That's why all the stories about "promising new research" tend to come and go with the speed of Disney pop stars ("Take Omega-3 to prevent heart disease! Or don't! Who the fuck knows?"). And it isn't just the stuff that turns up on BuzzFeed: We're talking about the body of knowledge that your doctor relies on when prescribing drugs, giving advice on dietary habits, and recommending surgery, among other things.

Creatas/Creatas/Getty Images
This is why all operating rooms now have a live feed of trending Twitter hash tags.

How can so many studies be so badly flawed? Well ...

Enter Kimmo Eriksson, a Swedish mathematician. He decided midway through his career that pure math wasn't doing it for him anymore and moved into cultural studies. It was at that point he realized his new colleagues were basically awful at math. So he conducted an experiment to find out how widespread the issue was. Eriksson picked two research papers at random and sent them out to a bunch of scientists. In half of the papers he randomly added an equation that had nothing to do with the study whatsoever, and in context was utter nonsense.

Eriksson asked the recipients to judge the quality of the research. The mathematicians and physicists were basically unimpressed, but in every other field the inclusion of the equation got the papers a higher ranking, even though it was pointless bullshit -- it just looked more impressive with the complicated math in there. More than 60 percent of the medical researchers, the people trying to save all of our lives, ranked the junk papers as better on the grounds of, "It must be right -- look at all this awesome math shit he's got in there!"

Seems legit.

The research by Eriksson (or "Kimmo the number wizard," as he is known in the humanities) is not the only evidence that scientists treat math as some mysterious occult force. Research into ecology and evolution show that papers are 28 percent less likely to be cited for every additional equation per page. It seems that basically everyone that isn't a physicist or engineer treats math with a policy of "run away as quickly as possible."

Not really.

"Statistical significance" is just the fancy name for what happens when you see a relationship between two variables that probably isn't due to random chance. A hell of a lot of scientific research involves investigating relationships in statistics, like whether a certain drug has a correlation with getting cancer, for example. The problem is that, in this context, "significant" doesn't necessarily mean "important." For instance, there is a statistically significant link between ice cream consumption and murder rate. But before you start burning ice cream vans, this is just a confusion between correlation and causation -- ice cream consumption and murder both just happen to increase in the summer.

Luis Carlos Torres/iStock/Getty Images
Which both happen to coincide with all the good TV shows going on hiatus.

If you didn't know about how weak a "statistically significant" finding is, then don't worry -- neither do scientists. When they find a link between sleepiness and vitamin D, or whole fruits and decreased risk of type 2 diabetes, they call it "significant" and, more times than not, end up exaggerating the hell out of their claims. The media ends up reporting it inaccurately because the researchers don't include the proper caveats. One statistician took a look and found that "eight or nine of every 10 articles published in the leading journals" make the massive error of equating statistical significance to importance.

As an example, one recently published study purported to have found a link between walnuts and a drop in diabetes risk. How'd they discover that? Well, by tracking a whole bunch of nurses, looking at their walnut consumption, and seeing which ones developed diabetes. To the layperson, and by extension the media, this sounds like a pretty cut-and-dry way of studying the phenomenon. But think about that -- did they look at other factors, like whether people who ate fewer nuts also tended to go home at night and eat a whole tub of butterscotch ice cream? Nope -- they just asked the participants how often they ate walnuts and used the answers as the basis of their conclusions.

Hemera Technologies/Photos.com/Getty
Additionally, squirrels generally make for a poor control group.

By the same token, we could investigate the link between Apple products and hipster mustaches to conclude that iPhones somehow stimulate hair growth on the upper lip. Or as this sarcastic study pointed out, that you can statistically prove that listening to certain music makes you younger.

But that just brings us to another point ...

That means a whole lot of behavioral science is centered around studies done in First-World universities, and those studies fall prey to the assumption that their young, relatively healthy, sedentary, economically privileged, and mostly white test subjects are in any way indicative of the people who make up the population as a whole (i.e. the other 99.7 percent of the world's inhabitants).

CJMGrafx/iStock/Getty Images
"Fine, you can throw a woman in there to even things out. But only one."

Unfortunately, a study illuminating the psychology of an average college student, whose primary philosophy is to have sex with that redhead in Anthro 101 and who lives on ramen noodles and liquor, may not be applicable to even, say, a poor single mom living three blocks away from the university. So behavioral science has developed tunnel-vision on the richest, most open-minded fraction of educated young people in the world, and assumes whatever answers it finds can be generalized to anyone else.

But hey, scientists are people, after all, and they study what they know. Funny, then, that a fairly popular avenue of research involves participant observation of strip clubs. As in, scientists receiving grant money to sit and watch strippers pole dance. You know, for science.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images News/Getty Images
It's said that Einstein did some of his best work while getting a lap dance to "Pour Some Sugar on Me."

If you're listing the body parts that are most useful to you when it comes to doing good science, chances are that a brain and a functional set of hands are somewhere near the top of your list, while penises probably don't rate quite so highly. But it turns out that when they're deciding who is going to do a better job unraveling the mysteries of the universe, the people in charge of hiring scientists seem to find what's between your legs a lot more relevant.

Photos.com/Photos.com/Getty Images
Hey, at least we're not burning women who can do math as witches anymore, right? Progress!

To see just how bad this is, a team of researchers created a fake application for a laboratory manager's job and sent a copy to 127 professors. They asked the recipients to evaluate the applicant's competence, how deserving he or she is of a job, and to determine how much he or she should be paid. Every application sent out was the same but for the name, which was randomly assigned as either male or female.

The scientists did what they do best. They took an objective look at the evidence presented, assessed the individual's demonstrated merits, then ignored that and decided "likelihood of having boobs" was the key factor. They gave female applicants lower marks on every single point.

hjalmeida/iStock/Getty Images
All they need is one woman to get PMS and start integrating with total disregard of the constant term!

On competence, male professors judged their penis-wielding brethren at 4.01 out of 5, and gave the ladies a score of 3.33. And no, it's not just because the people doing the hiring were male -- the female professors also scored the boys higher, 4.10 compared with 3.32 for the women. The average salary men recommended for men was $30,520. The average salary women recommended for women was $25,000. Favoring the dudes happened irrespective of the age, gender, or job status of the professor. Unless the researchers went with the names Mr. N.D. Tyson and Mrs. S.L. Palin, this would have to mean that scientists universally judge females to be worth less. The professors also reported that if they were in charge they would spend less time tutoring the female candidates.

This sort of sexism is doing a very good job at pushing women out of science altogether. The higher up women get in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, the longer they have to tolerate this sort of shit and the more likely they are to quit. But hey, it's not like there are any negative consequences to arbitrarily wiping out a huge chunk of the talent pool, right? Since when has any field been improved by inviting a whole bunch of new geniuses into it?