Science and Culture Today Discovering Design in Nature
red-pulsating-heart-with-veins-anatomy-of-a-human-organ-on-a-728695283-stockpack-adobestock
red pulsating heart with veins, anatomy of a human organ, on a blue background with bokeh
Image Credit: yanapopovaiv - Adobe Stock
Latest

High Confidence? Low Confidence? Six Criteria for Science Claims

Categories
Medicine
Technology
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

On a new episode of ID the Future, guest host Eric Anderson welcomes medical engineer and scientist Rob Stadler to begin a two-part discussion about the critical need for a new approach to evaluating the strength of evidence in science. Drawing from 30 years of experience in a field where lives depend on rigorous regulatory standards, Stadler explains how he developed six criteria to distinguish between high-confidence and low-confidence scientific claims. These criteria evaluate both the quality of the experiment and the quality of the scientist.

To illustrate the difference between high and low confidence science, Stadler shares a humbling story from his career in medical devices. When evaluating a heart device feature intended to reduce atrial fibrillation, his team conducted a retrospective study by looking back at a massive database of 37,000 patients to see who had the feature turned on, finding an impressive 50 percent reduction in the heart problem. But because they were simply looking at old data, they had no control over confounding factors, like why a doctor chose to turn the feature on for one patient but not another. Four years later, a prospective study proved that the setting actually had no impact at all. So the smaller, more controlled study provided a high-confidence result that completely overturned the misleading findings of the much larger, but less rigorous, retrospective study.

Stadler also contrasts the cautious, legally-mandated language of medical claims with the often absolute, overstated confidence found in evolutionary biology textbooks. He argues that by applying these practical filters to scientific claims, we can learn to critically assess science news headlines and understand why certain fields lack the evidentiary rigor demanded by the medical world.

Download the podcast or listen to it here. This is Part 1 of a two-part conversation. Look for Part 2 next!

Dig Deeper

Andrew McDiarmid

Director of Podcasting and Senior Fellow
Andrew McDiarmid is Director of Podcasting and a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute. He is also a contributing writer to Mind Matters. He produces ID The Future, a podcast from the Center for Science & Culture that presents the case, research, and implications of intelligent design and explores the debate over evolution. He writes and speaks regularly on the impact of technology on human living. His work has appeared in numerous publications, including the New York Post, Houston Chronicle, The Daily Wire, San Francisco Chronicle, Real Clear Politics, Newsmax, The American Spectator, The Federalist, Technoskeptic Magazine, and elsewhere. In addition to his roles at Discovery Institute, he promotes his homeland as host of the Scottish culture and music podcast Simply Scottish. Andrew holds an MA in Teaching from Seattle Pacific University and a BA in English/Creative Writing from the University of Washington.
Benefiting from Science & Culture Today?
Support the Center for Science and Culture and ensure that we can continue to publish counter-cultural commentary and original reporting and analysis on scientific research, evolution, neuroscience, bioethics, and intelligent design.

© Discovery Institute