well it's a good thing I wasn't doing my swallowing practice while reading here...I would have spurted coffee all over the computer screen....
OK. My initial thoughts on what you wrote.
1. I understand why you are saying " "belief" is really not an appropriate term to use in science, because testing is such an important part of this way of knowing" but later on when you address what skepticism means you talk about skeptics basing their beliefs on scientific evidence. I can see someone being confused by these two things together. Perhaps instead of saying "belief is not really an appropriate term to use in science" it might be better to say "belief is a term that means something very different when we are talking about scientific beliefs because testing is such an important part of this way of knowing".
2. I found myself wanting to add more to number 2 about certainty being elusive in science. First, although you can come pretty darn close to certainty about some well-established findings, technically certainty is actually nonexistent. Science is based on induction and induction never allows us total certainty. I know this is probably a technical quibble and allows people who misunderstand science to then say "well, if nothing's certain then my theory is as good as yours".
I hate when people do that.
Which is why I also find myself wanting to add something to the end of number 2 such as
"As such, scientific conclusions are always open to challenges based on the method used to draw the conclusions. This does not mean, however, that conclusions based on scientific evidence are equivalent to conclusions based on other forms of belief (such as beliefs based on the statement of an authority figure, beliefs based on faith, etc.)"
This may be muddying the waters of layperson comprehension more than you wish to do.
I also wanted to add something about this to what you said about skepticism. Something such as "Skeptics are also willing to revise their beliefs in light of sufficient new information. Fundamentally, scientific skepticism never accepts a belief with certainty but with a higher or lower probability of being true".
Again, I don't know if this is just muddying the waters or not.
In number 6 on the point about correlation versus causation I wonder if it would be worth pointing out that an association of two variables CAN be determined to be a causal association under the condition where all variables except the variable thought to be the cause are random or held constant and that these conditions are exactly what Phase III clinical trials are about. I know the disinction between a true experiment and correlational research is a lot to expect people can wrap their heads around from a single sentence or two(I've taught plenty of undergrads who can't wrap their heads around it in a semester) but I hate to leave people with the impression that no research can ever draw valid conclusions about cause and effect.
In number 15, I wonder if it would help to also add the following:
"Further, many health variables interact with each other which means that, in any specific case, you cannot draw conclusions about the effect of one variable without knowing about the state of other variables."
These are my comments for now! I won't be offended if you totally ignore all of them. I realize that every addition that makes a bullet more precise also adds complexity and may make it seem more confusing. I always struggle with that in the materials I create for students and I usually start with too much complexity and then slowly simplify--I'm not so good at starting from the simple. I'll be interested in reading other people's feedback as well.
Nelie
