In most cases, people do not justify the hardships that scientists incur when confirming certain realities in life. In my view, science isn’t broken rather it is the public opinion that defers in terms of the postulations of any scientific process. Science is the only tool that guarantees the truth in any natural setting. Therefore, much credit should be given to its difficult and rigorous procedures that ultimately guarantee good results. A critical analysis of the three articles from Atlantic, Vox, and pew research center clearly affirms that science isn’t broken as it is being purported by other scholars and critics.
The pew research center article on how the public trust science has corroborated that even though science is criticized, it still commands a large portion of the public trust. The pew research centre survey of 2016 clearly indicated that the public strongly support scientific findings. This clearly affirms that science is working as it should since it is supported by the majority of the public. These results also indicate that science ranks highly with a public confidence of 68%. These assertions clearly indicate that regardless of the criticism that science has received, its results are logically justified by the public. These assertions are also affirmed by the stipulations of the article on marshmallow test. Delayed gratification among children has proved to bear fruitful results when they finally become adults. The effectiveness of the marshmallow test depends on self control and how an individual is able to plan well for his or her future endeavors. The results of this scientific test have clearly affirmed that delayed gratification among children guarantees success in the future life. However, the effectiveness of this test depends on a variety of variables. For instance, the psychological aspect of the kids and their background plays an important role in the accuracy of this scientific test. The marshmallow test carried out by Mischel in 1990 corroborated that delayed gratification among children has huge benefits in their respective adulthood lives ( Jessica, 2018) . However, this research uncovered false findings from the earlier experiment. The original experiment had a small sample of 90 children. With this reduced population of children, the procedure was a success. However, in the second experiment, a population of 900 children was used and a key consideration given to other fundamental variables such as race, age and household income. The results of this test gave a huge margin of variance compared to the origin results. For instance, the household income plays an important role on the chances of a child waiting for the second marshmallow. However, the differences in these results should not be used to justify that science has reached its breaking point. From a critical point of view, the results of any scientific test depend on the selection of the key variables and the expected outcomes. Therefore, this affirms that science is just working as it should depending on the combination of variables. Failure to combine different variables in any scientific experiment does not justify that science is broken.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Additionally, the assertions of flaws in science from the vox article rely more on the media allegations. This could be a misleading position when it comes to analyzing any scientific experiment. The suspension of Stapel in 2011 was ill-informed because the case based its stipulations on false data in his dissertation ( Julia & Steven, 2015) . Inadequate data in any research is a human error which does not guarantee that science is flawed. It is also important to look at the positive aspect being brought out by the researcher. Limited resources in any research activity can lead to falsehood in the data obtained. Therefore, basing our judgment on the obtained results from a given experiment misleads the public on the general idea about the accuracy of science. Therefore, these critical assertions clearly indicate that science is just working as it should provide a proper procedural combination is achieved.
Even though some findings of science are justifiable, some data clearly indicate that it is actually broken. In recent times, the rates in which scientific results are replicated clearly indicate that it is actually broken. The original inventions did have some logical findings but the modern scientific tests have gone off the rails. For instance, the marshmallow test is likely to be effective when children are drawn from rich families where food does not justify gratification. In fact, the background of a child plays a major role in delayed gratification than the presented marshmallow. Therefore, the variables used in this experiment clearly show a flaw in science. The use of marshmallows in the Mischel experiment is misleading since there are so many variables that control the delayed gratification of the child ( Jessica, 2018) . In addition, psychology plays a crucial role in the marshmallow test. The initial assumptions of the circumstances that a child has gone through in the past have a very huge impact on the results obtained. Therefore, when these psychological disturbances are factored in, the marshmallow test is misleading. However, it is also important to note that poverty can have a short-term impact on the delayed gratification rather than the long-term response. Parental attention in molding the future of a child plays a major role in the delaying the gratification.
The article from vox, ascertains that researchers at Amgen were not able to replicate the 89% relationship of drug tests and cancer ( Julia & Steven, 2015) . This clearly indicates that science is broken since any scientific paper has to be reviewed by other scientists. Surprisingly, the journal was published without any other scientist realizing the flaws in the paper. This generally helps to uncover the fundamental concept that science is broken in general. The assertions of professor John Loandis affirm that most researches tend to manipulate theories that suit their false scientific findings. For instance, the scientific research that coffee can be very crucial in the treatment of cancer lacks a proper scientific background that is justified in the public domain. This is a misleading postulation that can prove very critical in the health sector. Peer reviewing of articles remains a very core concept in the fight against flaws in science. Generally, these findings clearly indicate that in modern times, science is broken and could even have a negative impact on the lives of people.
The mixed reactions on the confidence of the public on certain scientific findings clearly indicate that science is going off the rails. Pew research centre found out that 40% of people in America have enough confidence in the scientific findings. However, we should ask ourselves what the other 60% mean. These clearly indicate that people are growing less confident of the scientific findings as compared to the old days. The survey carried out by pew research center also corroborated that only 28% of Americans have confidence on the scientific findings on climatic change. These indicate that about 72% of Americans do not have full faith on the scientists’ stipulations of the process. This data is also supported by about 19% of American who have full confidence on scientific findings on the GM foods. The disparities in these confidence percentages clearly affirm that science is broken. They also help to emphasize that some scientific findings are not justified by the public.
References
Jessica, M, C. (2018). The Marshmallow Test: What Does It Really Measure? The Atlantic. Why Rich Kids Are S Good At The Marshmallow Test.
Julia, B. & Steven, H. (2015). Science is often flawed. It is time to embrace that. Vox.EDT
Pewinternet.org. (2017). Mixed Messages About Public Trust in Science. American press.
