The alleged discovery of structures under the pyramid of Chefren in Giza, in Egypt, according to which there would be 5 “secret” rooms and 8 “wells” cylindrical cables up to hundreds of meters deep, which we at Geopop commented with one remarkable dose of skepticismhas turned on a debate that goes beyond the news itself and lifts Deep cultural issues linked to the way science proceeds and in which knowledge is built in the scientific field.
In our opinion, the work led by Corrado Malanga represents a case of study that can help us understand How to distinguish scientifically validated information from a statement to be taken with the pliers. In short, how to find the Red Flag When it comes to public communication of science, even without necessarily entering the merits of specific statements from a technical point of view.
In principle, anyone can indirect a press conference in which he announces that they have achieved an epochal result or a sensational discovery. Me, common citizen, how do I know that the content of that conference is valid or not? Moreover, it is not said that he has the skills or preparation to understand or evaluate what is said. The answer is simple: I don’t have to trust those who announce the discovery, but of method that has been used to formalize it.
From this point of view, science proceeds with a standardized method precise. Scientists do not announce their discoveries or their results directly to the public: instead they communicate them to the scientific community through a scientific paperthat is, a technical article that explains in detail what problem is being tackled and what you want to find, which method has been used for research, What are the data collected And how they were collected, analyzed and interpreted, to finally reach a conclusion. This structure makes research work reproducible From independent workshops or researchers, this is made of primary importance for the validation of any scientific article. Without reproducibility, in fact, we would be forced to trust the word of those who announce a discovery.
Once drawn up, the article is submitted to a scientific journal in the sector – which actually does by quality filter – and, if accepted, is subjected to the fundamental process of the peer review (in Italian “Review of peers”), in which the work is critically evaluated in double blind and anonymously by other independent expert scientists. If the work exceeds the peer review, thus receiving the initial validation, the scientific article is published by the magazine that therefore puts it available to the entire scientific community of reference.
The other scientists at this point play a crucial role of validation ex post. In fact, they can study the article, repeat the experiments or the necessary procedures, re -establish data with other methods and so on. If something does not come back sooner or later it jumps outfor example if the replica of an experiment provides conflicting data with those published in the paper, or if other analysis methods provide different results, or if there are methodological flaws escaped to the auditors. This allows the scientific knowledge of self-conceived in case of errorsin order to discard the hypotheses that do not hold up and reward those that work, that is, that explain the experimental or observational data compatibly with the scientific knowledge already built and valid.
This standard procedure may seem rigid, and surely it is not without defects, but it is the best method we have developed to do progress scientific knowledge.
When we go to the supermarket we know that the apples we buy will not poison us why We trust the rigid procedures followed During the entire production chain, from the collection of the fruit to sale. In the same way, we can trust scientific information only if the practices that distinguish the orthodoxy of scientific communication are followed. Like any self -respecting game, too Science has precise rules that you have to follow if you want to play; Not accepting them means not participating in the game, that is, it means that you are not doing science. Indeed, the factory of disinformation and conspiracysumes are often powered.
This spirit, in our opinion, is completely missing in the approach adopted by Malanga and colleagues compared to the alleged discovery relating to Chefren’s pyramid. Scholars they have not published a technical paperso there was no peer review And the scientific community has not had the opportunity to view the data collected by the team, evaluate their methodology, replicate data analyzes and put their interpretation of the data into the exam. They launched a press conference and spread it directly to the public, showing results. These results can be truthful or not, obtained with a method that can be accurate or not: we cannot know until their work will come – possibly – validated and proven by the scientific community. Until then, the precautionary principle requires us to doubt the statements with a healthy skepticism and consider them, in fact, non -scientific up to proof contrary.
