Annie Minoff delves into the sins of ad hoc hypotheses using several examples from evolutionary science (including evolutionary psychology) . I think this is a fun way to introduce this issue in science and explain WHY a hypothesis is important for good research. This article provides three ways of conveying that ad hoc hypotheses are bad science. 1) This video of a speaker lecturing about absurd logic behind ad hoc testing (here, evolutionary explanations for the mid-life "spare tire" that many men struggle with). NOTE: This video is from an annual event at MIT, BAHFest (Bad Ad Hoc Fest) if you want more bad ad hoc hypotheses to share with students. 2) A quiz in which you need to guess which of the ad hoc explanations for an evolutionary finding is the real explanation. 3) A more serious reading to accompany this video is Kerr's HARKing: Hypothesizing after results are known (1998), a comprehensive take down of this practice.

 Here is another example of how data visualizations can be accurate AND misleading. I Fucking Love Science broke down a brief Twitter war that started after National Review tweeted the following post in order to argue that global climate change isn't a thing. Note: The y-axis ranged from 110 - -10 degrees Fahrenheit. True, such a temperature range is experienced on planet Earth, but using such an axis distracts from the slow, scary march that is global climate change and doesn't do a very good job of illustrating how discrete changes in temperature map onto increased use of fossil fuels in the increasingly industrialized world. Twitter-verse responded thusly: