The futility of scholarly research

Criticisms of scholarly research usually target (1) incentives facing the researchers -- for example, using excessive math to look impressive or exaggerating claims to garner attention and continued funding -- or (2) incentives facing the media who report the research -- for example, tweaking the language in a way that may not be accurate in order to maximize entertainment or shock value.

Although said in jest, I think Scott Adams's observation from his book The Dilbert Principle about incentives facing readers is equally as damning:

Nobody believes statistics anyway. This is a huge time-saver for me as an author. It removes any guilt I might have about fabricating statistics. If you're a "normal" person, you tend to believe any studies that support your current views and ignore everything else. Therefore, any reference I might make to legitimate research is wasted. If we can agree on the futility of trying to sway you with legitimate research it will save us both a lot of trouble.

That doesn't mean I will ignore statistics. Far from it. Throughout this book I will make references to scientific studies. Of course, they'll all be total fabrications. But my versions will make better reading than legitimate research, and ultimately the impact is the same.