Bad Science in the Press 647
An anonymous reader writes " An editorial in The Guardian presents a good run down of what is wrong with science reporting today and tries to point out why this is. From the article: 'Why is science in the media so often pointless, simplistic, boring, or just plain wrong? Like a proper little Darwin, I've been collecting specimens, making careful observations, and now I'm ready to present my theory.'"
I disagree ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"It is my hypothesis that in their choice of stories, and the way they cover them, the media create a parody of science, for their own means. They then attack this parody as if they were critiquing science. This week we take the gloves off and do some serious typing."
Granted my sample space of random, anecdotal evidence is probably much smaller than his, but he seems to attribute the poor reporting to some sort of grand conspiracy, or at least malice.
From what I've seen of bad science reporting (my professors often give examples in lecture for us to laugh at), the cause is nowhere near as malevolent -- it's simply writers who are not educated enough about science and the methods of discovery that surround it trying to simplify for their readers a scientific breakthrough like they'd simplify a speech or debate.
And they just don't understand it anywhere near enough to avoid cropping out hugely important parts.
If you want decent scientific articles.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Science is complex. (Score:3, Insightful)
people are lazy and stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Applies to everything, not just science... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this is a lot like public primary education where teachers without specialties in any field teach specific specialty classes.
Science is not News (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad Science? More like bad politics! (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, I've seen a number of liberals who buy into crystals, magnets, feng shui, chiropracty and all other sorts of nonsense, and that sort of thing is just as harmful as anything any Young Earth Creationist or Intelligent Design advocate is going to pass off as Truth.
Don't you think science education is best served by keeping psuedo-science and barely veiled religious dogma out of the classroom?
Re:Science is complex. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bad Science? More like bad politics! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:On Teaching Science to the Media (Score:5, Insightful)
The point? As a teacher who is dependent upon a book to give them the answers is not really much of a teacher; neither is a journalist that does learn the facts about what they are reporting. Readers do expect them to be experts but we certainly do not expect them to be totally dependent upon sources of dubious value or insight.
Re:Science is complex. (Score:5, Insightful)
The wrong guys write. (Score:5, Insightful)
Journalists, bless them, aren't often scientifically trained. Look at the poor quality of the computer industry zines of the late 90's and early 00's. Most them are gone, and good riddance, These guys were better at covering sports than bus architectures and burgeoning CPU and OS monopolies. Getting scientists to write cogent articles for people that aren't buying an academic/discipline article is really tough. They get no recognition for that, just some cash. Only a few scientists can cross over to mainstream writing and be successful more than their research career gave them. So, there's a good reason why we don't get good science writing: publishers don't understand the need for quality; researchers are busy publishing in journals within their disciplines, and journalists make rotten scientists-- but better beer drinkers.
Re:If you want decent scientific articles.. (Score:2, Insightful)
2 things were spot on (Score:5, Insightful)
2) The media focusing on one or two scientists as if they have the ultimate say in how things are. Ignoring the fact that scientists aren't some monolithic beast with one scientist at the head.
Re:Science is complex. (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, no, all it reveals is that some people find entertainment in it. I wouldn't mind but you're using a rather un-scientific method to determine whether or not scientific articles are ever going to show up in newspapers.
Doesn't always matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
A science reporter doesn't have to know the subject, but they DO need to know how to do critical thinking. (Which, IMHO, is important for any journalist who wants to have integrity.)
Most importantly, they need to know:
Statistics will usually be given with a percentage, which indicates the highest confidence level that can be given to the results. Because of the curious nature of statistics, these are given as the area of the tail on the stats chart, not the body, so the LOWER the percentage the better. A 5% confidence limit is generally regarded as evidence of a total LACK of confidence. You really want 1% or better. You'll see some results, though, with a confidence limit of 10% or even 20%.
The "null hypothesis" (what you are trying to disprove) should be something clearly-defined, with well-known bounds. It's preferable that the "null hypothesis" is whatever would be either whatever the system would naturally gravitate towards, or the norm, whichever you know better.
In non-statistical studies, you use basically the same method. You assume that whatever you are testing shows nothing at all different, and attempt to falsify this hypothesis. It is extremely dangerous to go looking for something specific, because you'll normally find it - even when it's not there.
You can pay a scientist - or anyone else - to say anything you like, if you've enough money. What they say, then, is important only if they have credibility as an impartial observer. As most science, these days, is funded by corporations, this is unbelievably scarce. However, paid-for work has zero credibility unless it can be verified by an impartial observer. At which point, it is still the impartial observer who matters, anyway.
This one is hard to guague, if you're not in the field, but you can look for tell-tale signs of a problem. If you can't see the methods used, if they didn't keep logs or lab notes of what they did, if they are vague about how you get from the data to the conclusions - these should tip off any competent journalist that something isn't right.
Re:people are lazy and stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
What is willful ignorance (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention that, as the AC above touched on, they serve two masters -- one of whom pays their salary, and it's not you and me. It's not like there's any big backlash against their reporting of science, but as much as some of us may think we've evolved beyond it, there is still a lot of distrust, ignorance, and general animosity towards science in the world. The media exploits this for ratings, it's not a new accusation by any means. And when it keeps people ignorant, it's malicious in my book.
Re:Like a proper little Darwin (Score:4, Insightful)
Humanics (Score:5, Insightful)
The division itself is a disservice to each profession. Scientists have to communicate science with humans, even other scientists. And humanities workers, even mere newpaper reporters, are governed by physical laws of evidence, causality, statistics. We're all in it together. And we all have to realize that we've each got our own languages, from mathematics to hiphop, that are just ways of representing the real world we're all struggling to understand and share with each other. Prioritizing one of those aspects is no excuse for neglecting competence in another. And seeing the struggle as scientist against humanist discards the real struggle, against misunderstanding and ignorance, thereby working for the enemy.
cost/benefit ratios (Score:5, Insightful)
GOOD scientists don't purposefully make statements that are absolute. Good scientists are guarded and pick their words carefully.
That said, somebody with a minimal scientific background (ie. a Journalism major) will very often screw up more complicated scientific articles.
Quite on the contrary. It is the same reason you only get reports about murders and status updates on Bennifer- media, on all levels (at least in the US) is owned increasingly by large holding groups. Holding groups do one thing well: try to squeeze every penny.
Scientific articles require more legwork, and that means fewer stories per person per day. "Entertainment" stories practically pay for themselves (free plane tickets, free hotel stays, free footage, free access to a popular star). Murders are easy to cover- listen to the scanner, show up and stand there for the live-on-scene footage, maybe interview a hysterical family member or friend. Tada, done. Celebs and blood sell; nerdy stories that are hard to research won't.
Science also doesn't jive with the "cover all viewpoints" they teach in journalism 101 (case and point, "intelligent design" vs. Evolution. Evolution is something the church gave up on decades ago, and the rest of the world knows is fact- but the American press feels "Intelligent Design" deserves presentation on equal grounds and parrots the President when he says it deserves "consideration".)
Re:Bad Science? More like bad politics! (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a big difference between "let's paint the wall in the dining nook burnt umber to tie it into the cabinets in the kitchen, and hang drapes to match the couches" and "your ancestors will bring you peace because a red-brown dining nook frightens away harmful spirits."
Re:Applies to everything, not just science... (Score:3, Insightful)
To address your examples specifically, not everything in the military is about rifles. Oftentime, what happens in the military can be the same sort of thing that can happen working for any other larger employer: people are concerned about pay, health care, retirement benefits, etc. If commentary is needed about, say, specialist hardware, a good reporter will ask an expert in that field.
Likewise, important stories about construction projects probably won't be about hammering nails, but may be about management issues, cost overruns, investment. Th ereporter just has to know enough to ask the right person the right questions - a bit like a lawyer really. If there are engineerng issues, then ask an engineer.
I take your point about reporters being non experts, but I think that if you look, the good ones are knowledgeable and some papers/tv stations even go so far as to hire/keep on as consultants those wo were outstanding in their field but have since retired (thinking of military experts here).
Re:Doesn't always matter. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that you make some excellent points, but I'm afraid that ferreting out the state of logs, raw data, notebooks, etc (even to verify that they do in fact exist in any form), is not realistic, except in very unusual circumstances -- even the best peer reviewed scientific journals do not normally demand to see lab notes, after all. It's only when there's already heavy suspicion something is wrong that an investigation with enough authority to demand researchers produce their notes is formed. Obviously, if a journalist is making a site visit as part of their reporting, then he or she should be on the lookout for the Dodgy or the Shoddy, but even then they will only be able to make a superficial examination. In practice, unless there's some good reason not to, journalists -- just like other scientists -- have to take a researcher's word for it that they're not Making Shit Up.
Re:Bad Science? More like bad politics! (Score:3, Insightful)
For instance, religionists consult unqualified doctors or anecdotes from relatives to "prove" Terry Shiavo is not a vegetable, because it fits in with their world view that euthanasia is wrong. Other conservatives and libertarians just don't give a fuck.
Some socialists and anti-capitalists far exagerate the dangers and causes of global warming because it fits their world view that capitalists are the bad guys. See the wackos trying to blame hurricane Katrina on GWB, or Ted Danson telling us in 1988 on Entertainment Tonight that the earth would be uninhabitable in 10 years because of overpopulation. Level-headed liberals shake their heads, as the extremists do more harm than good.
Bad science abounds, regardless of politcal affiliation. Not all conservatives are troglodytes, and not all liberals are rhodes scholars. Although I expect to be modded into oblivion for daring to suggest that some conservatives might not be troglodytes on Slashdot
Comparable?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Aliens do NOT cause global warming! (Score:3, Insightful)
It is caused by the Flying Spaghetti Monster as punishment for the fact that too few of us wear pirate regalia in his honor. The evidence on this [venganza.org] is very clear.
Re:Science is complex. (Score:5, Insightful)
The media is also extremely racist, though they'd never fathom it. If a white girl disappears, it's national news. Lots of peopel disappear in our nation, but heaven forbid the white blonde girl in Aruba go missing. Meanwhile, a black girl could disappear, and no journalists would be around to cover it (see little black girl Rilya Wilson who just disappeared without a trace in Florida, who only Bill O'Reilly of all people covered).
I'm not from the South and I'm not a Christian, but these biases, which are just silently accepted by everyone because they're used to seeing them, make me sick. I'm just tired of it. I wish there were clear, direct, independent journalists to get some ACTUAL NEWS OF THINGS GOING ON IN THE WORLD. Not ratings-makers. I don't want to hear about "day 10 of Camp Casey." Please, tell me what is going on in the world. I know there is more out there.
Re:Bad Science? More like bad politics! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Humanics (Score:2, Insightful)
The article writes:
"the humanities haven't really moved forward at all, except to invent cultural relativism, which exists largely as a pooh-pooh reaction against science."
After he complains about humanities graduates poorly presenting science, he poorly presents the humanities. Sadly, I must suspect that the cause is exactly the mirror image of what he stated in his article, i.e. that he just doesn't understand the humanities. To 'pooh-pooh' centuries of development in, say, philosophy (since he mentioned relativism) probably implies a lack of knowledge regarding that field.
The problem, as I see it, is the lack of people qualified in both areas, science AND the humanities. Now, the burden should rest mostly on the scientific community, since it is easier for them to learn the humanities than vice versa.
Re:On Teaching Science to the Media (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets say you hire someone to write about baseball. You wouldn't expect him (yeah, I did say 'him': most women have better things to do with their lives) to actually play the game at a Major-League level, but you would expect him to have a command of certain basic knowledge, like, for example, the rules of the game. What the article is saying (and I completely agree) is that this expectation is not generally enforced for science and technology journalism.
Re:Theory of the Professions (Score:3, Insightful)
Name one reason why an astrophysicist needs to know the constllations to be good at his or her job. Make it a good reason, because I studied astrophysics.
Re:Science is complex. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it goes deeper than that. I think there is a failure by many in the press- in particular the "humanities graduates" that the article rails against- to understand the scientific method and believe in things like objective truth. "There are just so many perceptions and viewpoints, all equally valid," goes the postmodernist thinking, so they give "equal time" to them all, never mind whether one is completely unsupported by evidence. It's not just an issue in science: you see the same bullshit when a politician says that black is white and down is up but the press lacks the brains or testicles to call them on it.
The other major problem is that increasingly, news is seen as a form of entertainment. If this is the case, then whether your report is true or not is secondary to whether it tells a good story. For this reason, science journalists love to report on controversies where they don't exist. A compelling narrative needs conflict; "scientists unanimous: all support theory" might be accurate, but it just isn't as exciting as "scientists bitterly divided, killing each other with bare hands over theory".
And as far as bad science journalism, I'd like to point out that journals like _Science_ and _Nature_ actually contribute to this by frequently publishing attention-grabbing bad science, just because they know it will get coverage.
Re:Doesn't always matter. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not my definition of a scientist.
What they say, then, is important only if they have credibility as an impartial observer. As most science, these days, is funded by corporations, this is unbelievably scarce. However, paid-for work has zero credibility unless it can be verified by an impartial observer.
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is for and how it works. Virtually all scientists do science for one reason - to discover things. They will use whatever funding they can get in order to do this, but this does not result in them producing false results - what would be the point? Corporations pay scientists in order to discover things. If they wanted biased results they could simply make them up! Furthermore, any scientist caught deliberately publishing false or biased data would find their career cut short.
Of course paid-for science (like any other) has to be verified, but to suggest that it has 'zero credibility' is to seriously misrepresent science and scientists.
Re:The wrong guys write. (Score:3, Insightful)
Education, Education, Education (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Science is complex. (Score:4, Insightful)
They also have comics, usually in the same section. Does that mean most Americans believe a certain beagle has regular encounters with the Red Baron?
I don't have statistics on the matter, but most of the times I know of people reading a horroscope it is for amusement and entertainment, gossipy stuff. I think you're the one here reading too much into it.
Re:US Centric Post (Score:3, Insightful)
Our media willingly plays softball with politician X - they get invited to the news conference or WhiteHouse or some such as a reward.
If the media banded together and refused the politicians coverage that the politicians so desperately seek - politicians would be willing to answer hardball questions.
But they are let off the hook and the spin gets out there unless something really drastic event happens where the media is forced to get off their asses and start questioning things.
Which is what should've been doing in the first place.
But then - most "journalists" these days are actually just reporters.
This article is bad science (Score:4, Insightful)
The article then descends into a completely unsupported, purely imaginary tirade against the humanities, romanticism, "cultural relatvism"(by which he means what exactly?) and the hatred of science.
He ascribes to each and every philosopher, the entire community of writers, artists and historians, and of course journalists, a heart full of secret malice arising from the repressed awareness that they have made a fundamental mistake in turning their back on reason and objectivity, which they reject absolutely.
Does he have any evidence to back this, shall I put it lightly, extreme claim? He seems to believe it follows logically from the existence of bad science journalism, and maybe some anecdotal experiences he may have had (but doesn't much discuss) with jouranlists (N=1?)
While we're making up sinister motivations, he couldn't get anyone in the humanities to sleep with him in college, so they all must hate science. Especially this particular "science communicator" woman, who, despite the fact that he is good-looking, has turned him down. I offer this up purely to demonstrate how ridiculous his assertions are.
The article contributes in some small way to the (already overwhelming) body of evidence for the low quality of science journalism, and promotes a reasonable, but not particularly enlightening, classification scheme for bad science stories.
But does he go through the articles he has collected as "specimens" in any systematic way? Does he actually check the educational background of the authors? Try to find real causal relationships?
No, just like the bad science journalism he lambasts, he presents THE REASON that bad science journalism exists and expects us to believe it's true.
At the very end there is a tantalizing mention of the process by which university press releases are converted into news articles, along with some unsubstantiated claims (which I do not think are true, but I'd like to see some hard numbers) about the qualifications of the individuals involved at various stages of the process. If he'd thoroughly investigated that, reported what he'd found, and then given some kind discussion of that finding, maybe this would be an article worth reading.
Re:Why is astronomy good? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Science is complex. (Score:3, Insightful)
Bottom line is this: if you're in a group that's being discriminated against in some way, whether in the media's portrayal of your area's culture or in the opinion of others about the color of your skin, you can either A. whine about it and make people dislike you even more, or B. prove to everyone that you are better than that---that you don't fall into that stereotype. The only way to erase stereotypes is by counterexample.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there was anything that black girl in Florida could have done to make her disappearance appear in the papers, but as long as most of the first ten minutes of every newscast on Memphis TV news is packed with stories of some black guy getting shot or shooting someone... sadly, one more story on that subject just gets lost in the noise.
What we really need are more counterexamples---parents who are responsible and teach their kids right from wrong. If you are one of those parents, congratulations. If you know that your next door neighbor isn't teaching their kids right from wrong, though, you still aren't doing everything you should be doing to combat stereotypes.
If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem, so if you're in an inner city area, become a mentor and help a child in your community today. Together, we can build bridges, not walls. Together, we can make a difference.
Re:US Centric Post (Score:1, Insightful)
I dunno, that seems like a good thing ... :)
Re:Theory of the Professions (Score:5, Insightful)
You can say you're studing gamma emissions at some location described by a bunch of numbers and letter (I have no idea how it's described, actually), or instead you say, "near the handle of the Big Dipper".
Sure, for the person you're talking to, they don't have any more real/useful information. But you've helped connect what you know to something they know, and from a PR point of view, that's more useful than you might imagine.
Part of the problem described in the article is that lay-people and scientist are separated by media that do a poor job of communicating between the two.
So, for that reason, I would say it's not a bad thing for an astrophysicist to know the constellations. Because while it has no real relevance to their work, it serves as a common context that serves as a bridge between them and everyone else.
Re:Doesn't always matter. (Score:3, Insightful)
If your starting question is too vague (point 2) then you can "discover" results that look significant (point 1) by sheer chance. Try a thousand things and on average you'll get ten 1% probability events.
For example, a good experiment might start with a null hypothesis like "rats exposed to X amount of unfiltered tobacco smoke daily for two years will have the same lung cancer incidence as the control group". A bad experiment would be "let's see what happens when rats are near cell phones" and would check cancer rates, diabetes levels, weight gain, weight loss, artery disease and so on. Eventually the bad study would "find" something.
My pet peeve is that nobody understands the idea of a control group.
first I want rid of pseudoscience... (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine the fuss if I tried to stick the word "biophoton" on a science page without explaining what it meant. I can tell you, it would never get past the subs or the section editor. But use it on a complementary medicine page, incorrectly, and it sails through.
This touches on one of my pet hates. Cosmetics ads pretending to be science. Stating that their product contains more liposomes, nanosomes, phytosomes, AHA, PHP, SQL and micro fruit complexes than any other - and all of them make your skin 32% smoother (subnote: 32% of people when using it 'felt' their skin was smoother).
Just one little, probably unimportant, thing. I feel that once that stops and the copy writers are tazered a few times for each transgression, then maybe real science will get listened to.
Re:I get the distinct impression (Score:3, Insightful)
You're not the only one with that impression. It seems like he's mentioning "humanities graduates" (as a sort of monolithic, faceless, Adversary) with barely-disguised vitriol, in every other paragraph. He loses a lot of points to the fact that he comes across as bitter and resentful, rather than neutral. In other words, that he's being unscientific in letting emotion, not reason, guide his analysis of the situation.
As a humanities graduate with a background in the sciences, and with a solid understanding of the scientific method, I find his analysis of the situation tainted by personal bias. Not that he doesn't raise a lot of interesting points, many of which I agree with - but he ought to have done so methodically, rather than emotionally.
Re:Science is complex. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I think they deserved it because I'm chinese. The europeans were never quiet as brutal as the japanese, except maybe the spanish.
And no, I'd rather british rule then japanese rule. The japanese were basically comitting genocide. 20 million chinese(WWII chinese civillian and miliarty loses.) deaths doesn't sound better to be then british subjigation. In one, you are oppressed but the other means you are no longer alive.
Editorial is a bit one-sided (Score:3, Insightful)
However, to be fair to science journalists, they're not as uniformly bad as is suggested. The good ones aren't usually "journalism majors" in college. They're either individuals who have actual experience in science and no formal training in journalism, who decide to go into the science reporting field, or they're enrolled in an actual, specific "Science Journalism" or "Scientific Writing" major, offered at most colleges with good journalism departments. A number of these programs have one particular corequisite to the major that throws a monkey wrench in the criticism of this author's editorial: These programs often require a dual major or at least a minor in one of the school's SCIENCE degrees!
Yes, in order to complete the Science Journalism major, you'd have to also takes lots of courses in biology, or chemistry, or mechanical engineering, or *something* so that you'd have a chance in hell at living up to your name of "Science Communicator." The idea that in order to be a good communicator of science you have to actually have some experience in science, does not fall on deaf ears.
Of course, if your major is in science journalism, your ideal job is with New Scientist, or any of the other science magazines, journals, or publications, because you'll actually get to do serious work there. The lowest option on the totem pole is to work for some big mainstream newspaper where your science-ignorant editor, or your editor's science-ignorant editor, is going to butcher every piece you write, leaving you to waste all your energy fighting to maintain your credibility instead of doing more important things like covering science news.
So do we need more good science reporters to replace the bad ones? Yes. We also need like-minded editors, and mainstream newspapers and TV news broadcasts with an actual interest in giving us good science reports. But let's not pretend this is a hopeless and universal problem. There's a lot of good science reporting going on, just not enough to trickle down to the lowest common denominator -- the mainstream media.
Re:Science is complex. (Score:1, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_Massacre [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaimingye_germ_Weapo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sook_Ching_Massacre [wikipedia.org]
And so on.
Yeah, they had to get a bit "nasty" to challenge the supremacy of The Man (killing Chinese civilians is the most effective way of doing that, for some reason) because they cared so much about Asian solidarity and freedom. It all makes sense now.
Also, how the fuck did he get modded +1?
Re:Theory of the Professions (Score:3, Insightful)
"Big Dipper" or "The Plough"? WTF? WTH is a "Big Dipper" when it's at home? Most people don't know what a plough looks like - let alone the pre-industrial revolution implement that purports to be Ursa Major. I only know because I studied navigation.
The names of the constellations are useful for Astronomers. That's it.
I agree that there should be a better interface between scientists and lay-people. Introducing archaic descriptions won't help.
Ah, a good old ignorant (Score:4, Insightful)
"this is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.
Some elements or actions are exclusively contradictory to the subject, and therefore aren't fallacies. The statement "No true vegetarian would eat a beef steak" is not fallacious because it follows from the accepted definition of "vegetarian""
Same here, lemming. "Science" and "scientist" actually do mean observing a certain mindset and methodology. Science has no absolute truth, and it has nothing that is above being a "theory". Nothing ever in science is beyond being questioned and improved, no matter how old and established it may be.
E.g., even Newton's mechanics aren't absolute, but just approximations that are good enough in a given range. If you move outside that range where the error is small enough, you need something else. E.g., relativist mechanics for high speed, and quantum mechanics for extremely low mass and/or distances.
So yes, science _is_ just as mutually-exclusive to absolute truths, as being a vegetarian is to eatin meat. So, no, that fallacy doesn't apply here.
The only thing I'd challenge is just his use of "GOOD scientists". There is no such thing as "GOOD scientists" and "BAD scientists". You're either a scientist or you aren't. The ones who have absolute unchalengeable truths and 100% certainties aren't "BAD scientists", they're just not scientists at all. They love dressing their dogma in pseudo-science babble and masquerading as "scientists" too, but they just aren't.
"It doesn't matter how overwhelmingly anybody manages to demonstrate that science, as a profession and social institution, has some significant shortcomings (many of which we could improve); you will insist on judging it in terms of your fantasy of what a "good scientist" should be, and not in terms of what scientists are in real life."
I haven't seen any overwhelming demonstration so far, other than some bullshit rants from people that don't even understand what science is. I see a bunch of quacks and charlatans trying to redefine science to mean some bullshit fantasy that they're comfortable fighting against.
And I've yet to see any scientists actually rejecting a logical way to improve. The ones I see rejected are bullshit "improvements" aimed at destroying and perverting it into yet another obedient servant to someone's pet dogma or into marketting for someone's snake-oil.
Invariably it's based on such bullshit, massive ignorance, and fallacies as:
- "It's just a theory!" Classic example of a Verbal Fallacy: it plays on the two different meanings of the word "theory".
- "But science doesn't have the definitive answers to everything!" Yes, of course, by the very definition of science. But that doesn't mean that any bullshit based on _no_ verifiable evidence or logic is automatically equal.
- "But science doesn't describe the real universe, it describes an idealized one." No, actually it does study and describe the real one. What all those idealizations are about is just knowing your intended margin of error, and what influences are too small to get you outside that or even not an influence at all. (E.g., if you're calculating how many hours a train needs between Washington DC and LA at 200 mph, you can safely ignore the train's colour.) But then we'll do an actual experiment and see if that idealization describes reality well enough. If not, it's time to start ignoring less factors or come up with a different theory.
- "But science is just another religion! It's all about believing all those theories and laws instead!" Nope, it's all about reproductible, verifiable evidence to those. Noone asks you to unconditionably believe that the theory of gravit
Re:cost/benefit ratios (Score:4, Insightful)
Irony.
Much of the "bad science" is deliberate. (Score:5, Insightful)
"reporters usually avoided math and science"
Yes, but it seems to me that sometimes the scientists themselves give misleading information to journalists, possibly to make their work seem more important. Here's an example: Effort to Create Virtual Brain Begins [slashdot.org]. Here's another far worse example, in my opinion: Can Cell Phones Damage Our Eyes? [slashdot.org]. Here's my opinion about Dr. Henry Lai of the University of Washington: Distinguish between real science and junk science [slashdot.org].
Also, it seems to me that editors take advantage of readers by encouraging mis-interpretation so that they can get more readers. Here's an example of a story that didn't deserve attention: Report Claims Men More Intelligent Than Women [slashdot.org].
Re:New Scientist : Tabloid of Science! (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of the articles are extremely speculative, concerned more with the people and the unrefined ideas lying behind the research. Personally, I believe they have postured themselves to target this readership of non-professional scientific thinkers -- it doesn't at all pose as a peer-reviewed journal; definitely interesting, not always rigorous.
-Tez
Re:Science is complex. (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing that comes from Monty Python and the Holy Grail is "This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheeps' bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes."
Right after that they cut to the next scene.
Its nice to know I did it so well that there are people who actually think its a quote from the movie, though.
Re:Make this guy science editor at the Gaurdian. (Score:2, Insightful)
Sometimes, the big two (N [nature.com] and S [sciencemag.org]) prone to publishing for political (we must suck up to this Author) reasons. New Scientist, by virtue of being a more general - don't need a graduate degree to be able to read a broad range of it's content - publication is more resistant to these kinds of problems
Errors you notice vs. errors you don't notice (Score:3, Insightful)
How in the world can I trust publications to accurately digest news for me in areas where I'm no expert if they obviously do such a bad job in the areas I can detect mistakes?
Re:Science is complex. (Score:4, Insightful)
Overrated. India was indeed advanced and had cities before Egypt (the primordial source of Minoan, hence Greek, hence Western civilization and culture), but they were stalled by the time the Greek civilization (the first great Western civilization) came to be and never got back on their feet. China's primordial history is mostly folktales and legend, unsubstanciated by arqueology. You can only say China was more advanced technologically from around the time of the Warring States period to the Mongol invasion.
considerably higher in the first millenium of the Christian era than any country in Europe. We were
You conveniently forgot the Byzantine Empire and the Republic of Venice, which were doing just fine at that time.
building empires and writing philosophy when they were burning witches and fighting absurd religious crusades. All this is verifable truth. Ask
The Dark Ages were less dark than some people seem to believe. Around that time came the Agricultural Revolution, with the invention of the enhanced steel plow which allowed to use horses instead of bovines, increasing productivity. Enhanced crop rotation and improved windmills, etc also came to be around this time. The Agricultural Revolution set the stage for the later Renaissance period by freeing people from the work in the fields (the Romans had slaves to do that).
yourself then, why is it that Asian countries suffer from such abjectpoverty today?
Most of it is self-inflicted. Ask your dead Emperor which ordered the burning down of fleets like the one Zheng He used. He wanted control over the populace, and did not intend the rise of a rich and independent merchant class to come to be.
The answer to this question is complex, and many factors contribute, but the one that stands out above all else in relative priority is the Caucasian horde. It is the white man that is primarily responsible, by strip-mining our lands, stealing our crops, defaming our culture and heritage, raping our women, spreading their savage religion among us like a disease and generally imposing regimes based on brigandage and horror.
What a lot of bull. Why is it that people always try to pin the blame for their own problems on someone else? Here in Europe we had continual wars against each other, and yet we managed to push forward, picking up the pieces and surpassing the previous height everytime.
If you contrast the atrocities committed by the British, Germans,French, and Americans in Asia over the period of 300 years versus the people killed by the Japanese over a few years, you will see that what the Japanese have done is very little in comparison to the systematic organized persecution by the white man.
What makes you think that the Japanese would have left it there? There is no proof they did, quite the opposite.
Re:Christian persecution (Score:5, Insightful)
Upwords of 90% of the USA claims to be Christian. Many of our national holidays are Christian-based. Christians control all three branches of our federal government, and most state and local governments. Christian symbolism, including churches, crosses, billboards with Christian messages, etc., appear almost everywhere in the country virtually unopposed.
I don't think it's fair to complain about Christians being the butt of a few jokes. I wish my particular religious group was this persecuted.
Re:Why is astronomy good? (Score:1, Insightful)
Contrast with e.g. biology, a subject where the layman barely knows (issues with remembering this stuff notwithstanding) that plant cells are rather different from animal cells, that animal cells have this thing called a "vacuole" that allows the whole cell and its waste products to be end-of-lifed as a unit, and that mushrooms are quite different from both plants and animals.
Of course things outside Finland could be a little different; I understand our education policy is considered progressive by some.
Astronomy doesn't matter (Score:2, Insightful)
Biology, chemistry and medicine all affect both huge industries and people's perception of their health and risks to it, and therefore lots of noise is made about those issues which can be reported as science.
Re:Theory of the Professions (Score:3, Insightful)
Lea
Re:people are lazy and stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Science is complex. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is, class, is a textbook example of the mindset behind the the bigot. Take special note of the positive moderation on the post.
The Problem is Bad Journalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Modern journalism doesn't separate the two. Too many journalists let their personal agendas suffuse their articles. Often the agenda finds it's way into the headline. Journalists are told (by their journalism profs) that their mission is to "change the world". That's dead wrong - their mission is to report the news! Then add-in the pressure to be profitable and the corollary of having a large audience. And nothing builds an audience like fear. So instead of reporting "New Near-Earth Asteroid Discovered", you get "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!".
Re:Science is complex. (Score:2, Insightful)
Human beings are generally thought of as having better cognitive abilities than any other animal. This means we can take in more information, in this case statistical information, that can help us make decisions. Most animals dont really understand the nutritional values of their foods, but humans can descriminate between empty calories and foods with good nutritional content.
The problem is that this same ability to categorize things causes many stereotypes and racism. The Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that in 1994, 67% if all arrests were made against whites and 21% were made against blacks. Since 80% of the population was white and 12% black in 1990, that shows that blacks were twice as likely to commit crimes. And the statistics inside the prisons is more alarming. 35% of inmates were white and 48% were black. This means that a black person was about 9 times more likely to be in prison. It is not very hard to see why people can form stereotypes that assert that black people commit more crimes.
And yes I know that prejudices and racial inequalities are part of the cause for these differences, but that is not what people see. People simply see black people committing more crimes than white people. And that is what helps cause racism to fester.
I am not saying that these stereotypes are good, im just saying that ignoring the fact that they are formed for a reason is just stupid. One of the major steps in stopping any form of prejudice is to eliminate its roots, since as the GP said there is usually a real reason for any stereotype.
Re:Science is complex. (Score:3, Insightful)
And yours is the classic example of the apologist--willing to ingore obvious patterns and grim realities to pretend that the world conforms to your own idealistic vision.
Grow up. The world is not what we want it to be. And you can't simply wish it that way, no matter how much you delude yourself.
-Eric
You mean Science isn't... (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly I used to love watching Discovery and actually *gasp* discovering shit! Now it is about as informitive as a monkey on a trycicle with two cymbals.
America is fat, stupid, and lazy. Everything is watered down to such idiot levels that no one knows a damn thing anymore, and they are proud of it!
My fiance is an elementary school teacher, they don't even teach science or history anymore. They simply groom the kids for the test at the end of the year (Math and Reading) so that the do well and the school continues to get funding. What bullshit!
Kids today are morons. I truly would love to see a massive cleansing take place in America. Between Cell-phones, lack of education, and fast-food... I would love to see a lot of them disappear. I have no faith in where this country will be in just 10 years let alone 20 or so when they begin to run it. And it isn't about politics either, I don't care who's side you're on they are splitting this country and ruining it from all sides.
I may have a bleak outlook, but it's my opinion and I don't think it's illegal to have one of those... yet.
Re:Science is complex. (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with the OP. Stereotypes exist for a reasons. It is our duty as informed people to find out what those reasons are. ONLY THEN can we start judging correctly that bigotry is occurring.
Re:Science is complex. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Passion of the Christ" is nothing more than an uncensored portrayal of the execution of Jesus. It's simply a complete and un watered down adaptation of a particular text to film.
Yet "some people" try to portray it as anti-christian.
Re:New Scientist : Tabloid of Science! (Score:2, Insightful)
Science has always been linked to politics: Think back to the astronomers who aligned the Pyramids, to the alchemists working to make gold for the king... a little more recently, politics almost got Galileo (Copernicus?) burnt at the stake.
I believe Scientific American started fighting back at the same time as science came under heavy political attack in the United States. Politics is influencing science heavily, and may I add, heavy-handedly. Some examples off the top of my head:
One thing I've done to contribute in a small way was to buy the book The Republican War on Science [amazon.com]. Not so much to learn something new, but to support the author and to send a message to Amazon (and maybe beyond, who knows?) that people care about science. I've also bought a gift copy for an interested friend, and am thinking of buying more for others.
Re:Science is complex. (Score:1, Insightful)
Most people with a knowledge of the subject would generally agree that pre- and post- Enlightenment science is entirely different at a fundamental level.
Relatively speaking, the U.S. population has a pretty open Christian community that respects a lot of views. It isn't like the past.
Relative to what? Europe in the 1600s? The Islamic community in Iran? Compared to the Christian communities in pretty much any other developed country today, the behavior of the American Christian community is pretty embarrassing. Meanwhile one could make an excellent case that the America's Christian leaders, or at least the ones who hold the political power and media attention, have never been more closed-minded compared to the average man in the entire period since America began to emerge as something more than a series of disparate colonies.
I've no doubt America has a community of open-minded christians, somewhere, but generally I just can't hear them over the screaming televangelists that are standing on the first group's heads.
Re:Christian persecution (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe if Christians aren't smart enough to realize that they are the government and they are the media, they deserve some persecution.
Re:Science is complex. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, this is attached to a story about an article about how people write about things they don't understand and get it totally wrong....
It almost makes it appropriate.
Re:If you want decent scientific articles.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Heh, why do you think *I* keep reading Slashdot after all these years? For the journalistic integrity and ability of the "editors"??! Hell no! I read it to extract out of the comments section the good, bad, and the ugly of comments from people just like me, but with different interests, different links, and quite often more information (or disinformation) on a particular topic than I myself have at the moment. So I check up on what they write, evaluate for myself the correctness or incorrectness of their post, and then make up my own mind.
You don't get to have public discourse on topics in a newspaper... that happens later in the day at the office. And the only real value to newspapers reporting 'the news' is to allow it to be discussed amongst your peers, friends, family, etc. Hence, the reason so many "nerds" flock to slashdot for their daily dosage of 'news for nerds' - 'cause even when it isn't, and Taco, Hemos, or Michael post a dupe or once again haven't read the psycho-babble article they just posted - we get a chance to virtually smack the 'bad science' in the face and ruthlessly chastise the 'editors' for their idiocy.
To just accept the writings of any journalist on any topic as pure truth is simply stupid. Which is also why we have so many stupid people that mindlessly follow all the quacks, "holy-roller" preachers on TV, and other abusive types all throughout history: not thinking for one's self.
Re:New Scientist : Tabloid of Science! (Score:3, Insightful)
You may not like the opinions you hear from scientists, but unless you can make a better supported counter argument you'd better reconsider your position. Unlike most opinions that you hear, the opinions in Scientific American are defensible positions. They're not just spewing BS like politicians and the people on TV news/talk shows.
If you're funny, people will mock you. (Score:1, Insightful)
Christian beliefs, as described in the Bible, involved human slavery, blood sacrifice, and the rape and murder of foreigners.
It was an offense punishable by censure and/or death to NOT be a Christian in European countries for much of the last 2,000 years.
I respectfully submit that being the butt of a few jokes is the least they can expect. Go around believing in sick, twisted things like slavery and the murder of children, and yes, people will make fun of you. Go figure.
--
AC
Re:Science is complex. (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I am a redneck. And no, I don't give a shit if somebody calls me one. Maybe it's because I'm one of the luckiest, most spoiled people on the planet? Has the American Redneck ever been screwed by the very society that he is a part of?
It's like christians complaining about being persecuted (in America in recent history). They have everything going for them in this country, they're marchin' around telling other people how much better they are without any sort of supporting evidence, they're trying to force everybody to live according to christian beliefs, and yet they can't handle criticism. Pretty hard to take it seriously when they whine about being picked on. When you're on top, you're fair game for attack -- they just don't realize that their only defense is an illusion.
Re:Science is complex. (Score:2, Insightful)
bad science built on assumptions... (Score:2, Insightful)