Considering Science with Dr. Sheryl King

<p>This is Episode 26 of Season 3 and in it, Jec and I talk with Dr. Sheree King about science, specifically equine research. But it’s also a conversation of how to consider science in today’s world of scholarly access, social media, and, quite frankly, the troubling politics around scientific information.</p> <p>For most of my life, I have embraced science, research, the power of the <a href= "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method" target="_blank" rel="noopener">scientific method</a>, putting ideas out there and testing them. I’ve conducted research and I’ve assisted others with research projects. In case you were noodling on just what science is --  it is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.</p> <p>I am happy to approach my horse work with a critical eye nurtured, I think, by my science-y background. Do you consider your horse work like this? We would love to <a href= "https://besthorsepractices.com/contact/">hear from you</a>.</p> <p>Dr. King is a founding board member and a keynote presenter at the <a href="https://www.besthorsepracticessummit.org/" target= "_blank" rel="noopener">Best Horse Practices Summit</a>. We wanted to chat with her about how horse studies can influence riders and horse owners, how equine research can inform or, unfortunately, mislead folks, and how as information consumers, we really need to have an open mind and a critical eye towards horse studies.</p> <p>We talk specifically about a Equine Guelph study involving 20 ponies and their ability to "read facial expressions" of humans. Here is <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/18/2331" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the study</a> and here is a <a href= "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9pRNsX6e1k" target="_blank" rel= "noopener">YouTube video</a> with the studies' author, Dr. Katrina Merkies.</p> <p>We also talk about how to tell good science from, well, less good science. Chec