The Irrational Ape: Why Flawed Logic Puts us all at Risk and How Critical Thinking Can Save the World

by David Robert Grimes

In 2005, John Ioannidis published the provocatively titled paper ‘Why Most Published Research Findings Are False’, which drew some arresting conclusions. In medical fields, many significant results are simply artefacts of poor trial design, underpowered studies, or groups with too few participants to draw meaningful conclusions. In his work, Ioannidis outlined six indicators that should be remembered when evaluating the veracity of any claim: 1. The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. If the sample is small, the chances of the group being representative is lower and the rate of false positives increases. This is precisely the kind of studies that advocates of naturopathy cling to, with small sample groups and poor-quality construction. 2. The smaller the effect sizes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. Correlation itself is important, but effect size matters too. Effect size is a measure of how strong the phenomenon is, useful for determining whether the observed relationship is mere chance or something more substantial. If the effect size is tiny, effects may be nothing more than chance. 3. The greater the number and the lesser the selection of tested relationships in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. Simply put, if an experiment generates lots of possible relationships, then by chance alone some of these might be false po...