Believe You Me: How the Scientific Method Might Change Your Mind | Kelly O'Connell | TEDxStLawrenceU

Summary

Highlights

• A debate on contraception questioned the reliance on personal feelings over facts. 🤔
• The scientific method can clarify truths beyond just scientific fields. 🔍
• Real science involves small, incremental advances—not always groundbreaking changes. 📈
• Even baking can be approached scientifically—how much sugar makes a cookie taste good? 🍪
• Information overload can be countered by looking for peer-reviewed, reliable sources. 📑
• The process of publishing scientific findings is rigorous, reinforcing credibility. 📜

Key Takeaways

• Trust in science should be built on evidence, not gut feelings. 🧠
• The scientific method is a universal tool for truth-seeking, not limited to labs. 🔍
• Scientific exploration is about incremental learning, not just grand discoveries. 📚
• Everyday decisions can benefit from a more scientific approach—think before you act! 🕵️
• The essence of science is curiosity and an unbiased quest for facts. 🌌
• Challenge opinions with evidence and share knowledge responsibly. 🤝

Overview

Chapters

• 00:00 - 01:30: Introduction and Conversation on Contraception The chapter begins with a setting where the narrator and a friend are having a casual conversation about the March for Science. This naturally leads into the topic of women's access to contraception. They discuss the various types of contraceptives available, focusing particularly on oral hormone therapy or birth control pills.
• 01:30 - 03:00: Relying on Personal Beliefs vs. Scientific Evidence The chapter discusses the tendency of individuals to rely on personal beliefs or feelings instead of scientific evidence when forming opinions, particularly in the context of health and medicine. It highlights how statements such as 'I just don't feel like it's healthy' are often used to reject scientific or medical advice, and references comedian Stephen Colbert's term 'truthiness', which humorously describes trusting gut instinct over factual evidence.
• 03:00 - 04:30: Scientific Method Beyond Science The chapter titled 'Scientific Method Beyond Science' discusses the primary methodologies people use to form opinions, which are usually based on personal anecdotes and fundamental social values. However, it emphasizes that these opinions or beliefs should ideally be informed by scientific evidence. The chapter illustrates this by providing examples, such as individuals forming opinions about hormonal contraception based on personal stories or social values, rather than scientific data.
• 04:30 - 06:00: Personal Experience with the Scientific Method The chapter titled 'Personal Experience with the Scientific Method' discusses the role of hormonal contraception, emphasizing how changes in hormones like progesterone and estrogen can affect individuals differently. It also highlights the prevalence of information that targets beliefs and social values to influence opinions. Importantly, the chapter underscores the significance of the scientific method, which relies on experimentation and analysis to assess the truth in science, excluding personal opinions and beliefs.
• 06:00 - 09:00: Detailed Scientific Inquiry The chapter titled 'Detailed Scientific Inquiry' discusses the scientific method as a universal approach applicable beyond science. It illustrates this with a real-life example of a toddler learning through trial and error how much force is needed to open a drawer. The child increases the force gradually until achieving the goal, reflective of hypothesis testing. The chapter also notes that as people grow older, they often use their previous experiences to form their problem-solving strategies.
• 09:00 - 12:00: Scientific Research & Peer Review The chapter titled 'Scientific Research & Peer Review' explores the importance of relying on data-driven evidence rather than personal experiences and emotions when forming opinions, particularly in the fields of science and medicine. It emphasizes the need for honesty and accuracy in scientific research and discusses how scientists can help the public shift towards evidence-based opinions.
• 12:00 - 15:00: Applying the Scientific Method in Everyday Life The chapter 'Applying the Scientific Method in Everyday Life' discusses the importance of forming scientific consensus through rigorous experimentation and peer review. It highlights the speaker's journey into further education, acknowledging a prior understanding of biology and chemistry and anticipating a deeper exploration of these subjects during their undergraduate studies at St. Lawrence. The chapter conveys the speaker's initial belief in the comprehensive knowledge acquisition process at college.
• 15:00 - 18:00: The Importance of Science in Society In 'The Importance of Science in Society,' the chapter reflects on a personal journey in the scientific field, highlighting the transition from undergraduate studies to a Ph.D. program. The narrator shares an initial perception of having extensive knowledge, only to realize the broader scope of unknowns upon entering the Ph.D. program at the University of Maryland in Baltimore. This narrative underscores a fundamental aspect of science: the continuous cycle of recognizing what we know, acknowledging the gaps in our knowledge, and designing experiments to address these questions.
• 18:00 - 19:30: Closing Remarks on the Value of Scientific Inquiry The chapter discusses the often modest scope of scientific research questions, contrasting them with grand scientific inquiries like planetary shapes or climate change impacts. The example of a Ph.D. study is used to illustrate how scientific investigation typically focuses on very specific topics that incrementally contribute to the broader knowledge in a field. In this case, the Ph.D. research is focused on cardiomyocytes (heart cells), specifically examining the mitochondria within these cells and further narrowing down to study a channel or an opening in the membrane of these organelles.

Believe You Me: How the Scientific Method Might Change Your Mind | Kelly O'Connell | TEDxStLawrenceU Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 [Music] so is sitting with a friend having a casual conversation about the March for science last year when we ended up touching on the subject of women's access to contraception this led to a conversation about the different types of contraception and how they work when it got to oral hormone therapy for women or birth control pills my friend said I
• 00:30 - 01:00 just don't feel like it's healthy to regulate periods like that now I may not be an expert in contraception but the statement bothered me it bothered me because she said I just don't feel like it's healthy people use these kinds of statements all the time especially in science and medicine Stephen Colbert even corned a satirical term to describe this that he calls truthiness which he defines as relying on gut instinct rather than fact when
• 01:00 - 01:30 people form opinions that usually use one of two categories as a foundation the first is personal anecdotes and beliefs so in this case you might say well my friend gained a lot of weight on hormonal contraception so I don't believe it's healthy the second category is fundamental social values so you might say it's not right to change how your body functions but these two categories should ideally be informed by if not bridged from scientific evidence
• 01:30 - 02:00 so instead saying something like hormonal contraception changes a woman's level of progesterone and estrogen and a change in these hormones affects people differently there's a lot of information out there that targets beliefs in social values in an attempt to influence your opinion but turns out there's actually a pretty well described method for assessing whether or not something is quote unquote true in science this method uses experimentation and analysis devoid of personal opinions and beliefs
• 02:00 - 02:30 and this approach is called the scientific method and it really can be applied to any field not just science we can see people using the scientific method every day over the holidays I watched my one-year-old nephew oddly test the amount of force necessary to open a drawer basically he pulled on the drawer on multiple times increasing his force each time until he had an answer the door opened and he fell down as we get older we tend to rely on our past experiences to guide how we think about a problem and then we sort of
• 02:30 - 03:00 Reason our way to an answer but when it comes to science and medicine sometimes simple reasoning doesn't work we actually need data so all of us got me thinking how can we as scientists help shift people towards forming their opinions based on actual evidence rather than personal experiences and emotion well first I think we need to collectively understand that the science itself needs to be honest and accurate but we also need to understand that when
• 03:00 - 03:30 you hear of forming a scientific consensus like 97% of scientists agree on X Y or Z that those conclusions were formed from rigorous experimentation in peer review when I started my undergraduate education here at st. Lawrence I came here understanding that I didn't know everything but I thought that here at college this was where I was going to learn at all I came here thinking maybe I had a pretty good foundation in biology and chemistry but we really delved into those subjects in
• 03:30 - 04:00 dr. Anna Estevez is cell bio class or dr. Sam glaciers by a P chem course and I learned so much more so when I graduated I thought ah ok now I know everything but it wasn't till I joined the ph.d program at University of Maryland in Baltimore that I found myself in familiar ground realizing that actually didn't know all that much again and that's the story of science understanding what we know understanding what we don't know and then devising experiments to help answer our questions
• 04:00 - 04:30 and most of the time it's not a huge question like the shape of a planet or humans effects on climate change the questions we a scientist try to answer a small and they usually only incrementally increase the knowledge in a field for example my PhD focused on a specific type of cell in the human body that cardiomyocyte these are the cells in the heart within these cells I looked at a specific organelle called the mitochondria on an even smaller scale I looked at a channel or an opening in the membrane of
• 04:30 - 05:00 this mitochondria and then even smaller still I looked at how molecules might affect the opening of this channel and I looked at all of us in an effort to understand a macroscopic effect very important in life altering disease in some people's lives which is heart failure and how to keep people with heart failure alive longer so with this very narrow research focus I don't claim to be an expert in all things science but I can reliably say that I am an expert in using the scientific method
• 05:00 - 05:30 and performing experiments so what is the scientific method exactly well it starts with asking a question and I know this sounds pretty easy we ask questions every day but to truly ask a novel scientific question takes a solid understanding of a topic to know where those crucial gaps are and filling those gaps is really what meaningful science is all about so during my doctoral studies I had big questions and I had little questions and a similar question as my nephew asked earlier about force I
• 05:30 - 06:00 asked a question about strength the strength of these little mitochondria inside heart cells so we've known for a long time you probably know from your general bio courses that mitochondria are called the powerhouses of the cell and they're called this mainly because they produce the energy needed for things like muscle contraction like the heart mitochondria also help buffer calcium levels to which aids muscle movement as well but they can only take up so much calcium until they burst it's
• 06:00 - 06:30 kind of like filling up a balloon with air at some point you're gonna reach the maximum capacity of the balloon and it'll pop so with that understanding I asked how much calcium can a mitochondria take up until they burst with the understanding that the more calcium they take up the stronger healthier that mitochondria is the second step of the scientific method is to develop hypothesis in an experiment designed to answer your question since I was studying heart failure I wasn't so much interested in normal mitochondria
• 06:30 - 07:00 but rather mitochondria from sick animals and mitochondria from sick animals that I had treated to help increase their capacity to calcium and I performed a ton of experiments I tried different combination therapies different stages of heart failure and of course different doses of calcium until I realized when those mitochondria burst and whether or not my experiments or therapies helped increase their capacity to take up calcium the last steps of the scientific
• 07:00 - 07:30 method include analyzing your data and submitting work for publication so after gathering and analyzing all of my data I had to put my results into context within the broader scientific community studying heart failure and mitochondrial function so I wrote up papers I submitted my results and I was subject to peer review sharing the results of research is an important part of science we all stand on the shoulders of those people and the ideas that came before us
• 07:30 - 08:00 and shared knowledge allows us to grow and picking the right journal with which to submit to is also important not all journals are created equal so when you read a scientific article it matters where that journal was published it also matters if that journal uses the peer review process the peer review peer review process which used to be called refereeing is a process where an other people are thought leaders in your field have read and critiqued a new piece of work this helps maintain the integrity
• 08:00 - 08:30 of the field and helps ensure that really only quality work is published while papers that need revision are not so after addressing concerns from reviewers which could range from small formatting mistakes to major revisions requiring many more experiments and additional months of study a paper is finally accepted for publication and this by the way assumes that it's not just flatly rejected so and this is a very bench science example of using the scientific method but you can really use this method for many things not just
• 08:30 - 09:00 science take baking as an example baking is actually a pretty scientific process let's say you're trying to create like a healthier version of a typical cookie maybe using less sugar as an example so you might run through the same recipe multiple times decreasing the sugar each time until you created a cookie that no longer tasted good well you just use science to answer the question of what is the minimum amount of sugar necessary to create a
• 09:00 - 09:30 good tasting cookie of course good here is relative but the point remains you gather data you analyze the results by tasting it and you made a conclusion you can also use the scientific method for more difficult questions questions you can't answer yourself with your own experimentation take my friend's opinion on contraception if she were really curious about the safety of these types of medications she can log on to PubMed gov which is a digital archive run by
• 09:30 - 10:00 the National Institute of Health that contains a library of biomedical and life science literature with over 27 million citations on the site you can type in hormonal contraception safety and see that there are over 400 results in the topic there are even papers there that summarize the numerous safety articles so you don't have to read each one of them individually yourself unless of course you wanted to so the answers to those types of questions are available without having to use personal anecdotes and opinions and answering
• 10:00 - 10:30 them in this way uses the scientific method to you--you've gather data you analyze the results by reading it and then you make a conclusion so why am i up here talking about my research into a small organelle in the heart or my friends opinion on birth control pills the point is that creating meaningful conclusions is a difficult process in
• 10:30 - 11:00 the science world it takes years of training and many layers of scrutiny to publish findings that have an impact and you don't need to be a scientist to make use of the scientific method in your everyday it's simply an unbiased evidence-based approach to answering a question unfortunately today we're living in a society where the curiosity and hard work of finding answers is being replaced with an increasing reliance on personal anecdotes and beliefs in today's society we want
• 11:00 - 11:30 things fast we want our information fast and we want our answers really fast but sometimes the best most reliable information and answers comes from a more traditional way of thinking using the logical method of science if we can slow down attempt to carefully understand something we may actually learn meaningful truthful answers facts exist whether we believe them or not whether we understand them or not and
• 11:30 - 12:00 it's our right to believe or understand something but just because it's our right doesn't make that fact any less true we should all be out there educating ourselves about the world challenging each other's opinions and passing that knowledge on to others dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson says the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you and though that's true with a solid understanding in the sciences combined with hard work we can work together and try to make sense of it and that is
• 12:00 - 12:30 progress thank you [Applause]