Evidence has been defined by philosophers as "that body of beliefs, often of an observational sort, which supports some less well-established hypothesis." The nature of evidence, from the standpoint of a scientist, has been explored by Boyce Rensberger, a scientific journalist from Cambridge, Massachusetts, in Science for July 7. Rensberger is worried about the attitude of the general public to scientific explanations offered by journalists.
Rensberger refers to the belief that some scientists consider that journalists have became careless and irresponsible, tending to devote their work to half-baked research projects, even to antiscientific claims of topics like parapsychology, UFOs and other manifestations of pseudoscience. He maintains that "the weakness in the public's understanding of science lies in an area not often addressed in interactions between scientists and journalists - the nature of evidence."
He states that Americans are overwhelmingly interested in science but fail to understand how it is practised. Herein, writes Rensberger, lies one explanation for the popularity of pseudoscience among the millions. The average non-scientist is unable to differentiate between arguments from real data and those derived from the results of uncontrolled experiments, anecdotes, and subjective assertions made with some passion.
To remedy this unsatisfactory situation, he suggests, journalists need to learn more about the nature of scientific methods of working and modes of thinking. When scientists talk to journalists they should go beyond expressing the highlights of their findings, and discuss the processes leading to their conclusions.