Signs of Bad Science

Gary Taubes · 30 Nov 2025

The piece opens with

A range of studies from many places and methods showing the same result does not necessarily make a strong signal.

Their wordsI do not believe that a “range of studies, from a range of places, using a range of methods, consistently showing a certain result” necessarily constitutes a strong signal. I would assume the opposite.

Read the piece on uncertaintyprinciples.substack.com ↗

5 korrents from this piece ↓

Gary Taubes did not write this page.

Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.

Our reading
A range of studies from many places and methods showing the same result does not necessarily make a strong signal.

Their wordsI do not believe that a “range of studies, from a range of places, using a range of methods, consistently showing a certain result” necessarily constitutes a strong signal. I would assume the opposite.
Our reading
It is human nature to overinterpret evidence, and the hardest part of science is not doing so.

Their wordsAs I learned, it’s human nature to overinterpret evidence; the insanely difficult part of science is not doing so.
Our reading
Where evidence is ambiguous, faith that something meaningful will be found becomes the currency researchers need to keep going.

Their wordsOn the front-lines, though, where the evidence is de facto ambiguous, faith that something new and meaningful will be discovered becomes the currency necessary to make progress.
Our reading
The more important the science, the more researchers tend to lower their standard for a strong enough signal, when it should be the opposite.

Their wordsA critical point is that the more important the science, the more likely researchers are to lower their standards for what constitutes a “strong enough” signal. It should be the opposite.
Our reading
Acting on weak evidence risks degrading the norms of scientific rigour, and the whole scientific enterprise absorbs the cost.

Their wordsActing on weak evidence can feel justified in the moment, but it risks degrading the norms of scientific rigor. If ambiguous data are treated as sufficient to declare harm—or safety—the entire scientific enterprise absorbs the cost.

Keep reading

The other pieces are the ones whose claims are worded most like this one's. That measures language, not agreement: they may argue the opposite.