If a Link Between Two Factors Doesn't Prove One Causes the Other, How Do Researchers Securely Establish Facts?
Humans are a bunch of strange creatures. We're inventors, artists, scientific geniuses, and yet we're pretty dimwitted on the regular. Our brains make us prone to certain fallacies in our thinking, and one common quirk is our confusion between causation and correlation.
The web is teeming with hilarious examples of this kind of foolishness. Some are outlandishly exaggerated, while others are actual errors people have made, regardless of their status or level of intelligence. Take, for example, the notion that the decrease in pirates from the 19th century was responsible for climate change. The idea is that as the number of pirates dwindled over the past 130 years or so, the effects of global warming have increased. So, to save the planet, we'd better grab our swords and pirate flags! This theory has even been transformed into a fancy graph, so it must be legit, right?
Here's another crackpot theory: America's cheese consumption has a direct impact on UFO sightings in Wyoming. So, with every slice of cheese a person eats, they either attract extraterrestrials to Wyoming or cause the residents of that state to see space aliens.
Obviously, these insane claims are utter nonsense, but they illustrate the kind of thinking that happens when people jump to conclusions based on two variables that are unrelated. You've probably heard the old saying "correlation does not equal causation," and it's especially relevant when you consider the scientific process. If this is indeed true, then how can scientists ever prove anything they're studying?
Inductive reasoning is usually the driving force behind scientific knowledge. But the confusion here is that scientists actively search for causal relationships, relying on rigorous experimentation, statistical methods, and logical deduction to do so. The merger of these elements helps to determine the "most likely" explanations for how X affects Y. But some scientific fields like physics and chemistry make it simpler to conduct experiments as compared to others, like biology, medicine, psychology, or social sciences due to the complexities of living organisms.
Laying the Foundation for Possible Causation
When it comes to establishing causation (whether you're a scientist or an amateur detective), researchers lean on a variety of strategies to strengthen their case. In particular, inductive reasoning comes into play, where people make generalizations based on the data they gather from specific observations. This is often the genesis of scientific knowledge.
Take, for instance, a marine biologist doing research on coral reefs. They observe widespread bleaching across specific reefs and correlate it with higher water temperatures. They collect data from multiple sites and notice that the bleaching seems more prevalent in regions with warmer waters. This leads them to hypothesize that there might be a connection between these variables.
More research supports this notion. Regions with increased ocean temperatures appear to have more bleaching, while areas with stable temperatures experience little to no bleaching. Based on these findings, the biologist can make the conclusion that "if ocean temperatures rise above a specific threshold, coral bleaching will increase." The beauty of this hypothesis is that it's testable.
The researcher could conduct a controlled experiment in a lab where coral is grown in tanks with varying water temperatures. If the coral in the warmer water bleaches, it bolsters the original inductive conclusion. They could even investigate the reaction of different coral species and gather long-term ocean temperature and bleaching data to fine-tune their understanding.
If any causal explanation is valid, then it should allow for accurate predictions.
While this example is oversimplified, it demonstrates how scientists seek to establish causation for a phenomenon, particularly one based on the initial observation of correlations. However, even this would not be enough to attribute coral bleaching to rising ocean temperatures. The biologist would also need to analyze other confounding factors, such as pollution, ocean acidification, the presence of disease, or the intensity of sunlight. Luckily, these factors can be investigated through laboratory experiments and field studies.
Additionally, other researchers may delve deeper into the coral itself, examining how rising temperatures affect its biology. They could explore how heat stress destabilizes the coral-algae symbiosis, causing the coral reef to bleach. This adds valuable context to the role that heat plays in coral bleaching, rather than relying on an observed correlation alone.
Further investigations could involve natural experiments examining the relationship between temperature fluctuations and coral bleaching, comparing reefs in areas with different thermal histories or more localized temperature anomalies. For example, researchers could assess the impact of historical temperature changes on corals from regions with varying temperature variability over time.
If any causal explanation is correct, then it should be possible to make accurate predictions based on it. Scientists often test their hypotheses using models forecasting future temperature rises, predicting the extent of coral bleaching under various scenarios. They could even employ epidemiological techniques to predict the outbreak of a bleaching event before it occurs.
Confidence Matters
All the examples I've discussed represent independent research using different scientific methods focusing on the problem of coral bleaching, but they are by no means the only studies contributing to the subject. When combined, the collective evidence supports the idea that rising ocean temperatures are causing corals to bleach.
Ultimately, evidence is key when ascribing a causal mechanism for any phenomenon. When you have several complementary pieces of evidence from multiple sources, your assertions become stronger.
The way scientists approach causation is more crucial than ever. In the above example, attributing coral bleaching to high water temperatures involves insights from numerous studies, not just the findings of a single study. This leaves us with greater confidence in the accuracy of that conclusion. When researchers replicate the findings, the overall support for the theory strengthens, even if they occasionally encounter methodological errors. In cases where conflicting evidence arises, the scientific approach remains flexible, allowing ideas and explanations to evolve as more information becomes available.
In summary, science is far from certain, but with the collective efforts of scientists, philosophers, and researchers, we can make informed decisions based on the best available evidence, be it in medicine, climate policies, or engineering, and beyond.
Skeptics and conspiracy theorists have been known to misrepresent uncertainty to discredit well-supported theories. Given the current concerning political environment in the U.S., with conspiracy theorists holding influential positions, understanding the way scientists approach causation is more critical than ever.
- In the realm of scientific genius, confusion between causation and correlation persists, often leading to humorous misconceptions like the belief that the decrease in pirates contributed to climate change.
- Scientists, however, take a strategic approach to establish causation in their research, relying on induction, experimentation, and logical deduction.
- A marine biologist, for example, might observe coral bleaching in warmer waters and hypothesize a connection, leading to further research that strengthens the case for ocean temperature as a cause of coral bleaching.
- To test the hypothesis, experiments could be conducted in a lab, comparing coral growth in tanks with varying temperatures to confirm the correlation.
- By investigating other factors like pollution, ocean acidification, disease, and sunlight, a more accurate understanding of coral bleaching can be gained.
- With additional research, scientists may delve into the biological effects of heat on coral, understanding how rising temperatures destabilize the coral-algae symbiosis.
- Natural experiments, such as comparing reefs in areas with different thermal histories or localized temperature anomalies, can provide further insight into the relationship between temperature and coral bleaching.
- Predictive modeling and epidemiological techniques can be employed to forecast future temperature rises and the extent of coral bleaching under various scenarios, contributing to evidence-based climate policies and environmental conservation efforts.
