: The fine line between accurate science, and confusing my reader I recently wrote a blog post (original here) about a scientific study. At the end, I included some "fine print" which states,

Vote Up Vote Down

You have to target your writing to the background of the reader.

"Correlation does not prove causation" is a well-known slogan in scientific and statistical circles, so if you were writing for such technical people, just quoting the phrase should be sufficient to make the point. But if your writing for the ordinary layman, the odds are that they are NOT familiar with the catch-phrase. They may or may not be familiar with the concept, and they may or may not grasp it quickly. So if you want your writing to be clear to the layman, you have to spell it out.

Sorry, I didn't read your article, but if this is an important element of your point, then I think you should spell it out in detail. If it's a side issue, if in this case you think that the correlation DOES indicate causation or whatever, then a sentence or two of fine print disclaimer might be sufficient.

I'm a software developer by profession. When I'm talking to other software geeks, I may say something with bunches of technical terms and acronyms with no explanation, because I expect them to know what I mean. But if I'm talking to non-computer people, I use simpler language, metaphors, and explanations.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

There's nothing confusing about the paragraph you have at the end.

Given the replication rates for correlation-based studies, there no reason for the reader to believe that the study established a new insight into the effects of trans fats.

A layperson shouldn't base his idea of the effect of trans fats on a single correlational study based on self reported food questionnaires.

On the other hand you are misleading the reading when you omit issues with people being bad at self reporting food choices.
You are also misleading when you make it seem like the study demonstrated that eating fat one day has a direct effect on the scores on the next day. If such an effect would exist they could run a proper controlled study to document the effect and wouldn't need self reported food questionnaires.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Don't Minimize the uncertainty, celebrate it! Sensational science reporting does not worry about details just bold headlines: 'Cell Phones Cause Breast Cancer!' Responsible reporting hedges their bets: 'Link between Cell phone usage and Breast Cancer Found.' Great reporting shows what the details mean: 'Developed nations have more cell phones and breast cancer.' Now that we have the headline, lead with the uncertainty. Why is it important? Uncertainty is knowing the limits of knowledge not ignorance. You have heard it said the more you know the more you realise you don't know. Children learn one thing and being excited think they know everything, Scientists find a limit of knowledge to be a place to start. Take the next step in true learning and embrace ignorance (as that is the only way to put it in a half-nelson).

Ok I'll get off my soap box now.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Consider incorporating your fine print into the body of the article. Nothing in your Fine Print section requires any special understanding of the science involved, or even a good understanding of how science proceeds.

As a bonus: If you do that, you can drop the opening part of that section, which is about you, and not about the topic.

If the authors' report describes any of the same limitations and caveats that you do in your Fine Print section, make sure to attribute the caveats to them. If not, well, hang 'em.

A bigger problem, I think, is your own speculation about how this study might apply in situations not covered by the authors' research. If you reel in your own speculation, you will have far less need to qualify your article and your own viewpoint.

(0)