Comics on show!

4 . “Assume you are wrong.” The advice came from Brian Nosek, a psychology professor, who was offering a strategy for pursuing better science.

To understand the context for Nosek’s advice, we need to take a step back to the nature of science itself. You see despite what many of us learned in elementary school, there is no single scientific method. Just as scientific theories become elaborated and change, so do scientific methods.

But methodological reform hasn’t come without some fretting and friction. Nasty things have been said by and about methodological reformers. Few people like having the value of their life’s work called into question. On the other side, few people are good at voicing criticisms in kind and constructive ways. So, part of the challenge is figuring out how to bake critical self-reflection into the culture of science itself, so it unfolds as a welcome and integrated part of the process, and not an embarrassing sideshow.

What Nosek recommended was a strategy for changing the way we offer and respond to critique. Assuming you are right might be a motivating force, sustaining the enormous effort that conducting scientific work requires. But it also makes it easy to interpret criticisms as personal attacks. Beginning, instead, from the assumption you are wrong, a criticism is easier to interpret as a constructive suggestion for how to be less wrong — a goal that your critic presumably shares.

One worry about this approach is that it could be demoralizing for scientists. Striving to be less wrong might be a less effective motivation than the promise of being right. Another concern is that a strategy that works well within science could backfire when it comes to communicating science with the public. Without an appreciation for how science works, it’s easy to take uncertainty or disagreements as marks against science, when in fact they reflect some of the very features of science that make it our best approach to reaching reliable conclusions about the world. Science is reliable because it responds to evidence: as the quantity and quality of our evidence improves, our theories can and should change, too.

Despite these worries, I like Nosek’s suggestion because it builds in cognitive humility along with a sense that we can do better. It also builds in a sense of community — we’re all in the same boat when it comes to falling short of getting things right.

Unfortunately, this still leaves us with an untested hypothesis (假说): that assuming one is wrong can change community norms for the better, and ultimately support better science and even, perhaps, better decisions in life. I don’t know if that’s true. In fact, I should probably assume that it’s wrong. But with the benefit of the scientific community and our best methodological tools, I hope we can get it less wrong, together.

8 . Heads or Tails?

Careful: It’s not 50-50

The phrase “coin toss” is a classic synonym for randomness. But since the 18th century, mathematicians have _________ that even fair coins tend to land on one side slightly more often than the other. Proving this tiny bias, _________, would require hundreds of thousands of carefully recorded coin flips, making laboratory tests a logistical (后勤的，组织协调的) _________.

František Bartoš, currently a Ph.D. candidate studying the research methods of psychology at the University of Amsterdam, became interested in this _________ four years ago. He couldn’t _________ enough volunteers to investigate it at first. But after he began his Ph.D. studies, he tried again, recruiting 47 volunteers from six countries. Multiple weekends of coin flipping later, including one 12-hour marathon _________, the team performed 350,757 tosses, breaking the previous record of 40,000.

With one side initially upward, the flipped coin landed with the same side facing _________ as before the toss 50.8 percent of the time. The large number of throws allows _________ to conclude that the nearly 1 percent bias isn’t a fluke (侥幸). “We can be quite sure there is a bias in coin flips after this data set,” Bartoš says.

The leading theory explaining the _________ advantage comes from a 2007 physics study by Stanford University statisticians, whose calculations predicted a same-side bias of 51 percent. From the moment a coin is launched into the air, its entire track — including whether it lands on heads or tails — can be calculated by the laws of __________. The researchers determined that airborne coins don’t turn around their symmetrical axis (对称轴); __________, they tend to move off-center, which causes them to spend a little more time high in the air with their initial “up” side on top.

For day-to-day decisions, coin tosses are as good as random because a 1 percent bias isn’t __________ with just a few coin flips, says statistician Ameli, who wasn’t involved in the new research. Still, the study’s conclusions should eliminate any lasting doubt regarding the coin flip’s slight bias. “This is great experiment-based evidence __________ the bias,” she says.

It isn’t difficult to prevent this bias from influencing your coin-toss matches; simply __________ the coin’s starting position before flipping it should do the trick. But if your friends are __________ the tiny bias, you may as well benefit from your slight advantage. After all, 51 percent odds beat a casino’s house advantage. “If you asked me to bet on a coin,” Bartoš says, “why wouldn’t I give myself a 1 percent bias?”

I wanted to go to a party. Especially it was a beach party. It had been almost the only thing my friends had been talking about for the last couple of weeks. But My mom had said no. The more desperately I pleaded her case, the more forcefully my mother said no. “I don’t care who’s going,” said coldly my mother, “you are not going.” I was heartbroken. This was my best friend’s party.

Sunday dinner came around and my grandmother joined the family for the meal. Gran noticed my depression but didn’t say a word. It was my turn to wash up and Gran said, “Let me help you.” “What’s up?” asked Gran as I dumped the dishes into the foaming water. Gran wiped a plate with a tea towel. “Mom won’t let me go to my best friend’s party.” I said sadly. “Has mom explained why she doesn’t want you to go?” asked Gran. “No.” I replied. “Then for a moment, put yourself in her position.” said Gran. “If you were mom, what would your objections be?”

I hadn’t stopped to think about my mom’s side. “Well,” I answered, “it’s a beach party. Maybe she doesn’t trust us or thinks we’ll get into trouble.”

“Are there going to be any adults there?” asked Gran. “No,” I said, “who wants their parents hanging around when you’re trying to have fun?” “Might it just be,” said Gran, “your mother doesn’t want anything unfortunate to happen to you.”“Nothing will happen.” I objected. “Maybe you’re right,” said Gran, “but maybe mom’s worried in case it could.”

Gran looked at me gently, seeming to expect my agreement. For a minute or so, I kept silent, pondering for a while about my eagerness for the party. “Maybe, you are right, however, is there no hope?” I inquired. “Not necessarily.” answered Gran, lost in thought.

Paragraph 1: “Then maybe think of a compromise.” suggested Gran.

Paragraph 2: The long-awaited beach party finally came.