- Photo illustration by DigitalJournal.com image:36158:1::0

The study, coming out of Indiana University in Bloomington, examined user behavior: browsing the web, exchanging emails, and file sharing. What the research team should have found was a central value that data points clustered around, with the points tapering off at either end of the curve. What showed up instead is that people’s behavior on the web is basically “all over the place.” Since the researchers were apparently trying to find patterns that would help in the development of network security, this probably wasn’t good news.

But there’s another issue here. The team was looking for normal statistical patterns in behavior, but what the headline: “No-one behaves normally in cyberspace,” and the introductory sentence: “IT'S official: there is no such thing as normal behaviour on the internet,” implied was something completely different. For non-scientifically oriented readers, this would seem to mean that as individuals their online behavior is different from what it would normally be. Since individual behavior such as bullying, flaming, stalking, etc., are serious issues that have have been discussed extensively, the assumption is a logical one. The confusion comes from the use of “normal” instead of “norm.” The statistical “norm” that the researchers were hunting for is not the same thing as “normal” that we use in everyday conversation, and the result is that readers are mislead about the meaning of the article.

Why be so nit-picky about word usage? This article is a very trivial example, but it illustrates a common weakness in science reporting, one that readers need to be aware of. Because science writers aren’t necessarily trained in science, and may actually have no background knowledge on what they are reporting, research reports and statements by scientists are often misinterpreted and distorted. Statistics are misused, and attempts to simplify scientific jargon result in making the subject more obscure and confusing. I’ve had to abandon too many science stories that deserved attention on Digital Journal because the information was so garbled that I couldn’t make sense of it. When the original source is unavailable, as it often is, it’s impossible to get the necessary information and discuss the subject in a way that makes sense.

The quality of science reporting has become a matter of concern for the science establishment and is seen as one of the factors which makes it so difficult to educate the public about new technologies, and the consequences of our actions, whether that involves climate change, vaccines, genetically modified foods, or hundreds of other issues. The result is that people oppose or support various aspects of research and development based on emotions rather than on accurate information.