refusal to share the raw data is perplexing because there is little to no potential of an intellectual property of patent issue arising. Even more interesting is the argument that arises when the government provides the funding that led to a research paper. It should raise a red flag when the research is funded by the US government, a public source, and yet the researcher claims a right to keep the raw data private. In fact, there are now laws being contemplated requiring the release of all raw data whenever a paper is published that was funded by a US government grant. No matter how this issue is resolved, the basic question remains - “Why would anyone be unwilling to release or share their raw data?”. Is it paranoid to think the reason not so share raw data is because the raw data doesn’t show what the authors claim it shows? In any event, the refusal to share raw data and such should raise a red flag about the expert nature of the person in question and whether or not they are truly an impartial judge of the science.
Conclusion
The take home lesson is clear. A scientists future and success rests on their ability to publish and a legitimate scientist would do all they can to succeed. This means they would release their computer codes and such to aid in the peer-review process, they would welcome as much open dialogue as possible, they would share in ideas and such, and so forth. While concerns about potential patents and intellectual property issues might inhibit these behaviors, anyone engaging in secretive behaviors should be viewed with a jaundiced eye. After all, what kind of expert scientist tries to hide their work and engage in activities that would make being a successful scientist so much more difficult?