Chapter 1: The Misinterpretation of "Science"

In today's media landscape, the term "science" is frequently encountered, often without the rigorous context it deserves. A simple search for phrases like "science says" or "according to science" reveals a staggering number of results, but what do these phrases truly promise, and how reliable are the articles they lead us to?

For example, consider a February 2019 article from Time Magazine titled "This Is the Best Time of Day to Work Out, According to Science." This piece interviews a professor of exercise science and references several studies, yet its ultimate conclusion is somewhat deflating: "There's really no bad time to exercise […] and the most important thing is finding the time to do so, whenever works for you." In essence, the article offers a collection of half-baked assertions about exercise efficacy based on incomplete data, leaving readers with little new information.

Another instance comes from Women's Health (UK), which published an article in March titled "Is the Sun Good for Your Skin? Here's What the Science Says." Despite its title, the article fails to delve into scientific findings on sunlight's effects on skin. Instead, it merely recycles general guidelines from the British National Health Service regarding Vitamin D and sunscreen use. It’s a reminder that most readers likely already know that sunburn is harmful.

For a more absurd example, I stumbled upon an article from iheartradio.com that references a Daily Mail piece from 2015, titled "Science Says Smells Like Teen Spirit Is the Most Iconic Song Ever." This article reveals that a song from three decades ago checks all the boxes of a hit. The so-called "study" was funded by Fiat to help market a new car model, leaving one to wonder if this really qualifies as scientific research at all. The conclusion? "Even by applying scientific process, what is considered iconic is ultimately up to the individual." It seems Fiat could have simply consulted existing charts of popular songs without commissioning this study.

However, some articles venture into more serious territory. For instance, a CNBC article from March 5 titled "Want To Raise Mentally Strong Kids? Science Says Stop Telling Them 'Everything Will Be Okay' — here are 5 things to do instead." While it suggests alternatives based on one study and a survey, the evidence is limited and does not substantiate the bold claim in the title. The author, a licensed social worker, offers suggestions drawn from her own book, which raises questions about her authority to speak for "science."

There is an abundance of similar articles that make dubious claims, from "Science Says You Only Need to Work Out for 13 Minutes to Make a Difference" on Parents.com to "12 Things Science Says Predict Divorce" on Business Insider. While some of these articles present reasonably well-supported information, the sensationalized titles often mislead readers into thinking the conclusions are more definitive than they actually are.

References to "science" have long been utilized in arguments to lend authority and credibility, but many articles fall short of accurately representing evidence. When headlines proclaim "science says," they imply certainty that the content may not deliver. This makes it increasingly difficult to discern between genuine reporting and careless, sensationalized content, as the phrase "science says" proliferates.

Chapter 2: The Manipulation of Scientific Language

In the video titled "Don't Trust Me, I'm an Influencer," the speaker discusses how influencers can manipulate scientific claims for their own agendas. This highlights the dangers of accepting information without critical examination.

As the term "science" becomes a catchphrase, it loses its true meaning. While it denotes a methodical approach to inquiry, it should not serve as an argument in itself. When "science says" is used unqualified, it collapses the complexities of research and the credibility of scientists into a single phrase that can evoke either trust or skepticism, depending on the audience's perspective.

Buzzwords like "science" can quickly become politicized and serve as banners for various agendas. Trusting information based on its scientific claims may hinge more on context and personal affiliations than on the reliability of the data presented.

Fortunately, buzzwords tend to fade away, and perhaps "science says" is on the decline. However, it is crucial for readers and writers alike to approach these phrases with caution. We must cultivate a habit of reading critically and writing responsibly, ensuring that we do not fall prey to the allure of catchy headlines devoid of substantive evidence.

The second video, "Why You've Been Manipulated - Everything Is Obvious By Duncan Watts - Tai Lopez," delves into the psychological aspects of how language and framing can influence perceptions of scientific credibility. It serves as a reminder to remain vigilant against manipulation.

In conclusion, as we navigate the complex landscape of information, we must be mindful of the words we encounter and the messages they convey. Misunderstandings can arise when we accept terms at face value, leading to a dilution of meaningful communication.